Posted on 12/05/2004 1:16:27 AM PST by OnlyinAmerica
Poll shows Americans divided over question of evolution vs. creation By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service
WASHINGTON (RNS)--A Gallup Poll suggests Americans are divided over how the world was created--either through evolution or at the hand of God--but either way, they appear skeptical that it happened exactly as described in the book of Genesis.
The poll found Charles Darwin's theory of evolution remains controversial among Americans. About one-third say it is supported by evidence, one-third see it as bunk and one-third don't know enough to judge.
A plurality of Americans--45 percent--say man was created by God in his present form, while 38 percent say man developed over time as God guided the process. Just 13 percent said God had no role in the process.
Yet a smaller percentage, 34 percent, said the Bible is the actual word of God and should be read literally.
Pollsters said that discrepancy suggests Americans believe man was created as-is, but not because the Bible says so.
Breaking down the numbers, Gallup officials said about one-quarter of Americans are "biblical literalists" who believe man was created 10,000 years ago in his present form. They tend to be women, conservatives, Republicans and attend a Protestant church at least once a week.
A slightly smaller number--one in five Americans--believe man was created in his present form 10,000 years ago, but not because they read the Bible literally. Just 9 percent of the country read the Bible literally but are open to the theory of evolution.
The largest group--46 percent--do not read the Bible literally and believe humans may have evolved over time. This group tends to be male, urban, more educated, Catholic and seldom or never attend church.
"It is not surprising to find that the biblical literalists who believe that God created humans 10,000 years ago tend to be more religious and Protestant," said Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief.
The survey of 1,016 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
come back to me when you actually have evidence for your CLAIMS
"NCSE is not interested in scientific truth; they are (according to the "mission statement") interested in defending the teaching of evolution in the classroom."
Well over 500 Steves have signed that. Even if only 5 of them genuinely meant it, its still far more scientists than doubt evolution.
"You're misrepresenting the NCSE's agenda. They want the teaching of evolution in the classroom, and NO OTHER VIEWPOINTS"
Too right, because there are not other current SCIENTIFIC viewpoints to teach in a SCIENCE class.
"And indeed it is. I doubt if most of those scientists would really accept that the fossil record really proves neo-Darwinism"
Your ignorance of science is not my problem. Read this: Science does not "prove" things. The fossil record strongly supports common descent.
"I know for a fact that most embryologists are deeply troubled by the theory, since their knowledge of how embryos develop mostly contradicts it"
Name 10 embryologists who are deeply troubled by it then. I notice they were not on your list. Funny that.
Please consider that what you are espousing is just pseudo-science. I cannot put it any nicer than that.
"The NCSE's bigotry (as well as yours) comes out when it assumes that the serious questioning of Darwinism implies the serious acceptance of creationism or intelligent design"
Loads of incorrect words. Firstly Darwinism is pre-1940's. If you meant to use this to refer generally to the theory of evolution then fine, but then there is no evidence to bring in to doubt the theory of evoltuion. Any serious questioning is about how evolution happened, not whether it happened.
"Yep. That's exactly the mentality. As for your own position, you haven't advanced a single cogent argument either in favor of Darwinism, or against intelligent design; which leads me to believe that you accept the theory on faith."
I don't have to teach EVOLUTION (not darwinism) to you. If you really bothered you could go learn it yourself. I don't wish to waste my time if I don't have to. The burden is upon you if you think evolution is wrong.
"Too bad. That's the nature of scientific debate; it's SUPPOSED to go "on and on.""
Behe didn't submit his work to scientific debate. He instead chose to publish it as a popular book.
"What makes a belief 'scientific' is precisely the fact that it can, at least in principle, be REFUTED"
Go on then explain how Intelligent Design can be refuted.
"Wrong. What ALL computer models show is that they require a programmer to input the relevant criteria for selection. These criteria are then labeled "random," when in fact they were pre-SELECTED BY A DESIGNER -- the damn programmer!"
You have no clue. Genetic Algorithms use a random number generator for the random mutation. This is basic stuff in this field, your talk about cosmic rays and programmer input is nonsense. Read again: the mutation in the program is random.
"Berlinski is very good at pointing out the fallacies in all such models. Read his essay in Commentary titled "A Scientific Scandal.""
I don't need to. Genetic algorithms have been used to design efficient circuit layouts and have created designs that the programmer of the GA could not forsee. This latter case I have observed with my own eyes as I programmed such a GA. This is one area I have a problem with antievolutionists because in this area they always refute these programs as "intelligent input". But I know they are very wrong on this so to me it made me initially wonder "hmm what else are they wrong about?". And as I see it is a lot.
"It is Darwinism that posits miracles explained by "random mutations" and ignores the hardcore fact that 99.9999999% point-mutations are harmful to the organism"
Rubbish, you clearly just made that number up by pressing 9 a lot of times. How pathetic, you could at least have tried using 8,7 and 6. It might have been more convincing.
"In a large population, point mutations (as proved, ironically, by popluation genetics) generally get lost in the statistical "noise" of the rest of the population and don't influence either the geno/pheno type at all"
Uhhh no. Assuming the population remains stable then all individuals will reproduce, including the mutated varient. As this continues the beneficial mutation has more and more chance of spreading in subsequent generations. It only would turn out as you say if few offspring were created compared to the parents.
Dembski is on fire!ROTFL!I thought that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibited such things.
Just because YOU said so?
Excellent. Now added to the ever-growing List-O-Links.
"I personally don't see any societal interest in the question of whether you believe in creation or evolution."
Believing in creation does not make it so. Believing in Evolution does not make it so. Believing in one or the other does not make God exist or not exist.
Having said that, I believe, I know, that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" by God, the God, a superior being who exists in a timeless realm. I do not have to know all of the intricate details of everything to believe that. Hearing pseudo-science explain that we "evolved" out of the cosmos and that each species, including homo-... or whatever tag the pseudo-scientists want to put on the 'various pre-homo sapien versions" does not effect my belief, my knowing, and hearing the explanations does not make their pseudo science a fact.
Sometimes the 'ol Devil goes by the name of "Mr. Flew".
"Showcase" placemarker.
I am surprised that 13% said God was not involved at all. The numbers I have seen for atheist/agnostic show them to be only about 3-4% of the population. Alot of those "no religious preference people" must be atheist but don't want the label.
Maybe those who think visiting aliens planted life on earth (or gave it one or more big nudges) make up some of the difference.
No theory says that we "evolved out of the cosmos".
Ah, but any theory that totally negates creation says we did evolve out of the cosmos. Where did the earth come from, where did the sun, moon, stars, galaxys come from? Those who would negate creation would say that these beginnings, an "evolution" of "worlds" came out of the cosmos. And it goes on from there...
As for my ""knowing" that it is not true doesn't make it so..." - if you would read my post, you would see that I already said that.
The whole business of the left getting so up in arms about teaching anything relating to "creation" is because "creation" requires a God, a supreme being. Why is it so difficult for the left to allow any kind of teaching that would suggest "creation"? The left is doing everything they damnably can to undermine such a thought. I believe it takes more "faith" to believe evolution than it does to believe creation. Faith in what? Faith that there is no God. God is all around us, yet he would be denied.
Well, when one is informed of the available facts, it is easy to reach the right conclusion. ;^)
I have seen no presentation of fact(s) in your rebuttals.
I am an old Earth ID believer.....it is obvious the Earth is old. Carbon dating can sometimes be wrong, but for the date of the Earth to be wrong, every single carbon dating would have to be off by millions of years.....and all be wrong by around the same time period.
Simply preposterous.
The idea that people can age the Earth based on Scripture is truly one for morons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.