Posted on 10/24/2005 6:19:17 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
(CBS) Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.
These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.
VIEWS ON EVOLUTION/CREATIONISM
Now God created humans in present form 51% Humans evolved, God guided the process 30% Humans evolved, God did not guide process 15%
Nov. 2004 God created humans in present form 55% Humans evolved, God guided the process 27% Humans evolved, God did not guide process 13%
This question on the origin of human beings, asked both this month and in November 2004, offered the public three alternatives: 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.
The results were not much different between the answers to that question and those given when a specific timeline was included in the final alternative: God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.
Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).
White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.
Still, most Americans think it is possible to believe in both God and evolution. Sixty-seven percent say this is possible, while 29 percent disagree. Most demographic groups say it is possible to believe in both God and evolution, but just over half of white evangelical Christians say it is not possible.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN BOTH GOD AND EVOLUTION?
Yes 67% No 29%
Opinions on this question are tied to one’s views on the origin of human beings. Those who believe in evolution, whether guided by God or not, overwhelmingly think it is possible to believe in both God and evolution – 90 percent say this. However, people who believe God created humans in their present form are more divided: 48 percent think it possible to believe in both God and evolution, but the same number disagrees.
POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN BOTH GOD AND EVOLUTION?
Believe in evolution Yes 90% No 8%
Believe God created humans Yes 48% No 48%
For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.
This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 808 adults, interviewed by telephone October 3-5, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points.
Majority of Americans Reject Secular Evolution (Gallup Poll, Sep. 2005)
This poll also shows the difference between creation, evolution and intelligent design, and actually shows a shift towards support of ID.
"Evolution does not explain Creation."- Charles Darwin
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" .. H.L. Mencken
And yet liberals say we shouldn't teach it in schools.
A good one.
Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
A majority of people also believe if you shoot a bullet out of a curved barrel, that the projectile will continue to follow the same path of curvature once it leaves the barrel.
Now God created humans in present form 51% Humans evolved, God guided the process 30% Humans evolved, God did not guide process 15%
Nov. 2004 God created humans in present form 55% Humans evolved, God guided the process 27% Humans evolved, God did not guide process 13%
Looks like an inprovement over the past year
These polls are meaningless since the polls show that nearly three quarters of Americans believe in the paranormal. Christians (75%) more than non-Christians(66%) BTW
Well that's what happened to the coyote. LOL
From goo to you-- do people realize the probabilities of that accident? I wish I had that kind of faith.
---A majority of people also believe if you shoot a bullet out of a curved barrel, that the projectile will continue to follow the same path of curvature once it leaves the barrel.---
Well, yes. That's called Disney Motion. :^)
check back to see how thread evolves
Yes, and 65% of Americans apparently believe that a UFO crashed near Roswell, NM.
Lots of other bizarre results from this poll taken in the 90's.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/
Billions and billions of years ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was nothing, absolutely nothing. And that nothing became something, and that something all came together in one point, a point smaller than a period on this page. And then that point, a dot smaller than a period on this page, which was all the matter that formed from all the nothing, absolutely nothing, of the universe, began to spin. And it spun faster, and faster, and faster till all of a sudden billions and billions of years ago, BABOOOOOOOM. A big bang.
Wow, imagine that.
Anyhow after that big boom came a swirling cloud of matter. That would be the matter that was in the dot that was smaller than a period on this page that formed from absolutely nothing. Then that swirling cloud of matter became earth.
Wow, double wow, cool dude.
And then the earth, one great big dead round lump of something, something that started from nothing, formed a rock and that rock sat out all by itself and got rained on, not real rain, but dead acid rain. And from that rock getting acid rained on came about a pond, a little dead pond of run off acid rain and rock scum. And out of that pond of dead acid rain came a something, an amoeba or maybe a tadpole, but something. And as that tadpole or whatever climbed out of the pond it became a huge tyrannosaurus rex dinosaur and that dinosaur laid an egg, and out of that egg came a bird and then monkeys and then man. So you see, the evolutionist must react because that goose came from the same rock they came from.
Wow, I didn't know.
