As if we needed more proof that Republicans are whacked…
Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution
More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution
by Frank Newport
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ — The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true.
How bout a link to the full story? I’d like to start losing some weight, and stupidity induced bulimia may just do the trick.
The latest poll on this issue came out on Friday June 8, 2007.
Poll Shows Belief in Evolution, Creationism
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/poll-shows-belief-in-evolution/20070608173809990001
It didn’t seem to isolate Republicans (just some candidates), it rather followed this other poll recently done in March.
God’s Numbers
The latest NEWSWEEK poll shows that 91 percent of American adults surveyed believe in God—and nearly half reject the theory of evolution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17879317/site/newsweek/
Just thought you should have the full picture on all Americans.
“The latest NEWSWEEK poll shows that 91 percent of American adults surveyed believe in God—and nearly half reject the theory of evolution.”
Guess Liberalism isn’t taking after all. You guys have a lot of work to do.
The only poll I ever trusted was the one asking about participation in masturbation. 50% stated they engaged in masturbation, the other 50% lied about it.
The AOL link given above raises some questions, to be sure. For example, it states
Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true. More than half, 53%, said evolution, the idea that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, is definitely or probably true.
66% for the first question, and then 53% for the second? Since this equals 119% either the article is screwed up, or there is some sort of overlap.
Personally, I’ve little problem with those believing in some sort of intelligent design that can go hand-in-hand with evolution, but … man created in his present form in last 10,000 years? That I have a problem with …
I think this whole “debate” is bogus. The two aren’t exactly mutually exclusive…
Ryan –
Guess what…. gravity is REAL.
Really? I hadn’t noticed Newton’s Law of Physics. Thanks for pointing that out. Because you know that every time I’ve dropped something up until now it’s just kind of floated there.
This reminds me of a Newsweek poll taken in the year 1450:
“99% of educated Europeans believe the world is flat.”
Sorry, meatball, popular opinion in 1450 was the same that it had been since the first century BC. The world was round. Except for the occasional nutjob, everyone from Ptolemy forward knew the Earth was round.
Doesn’t a “Flat Earth Society” still exist? They’re the guys that insist the televised moon landings were actually done on a sound stage with monkeys in space suits.
Next thing you know, people will start thinking there’s a viable GOP candidate in Delaware.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847
there is the site for raw data and here is the gig that published the link:
http://thewell-armedlamb.blogspot.com/2007/06/would-you-just-look-at-all-that-stupid.html
While they attempted to ask the questions appropriately, I do not think they succeeded.
They did not present the “intelligent design” option until the third question. Most “ID” people probably defaulted to “Creationism” which led to the “conflicting views” as they put it.
You will notice that while the largest number of folks took the “creationsist” view, they were closely followed by the “Intelligent Design” people. It looks as though the athiestic evolutionists are lagging way behind. Kind of restores ones faith…in faith.
Just keep believing in what those authority figures keep telling you and all will be well.
I see plenty of proof for evolution, none whatsoever in creationism. And ID is a cop-out.
“I see plenty of proof for evolution, none whatsoever in creationism. And ID is a cop-out.”
You explain to me how the big bang came out of nothing and what was there in the nothingness before it….and we can talk.
The Big Bang Theory is a cosmological study of the origins of the universe. The evolution being discussed here is the origin of life on just this planet. Different fields of study for different phenomena.
No changing the subject because you can’t handle the one at hand.
“No changing the subject because you can’t handle the one at hand.”
Hardly changing the topic. The two are quite intertwined. All processes need a beginning. Once might suggest that it was a single celled amoeba…but how did that organism come about? Evolution does not answer that question, other than pull out the “bing bang” theory. I have never claimed to be a creationist. In fact, I favored ID before I even knew about. Growing up I saw the theory of evolution and the biblical account and realized that there was indeed common ground. God made all things, and evolution was one of the tools he used.
Von Cracker calls ID a cop out, but offers no reasoning for it. Probably can’t stand the idea of there being anyone or thing superior to him. Whatver…thats his choice.
But just keep in mind all three of these arguments are indeed theories. The founder of the new creationists museum seems to have developed his own scientific proof that debunks many of the evolution postulations, facts even hard core evolutionists can’t really field. Do I necessarily believe him…no…but it does point out that they are THEORIES and someday we may discover something that makes evolutionists look like crackpots.
but how did that organism come about? Evolution does not answer that question
Nor does it attempt to.
“The two are quite intertwined. All processes need a beginning. Once might suggest that it was a single celled amoeba…but how did that organism come about? Evolution does not answer that question, other than pull out the “bing bang” theory.”
Have mercy. Wrong on all counts. As fields of study, they are not intertwined (one is cosmology, the other is a multitude of biology and earth sciences studies) except at some arcane intersections and those are not part of the discussion, except, of course, where you’d like to muddy the waters.
The Big Bang Theory is not part of how the first single cell organisms came to be. But evolution does most certainly account for how the single celled came into existence.
Creationism and ID are not theories as scientists use the word — theory. You cannot test any part of these two narratives, you cannot support any part of these direct or indirect data, and in fact, the only way you argue for any credibility of creationism or ID these is to deliberately misrepresent how science works, to make stuff up and then (as is typical for wingnuts everywhere) attacking your opponents. Would that you would use that energy to actually prove creationism or ID.
But that would take work, that would take really understanding how to add to the knowledge. You just want people to accept that you really can change lead into gold.
I am beginning to wish that people who say they do not believe in evolution would have to claim that on their driver’s licenses or something. Then we could make them pay a hefty fee (or maybe just withold!) on some of the major advances that are the fruits of the study of evolution — namely, almost the entire scheme of medical treatment. There is some symmetry in having those who would deny how science works pay extra for the fruits of how well that science works.
Chris:
Maybe there was something before the Big Bang. And who said anything about “nothingness” being before it?
For all we know, this could be the 2nd or 3rd incarnation of the universe. You know…expansion and contraction?
And ID is a cop out. If you cannot read between the lines to see that all of it is a lame attempt to inject a god into scientific theory and law, then you are doing yourself an intellectual disservice. It’s a cheap, child’s argument. If you want to believe in ID, fine, I don’t really care. But to give it the same credence as evolution without having it subjected to the same rigorous testing and observation is the height of laziness. For all it is, ID is nothing more than a caveat: “(Insert a scientific observation) – yeah, but god did it!”
You played your hand when you tried to equate creationism and ID to a scientific theory. It’s quite obvious you don’t know what that phrase means, and that includes how the word ‘theory’ is used in the world of science.