Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution
Associated Press ^ | June 12, 2007

Posted on 06/13/2007 8:30:23 AM PDT by presidio9

The three Republican presidential candidates who indicated last month that they do not believe in evolution may have been taking a safe stance on the issue when it comes to appealing to GOP voters.

A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.

Republicans saying they don't believe in evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey. Democrats believe in evolution by 57 percent to 40 percent, as do independents by a 61 percent to 37 percent margin.

The poll also said that those who go to church often are far likelier to reject evolution than those who do not. Republicans are likelier than Democrats or independents to attend church services, according to Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll.

At the GOP's first presidential debate last month, the 10 candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands.

The Gallup survey, conducted May 21 to 24, involved telephone interviews with 1,007 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: christianity; crevo; crevolist; dnctalkingpoints; evolution; gop; polls; religion; smearcampaign; theoryofevolution; zogbyism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-174 next last
To: Mark Felton
Not even Richard Dawkins, the high priest of atheist religion and godfather of evolution can explain why mankind suddenly developed a supreme intellect, spirituallity, and culture that has propelled the species into the ost advanced species ever created, by far. Nor caqn he explain the origins of life.

Nor can anyone explain the sudden rush of scientific advances in the late middle ages.

Scientific and medical knowledge compiled by the Greeks and Romans did not change for over a thousand years, then all of a sudden knowledge exploded. Why? Divine intervention?

Archeologists found a small toy steam engine built by the Greeks. Why didn't the Greeks or Romans look at it and think to use it for something other than a toy? Why 1500 years later out of nowhere did mankind suddenly decide to put that steam power to work to make life easier? Why did doctors for over a thousand years rely on the Greek books of medicine and make no inquiries or advances on their own? Why all of a sudden did mankind decide to do it in the late middle ages? Divine Intervention?

Sometimes things "just happen".

81 posted on 06/13/2007 12:22:38 PM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: warpsmith
My liberal friends here in NYC all describe and dismiss the Republican Party the same way: a party overtaken by fundamentalist Christians.

It's not your party, with God's help it's your country.
82 posted on 06/13/2007 12:26:06 PM PDT by wereatwar (We're at war, behave accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

Except for that darn “then there was evening ... and morning ... “ thing.


83 posted on 06/13/2007 12:27:55 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess, even to crimes it did not commit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: dartuser
Different verse.. Yom is also used in Genesis in verses to describe The light, Day (12 hour day) and the Day of the Lord (age or undetermined amount of time.)
84 posted on 06/13/2007 12:30:18 PM PDT by mnehring (Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: All
Evolution teaches us How creation happened, the Bible teaches us Why- C.S. Lewis (paraphrased)
85 posted on 06/13/2007 12:31:57 PM PDT by mnehring (Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist
"Genesis 1:14 and 1:5 are in conflict..."

Could you please elaborate in detail as to why you think they are in conflict.

86 posted on 06/13/2007 12:32:13 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: csense
Genesis 1:5 has the light, day/night etc being created before the Earth, Genesis 1:14 has it happening after.

The only conflict occurs if one assumes that the modern English translation is an accurate scientific treaste of the events. I don’t have a conflict because I read Genesis as a pesher (the ‘why’ of Creation and our place in the world.)

87 posted on 06/13/2007 12:36:24 PM PDT by mnehring (Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
Two days ago it was "doubt" and now it's "reject."

In 2 weeks, the headline will be, "Republicans believe that "Evolutionists" should be burned at the stake as heretics."

Mark

88 posted on 06/13/2007 12:39:15 PM PDT by MarkL (Environmental heretics should be burned at the stake, in a "Carbon Neutral" way...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VOA
Internals and wording of the questions are in Gallup's press release here.
89 posted on 06/13/2007 12:40:20 PM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
Again I ask, is Genesis 1:5 untrue?

Not if translated correctly. I ask you, Is Genesis 1:14 untrue?

90 posted on 06/13/2007 12:40:50 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: narby
"If science and Christianty are two co-equal faiths, then Christianity loses."

sigh...

We know anything only by imputation onto our senses, assimilation of those inputs and organization into understandble, intellectually "tactile", information.

We know almost all scientific "proofs" as truth because some other scientists have failed to disprove it and thus call it "true",or at least worthy of remaining an open question. Thus we put FAITH in those scientists, we put FAITH in their processes, we put FAITH in their motivations.

All scientists are political and human. All scientists are subject to political forces more powerful than them. (NAZIism is just one small discrete example, Global Warming another)

Such faith in scientists is profound and incredibily dangerous. You cannot go about proving all theories yourself, thus you are at the mercy of small numbers of scientists, and their biases.

Science and religion do not compete.

Sir Isaac Newton believed in the authenticity of the Bible and created the scientific process. He believed in the Bible because he had first hand knowledge of the Holy Spirit and was educated on the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is better proven to me than any scientific theory. I know it from direct experience. It is more real with more truth than any science.

Science cannot prove love exists either, but we accept that it is true because we either experience it personally or we see its effects on indiviuals. The very same is true for the Holy Spirit. [The Holy Spirit is not the same as love, it is different and even more profound. My Jewish wife, mathemetician, broke down in shuddering tears of joy the moment the Holy Spirit came within her upon asking Christ into her heart. A true epiphany)

Thousands of the worlds most brilliant scientists have also known the Holy Spirit to be true having the most profound effect on their lives. Once proven to them personally they never deny its reality again. Think about the profound nature of that!

More scientists cannot personally testify to the truth of the Holy Spirit than any other scientific theory. (even gravity, since we know so little about it)

Just because science cannot measure it does not make it non-existent. The universe would be non-existent were that so since we cannot measure sub-quantum structures upon which everything is built.