But the one I like best is the theory of the frog: Millions and millions of years ago in a swamp far, far away lived a frog and over millions and millions of years, this lucky frog, who never got ate by a snake, fish or alligator, became a prince. Cool huh? But I like the other version better. Once upon a time their was a princess, and she kissed a frog and puff it became a prince. Hey why not let's just cut out the middle man, millions and millions of years, add a really cute golden haired blue eyed princess, she smooches the frog and wow instant prince.
Hence the darwin awards for those who really believe that billons and billions of years ago...
Correction: A majority of people, who believe in evolutin, also believe if you shoot a bullet out of a curved barrel, that the projectile will continue to follow the same path of curvature once it leaves the barrel, therefore quilfying them for the Darwin Award.
COPERNICAN THEORY --- Rejected by Majority of Americans!
A recent National Science Foundation survey showed that less than half of American adults understand that the Earth orbits the sun yearly.
DNA --- Don't Need Any!
Only 21 percent can define DNA
Molecules --- Concept rejected by 91% of Americans
And one in seven American adults--roughly 25 million people--could not even locate the United States on an unlabeled world map.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5357/1640
Heck, almost half this country voted for Clinton, too.
I do not have enough faith to believe in the the theory of evolution. The holes of the missing links are big enough to drive a universe through and there are many more problems with the theory!
"I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. "
Ahh, someone finally sums it up.
The fossils lying around can't tell us how they arrived at where they were. We can conjecture and surmise and postulate and convince ourselves but in the end, we still don't really know.
I believe in a God who created man and the universe, and gave all his creations the ability to adapt to their environment in order to survive.
Sounds like the Creationist argument in a nutshell. Good distillation of Creationist "theory".
...and simply takes for granted common descent.
But then lying by selective quotation seems to be a trademark of creationists.
The only people with the credentials to testify in the Dover trial accept the 4.5 billion year old earth and common descent -- even if they have quibbles about how the mechanics of evolution work. The majority of ID advocates believe in fine tuning, the assumption that the universe and the laws of nature are such that they guarantee evolution.
But they believe an intelligence intervene to bring it about.
Most do not. See post #24.
A closed room.
A broken cookie jar.
A chair askew.
A two-year-old with cookie crumbs on her face.
"We can conjecture and surmise and postulate and convince ourselves but in the end, we still don't really know."
LOL I notice you didn't comment on the nothing that came together into a point as small as a dot on this page and began spinning. Apparently, you believe it to be an accurate portrayal of the evolutionists view of things.
If that's true, someone went thru an awful lot of trouble to make it look othewise.
"A closed room.
A broken cookie jar.
A chair askew.
A two-year-old with cookie crumbs on her face."
If only we had such a wonderfully simple scenario.
"But then lying by selective quotation seems to be a trademark of creationists."
I reacted to a portion of what he said. My comments were my opinion, as are yours on this forum. Lying is intentional falsification, which I did not do.
If you persist in calling me a liar I will let the Admin Mods sort it out.
Behe and Denton do, and that's who you were quoting.
Go ahead and call the mods. You pulled out a snippet from a statement, falsifying the author's intention. That's lying. The whole point of Behe's statement was to dispel allegations that he was ignorant of facts. His point was that he forms the same conclusion from fossil evidence as mainstream biology.
If you are capable of reading, you will note that Denton absolutely denies intervention in the workings of nature. Behe doesn't say, but most ID advocatres are fine tuners. They believe the laws of nature are set up from creation to make evolution happen.
"They believe the laws of nature are set up from creation to make evolution happen."
I would be a member of that camp, but I am usually derided as an "evolutionist" by the IDers here.
Most of the FReeper ID advocates are really YECs. They haven't a clue. That is why it is important to separate the historical fact of evolution from the various flavors of natural selection.
Your use of the term "faith" is misapplied. See these definitions (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true
So, as you can see, evolution is a theory -- no faith involved. CS and ID are beliefs -- that is where faith comes in. You had it backward!
The holes of the missing links are big enough to drive a universe through and there are many more problems with the theory!
