Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Gallup News Service ^ | 11 June 2007 | Frank Newport

[sirchtruth]

But I would guess, like most creationists, you want to specifically belabor the fact that evolution is "only" a theory, but don't want equal, or even comparable, emphasis placed on the fact that photosynthesis (just for instance, among the hundreds of theories invoked, but rarely actually specified as such, in the typical secondary school curricula) is also "only" a theory.

This is a good point you've made, but let me interject a difference in our thought process.

I really think it comes down to what you "Beleive." There is a sense of faith required whether scientist like it or not. The Theory Of Gravity we see the effects of every day so that's not hard to believe, however the Theory Of Evolution as far as a whole species change has not only never been observed, it also makes no sense from what evidence we do find and is speciously void of many inner linking connections one would logically conclude should be availiable to research. Does this mean evolution does not exist? No, but science has yet to show a valid observable instance and makes leaps and bounds to try and justify it's conclusion which I, and most find unreliable.

If science and others with agendas were fully honest about evolution, it would simply admit, there is evidence, but not enough solid evidence to make evolution a fact.

[wideawake]

I hope party leaders have the foresight to realize that opposing modernity is a losing strategy.

When William F. Buckley founded the National Review - helping to lend coherence and power to the nascent conservative movement - he said that the goal of his new publication was to "stand athwart the gates of history crying 'Stop!'"

Conforming to modernist nostrums is a losing strategy: ask the Rockefeller Republicans.

[Steve_Seattle]

I was thinking of Behe and Dembski, whose academic credentials are impeccable.

[Badeye]

I’ve become very confident lately that most of the GOP elected officials are decendent from the jackass...but hey, thats just me.

[dragonblustar]

Evolution? Bah! It's Devolution!

[Alter Kaker]

Why would there be fossils on even some of the highest peaks (that are confirmed not to have been recent volcanoes) in the world?

Is that a serious question? Go look up a little scientific theory called plate tectonics.

As for evidence against a world wide flood, if one existed, we should expect to find a uniform layer of mud and silt all over the world. We don't.

[narby]

Which, I'm sure, explains how and why this country was so great when so many of its citizens were much more religious and believed those mindless, superstitions taught in the Bible than now.

Benjamin Franklin wasn't known for his preaching, but among other things, for his efforts to advance scientific fields. Jefferson, among many things, studied many sciences including horticulture, geography and more.

All the founders paid proper homage to God in their own ways, as everyone did in that day who expected to be any kind of leader. But none of them that I know of were theologians, while at least Franklin and Jefferson spent considerable time in the sciences.

Of todays leaders, only Newt Gingrich has any kind of science interest that I know of (zoology and paleontology), and his star will likely not rise again.

America's peak of scientific interest was probably right after Sputnik, when I grew up. Which explains why evolution was not controversial within the Southern Baptist church I attended back then, but it is today in that same church.

America is in decline, and the waning interest in science (if not the outright attack on science by many) is leading the way.

[Alter Kaker]

Since when wasn't it a core belief?

Are you kidding me? You really think Barry Goldwater, the father of the modern conservative movement, was a creationist? I think it's pretty clear that no Republican President, from at least as far back as 1870 to 1980 was a creationist. Reagan wasn't himself a creationist, but he said nice things about creationists around election time. And that's that -- the entire history of creationism in the mainstream Republican Party. Note the absence of support in any Republican organization for the State of Tennessee in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Note also the electoral disasters that have befallen Republicans, in Kansas and Pennsylvania notably, when they decide that the Republican Party is really the Creationist Party.

Creationism is a religious philosophy and it is completely appropriate within the confines of your Church. It is not a political idea and should have nothing to do with a political party.

[isaiah55version11_0]

Then why do Humans and great apes share the same defective gene that causes us to be unable to produce our own vitamin C?

Is it a “defect” in our genes that we can’t grow wings and fly or change color to match our environment? Or how about the “defective” armor on attack helicopters, it’s not nearly as effective as the armor on a M-1 tank. Or to put it into your world RFC, you can build more security into a network by reducing freedom. If your network is penetrated, is it because it is “defective”. When designing networks, don’t you duplicate the good designs of other networks into new ones? All designs have trade-offs, we don’t understand enough about the “source code” of life to know what the trade offs are for not producing our own vitamin C. Are scientists going to miss important things, based on the assumption that x is defective and we don’t need to look further into the matter?