Someday, soon, some a new scientific understanding of the cosmos will appear and cause a revolution in the way we think about current science, making current theories mere small approximations limited by the infinitesimally minute imaginations of grunting little beings with a mere few pounds of putty like blobs of neurons which are used more to invent creative humping scenarios with other blobs of post-primordial goo.

We do not even know what we don't know. yet still some would place their faith in these barely existent lumps of goo, alive for only atto seconds relativey speaking.

These infinitesimally tiny volumes of entropy burps have somehow acquired for themselves some timeless truths about the nature of the cosmos? yeah, right...only if God gave them could it be so.

The primary product of science is untruth. When we can't call it untrue we keep working at it until we can.

I believe we do not even understand what God is, except that "He" represents a grand truth about all nature for which we do not have the brain power to begin to comprehend. That nature exists is true, because we can point a question at it. That we do not understand it is also true.

Yet because of our vast accumulation of scientific truths we can go ahead and rule out the existence of God?? really??

LOL.

Lets face it, men, scientists, are stupid. Most men spend almost all of their brainpower trying to maximize the quality or quantity of the 4 F's; Feeding, F__ck_ng, ego inFlating and Faith. In that order...perhaps

While there is definitely a spiritual motivator for scientists to pursue the truth of nature it can sure be subordinated to the 3F's at any given time.

I sure wouldn't put my faith in any animal so stupid and so easily corrupted. But go ahead and place your faith in scientists, they like it, it inFlates their egos, keeps them Fed, and if you bend over....

;^)

91 posted on 06/13/2007 12:44:15 PM PDT by Mark Felton ("Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom...though it cost all you have get understanding" - Prov. 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: csense; mnehrling
Could you please elaborate in detail as to why you think they are in conflict.

For the reason mnehrling stated. But also, 1:14 says "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"

So not only does 1:14 speak of the creation of the sun and light, but also explicitly recognizes (in the last clause) that the days could not be divided before then.

92 posted on 06/13/2007 12:47:04 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: csense; mnehrling
Could you please elaborate in detail as to why you think they are in conflict.

For the reason mnehrling stated. But also, 1:14 says "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"

So not only does 1:14 speak of the creation of the sun and light, but also explicitly recognizes (in the last clause) that the days could not be divided before then.

93 posted on 06/13/2007 12:47:21 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Even a dilettant can be correct. Where they go wrong is to underestimate the difficulty of completing the project.

Perhaps you'd care to point out where Darwin was overly optimistic.

94 posted on 06/13/2007 12:50:38 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

absolutely. go for it. (seriously, we do need more cash)

but don’t forget the chicks to keep the spirits up either, a necessary and underutilized scientific resource. (grin)

but the ladies don’t get too turned on by mechanical pencils or Matlab printouts, but yeah, that Chair you mentioned, there is this grad student in the lab, she is...well...she might go for a guy with that Hughes Chair. (grin)


95 posted on 06/13/2007 12:54:17 PM PDT by Mark Felton ("Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom...though it cost all you have get understanding" - Prov. 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
Lets face it, men, scientists, are stupid. Most men spend almost all of their brainpower trying to maximize the quality or quantity of the 4 F's; Feeding, F__ck_ng, ego inFlating and Faith. In that order...perhaps

While there is definitely a spiritual motivator for scientists to pursue the truth of nature it can sure be subordinated to the 3F's at any given time.

I sure wouldn't put my faith in any animal so stupid and so easily corrupted. But go ahead and place your faith in scientists, they like it, it inFlates their egos, keeps them Fed, and if you bend over....

The title of this thread is Most Republicans Reject Evolution

But why stop there. We can follow your lead and reject all of science!

(What color did you paint your cave?)

96 posted on 06/13/2007 12:58:00 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist

Both are true.
On a rainy day do you see the sun? No.
Does that mean it’s not there? No.


97 posted on 06/13/2007 1:03:08 PM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Tokra
"Sometimes things "just happen"."

Things never just "happen".

In the meantime, follow the money (rewards, sponsorship, broads...), and enabling technologies (communications, colleges, manufacturing...)

[I'm probably a determinist]

98 posted on 06/13/2007 1:08:11 PM PDT by Mark Felton ("Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom...though it cost all you have get understanding" - Prov. 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"We can follow your lead and reject all of science!"

I am a scientist dipsh_t.

All good scientists are skeptics and not full of themselves. We use theories until they break, but we are ready for most any of them to break at any time. I like it when they break!

In fact, in cosmology we are desperate for a new intuitive leap that will let us throw away so much of the crap we keep playing with now. Its cumbersome, ugly (full of squigglies), full of patches and cartoon-like simplifying assumptions...and disagreements, incoherences, inconsitenticies...

nature is beautiful, science is ugly.

99 posted on 06/13/2007 1:18:06 PM PDT by Mark Felton ("Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom...though it cost all you have get understanding" - Prov. 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"Most Republicans Reject Evolution"

BTW: Most Republicans don't have a clue about evolution but to their credit they aren't about to sit back and let some self-inflated, anti-Christian scientist, who doesn't understand it himself, shove it down their throat and call them an idiot if they don't swallow..

Do you swallow?

Their rejection of evolution is healthier and far better than some liberal idiots sitting around smoking pot and pretending he knows what the heck evolution is and believes in it instead of the Bible when he also doesn't have a clue what the Bible says.

Modern liberals are pretentious suckers. Blow smoke up their wide asses and tell them that it is the odor of enlightenment and they will thank you and run around wafting it in everybodies face.

100 posted on 06/13/2007 1:27:18 PM PDT by Mark Felton ("Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom...though it cost all you have get understanding" - Prov. 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-174 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson