[Physicist]

It is possible to take the position of accepting common descent while rejecting Darwinism. Indeed, the current debate hinges on this nicety. By phrasing the question this way, it tests whether the subjects reject the evidence (common descent), rather than just the interpretation (natural selection).

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...it tests whether the subjects reject the evidence (common descent)

There is no evidence that any species or any form of life originated exclusively from this planet...

Evolutionists believe in the primordial spaghetti sauce theory.

[Diamond]

...it tests whether the subjects reject the evidence (common descent), rather than just the interpretation (natural selection)

Sorry, the notion of universal common descent (of every organism from a single, or few putative ancestors, including human from earlier non-human ancestors) is not evidence, it is an interpretation of evidence. Explanations are not evidence.

Cordially,

[RobbyS]

Part of the problem is the clinging to natural selection eve if it does not in fact provide an adequate interpretation of the evidence. What Darwin and his contemporaries did was the persuade us that the ancient idea of a chain of being had to be modified by the notion of common descent, that higher forms did somehow emerge from earlier forms. Maybe we still don't know the how. Could it not be that Darwin doesn't serve much better than Lamarck? Why not wait for a better theory. Somewhere out there they may be someone with a new insight.

In any case, they also polled people on religious and/philosophical opinions that have no necessary connection with the evidence. No wonder people are confused.