(In my best Fred Thomson imitation). What does all this information mean in the grand design of things. Hmm…grand design… Hmmm design. Naaa…whats the point, its all settled science anyway, just ask Galileo.

Cheers

[RFC_Gal]

So now scurvy is a good thing?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

If science and others with agendas were fully honest about evolution, it would simply admit, there is evidence, but not enough solid evidence to make evolution a fact.

Evolution is fact. There is no controversy in science as to whether it not it happens.

Microevolution has been observed (moths) and tested (antibiotic resistance).

Macroevolution has been observed (finches, plants) and tested (bacteria).

There's, quite honestly, a ridiculous amount of evidence.

[isaiah55version11_0]

So now scurvy is a good thing?

Oooo.. extrapolating it so much fun. My turn now.

So now attack helicopters getting shot down by RPGs is a good thing.

So now network security breaches are a good thing.

Your reply tells me you missed the whole point about trade offs, or you simply don’t understand them. (here you go RE: trade-offs) Perhaps some day you will get to design something large and complex from the ground up, and the reality of trade offs in design will make more sense to you.

Cheers

[Theo]

In your first reference to “the land producing” stuff, you seemed to be using these verses to support the theory of evolution. These verses actually directly refute that theory, though, as each passage includes the phrase “each one according to its kind.” That specifically says that man had man as offspring, for example, not that man came from some lesser developed species.

Recall how humanity was created: “tThe Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” He didn’t evolve humanity from proto-humans, but from dust *from the ground*. And we reproduced **after our kind**.

I commend you for valuing and referencing Scripture. Please take a close look at the portions you quoted, to confirm whether they support evolution or creation. I contend that biblical and extrabiblical evidence supports creation, not evolution from slime.

[Theo]

Ah, the moths and finches. Don’t forget the pig’s tooth. You haven’t done much research, have you?

[Theo]

One says that humanity arrived on the scene by random mutation through millions of years of death. The other says that God intentially created humanity “from the dust,” and that death entered into the world through sin.

They are mutually exclusive. Believe atheistic evolution, or believe biblical creationism. I believe the evidence supports the latter.

[MEGoody]

Isn’t it interesting how evolutionists like to use the term ‘extremist’ to try to marginalize those with whom they do not agree. Actually, that’s one of the nicer adjectives I’ve seen them use. LOL

[editor-surveyor]

And angry and empty is your head.

[editor-surveyor]

So when the creationist movement spent a decade or two pushing the "equal time for 'creation science' with 'evolution science'" agenda; that was just an act of hypocrisy and cynicism? They knew all the time that neither were "science"?

To a great extent, probably so. Some of what they have pushed is real scientific endeavor, but more was philosophical.

[Stultis]

really think it comes down to what you "Beleive."

That is indeed a "difference in our thought process[es]."

Although belief certainly affects individual scientists in various ways, I think that the content of science can be determined reasonably objectively (by consulting it's professional literature) independently of what scientists "believe".

Indeed I insist on the actual independence of "what scientists believe" from what should be taken to be the content of science.

The content of science is comprised of those theories, principles, etc, that working scientists actually utilize or implicate on the conduct of ongoing, original research. IOW if scientists actually use an idea, then that idea is part of science regardless of whether those scientists "believe in" the idea. This is not just an academic point. For instance Einstein famously disbelieved quantum dynamics, but he used the mathematical formalisms of the theory nevertheless.

If every single scientist on the face of the earth woke up tomorrow and declared their disbelief in evolution, but continued to use evolutionary theories in their research, then the status of evolution as a part of science would be unchanged by their mere affirmations of belief or disbelief.

OTOH if some radically different theory managed to displace evolution in the actual practice of science, then evolution would cease to be part of science, even if scientists continued to declare their belief in it.

To put all that more briefly: What scientists believe is irrelevant (for the purpose of determining the content of science, and therefore what should be taught as science in introductory curricula). What is relevant is what scientists do (what ideas they actually use).

[JohnnyZ]

although I'm sure most Catholics would argue that Christ did not have to die at the last supper in order for the Transmutation to have taken place, after all he turned water into wine which was a clearly observable fact from all witnesses to the event, why could he have not actually Transmutated the Sacrament

First off, it's called Transubstantiation. It's not alchemy.

Secondly, changing one substance to another was not salvific; dying on the cross and resurrecting was. ANY Christian would agree that Christ can change a substance into another.