Your statement is wrong and contradicted by a mass of evidence gathered over 150 years. Try this one article, for example:
Evidence of Evolutionary Transitions, By Michael Benton. Here is a sample:
The role of missing links is most difficult to understand. Surely, argue the creationists and other religious fundamentalists, if evolutionists claim that all of life is related through a single huge family tree extending from the present day back millions of years to a single point of origin, we should find fossils that are midway between established groups. 'Where are the missing links?' they cry. Palaeontologists have them!
This reference is one of many from PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.
Somewhat troubling, though. Last poll I saw had a significantly higher number of Creationists.
There is also the Right Angle Vector:
Coyote (Wily type)
flies straight off cliff,
stops,
looks bewildered,
drops straight down.
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
And you have DATA to back up this assertion??
Google "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-Chromosome Adam"
Evolutionary DNA analysis confirms, consistent with the Bible versus you cite, that there were common male and female ancestors of all living humans.
In short, the Biblical concerns you cite re: evolution are not conerns at all.
Even if one grants that evolutionary theory in its current form is mostly true, I'm wondering how one can justify undermining the authority of a majority of parents by forcing upon their children an education the parents don't want for their kids.
Is this what you are referring to?
Riv Biol. 2002
May-Aug;95(2):319-25.
"Mitochondrial Eve", "Y Chromosome Adam", testosterone, and human evolution.
Howard JM.
jmhoward@arkansas.net
I suggest primate evolution began as a consequence of increased testosterone in males which increased aggression and sexuality, therefore, reproduction and success. With time, negative effects of excessive testosterone reduced spermatogenesis and started a decline of the group. Approximately 30-40 million years ago, the gene DAZ (Deleted in AZoospermia) appeared on the Y chromosome, increased spermatogenesis, and rescued the early primates from extinction. (Note: DAZ is considered by some to specifically, positively affect spermatogenesis; others suggest it has no effect on spermatogenesis.) Hominid evolution continued with increasing testosterone. The advent of increased testosterone in females of Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) increased the female-to-male body size ratio, and eventually produced another era of excessive testosterone. Excessive testosterone caused a reduction in population size (bottleneck) that produced the "Mitochondrial Eve" (ME) mechanism. (Only certain females continued during the bottleneck to transmit their mitochondrial DNA.) That is, the ME mechanism culminated, again, in excessive testosterone and reduced spermatogenesis in the hominid line. Approximately 50,000 to 200,000 years ago, a "doubling" of the DAZ gene occurred on the Y chromosome in hominid males which rescued the hominid line with increased spermatogenesis in certain males. This produced the "Y Chromosome Adam" event. The doubling of DAZ allowed further increases in testosterone in hominids that resulted in the increased size and development of the brain. Modern humans periodically fluctuate between the positive and negative consequences of increased levels of testosterone, currently identifiable as the secular trend, increased infections, and reduced spermatogenesis.
Note underlined section I added.
To some degree --- although that particular suggested cause of the common ancestor is new to me.
Basically, it has been proven (by statistical analysis of DNA) that there is at least one single common male ancestor and one single common female ancestor of every human alive today.
The "why" our ancestor(s) went through the bottleneck(s) has not been fully explained, at least not to me.
As an aside, they cannot prove that "Eve" and "Adam" lived at the same time. Of course, neither can they disprove it.(Although by definition, by having one confirmed ancestor of all the species, that confirmed ancestor's parents could qualify for "Adam" and "Eve").
The more important point is that evolutionary theory is conistent --- nay, completely accepts --- the idea that all human kind had at least one single common ancestor and we were one heartbeat away from extinction at some distant time --- indeed, almost certainly on several occassions we were down to one single common ancestor.
Hence, the oft-repated canard that evolutionary theory is inconsistent with Christianity because of the original sin issue is just that --- a canard.
I have actually pointed this fact out to the above-poster before, but she either ignores it or enjoys posting false information. She generally then calls me "hateful" for pointing out her error. Very Christian, that.
If not, his tagline becomes somewhat ironic, eh?
<< Even if one grants that evolutionary theory in its current form is mostly true, I'm wondering how one can justify undermining the authority of a majority of parents by forcing upon their children an education the parents don't want for their kids. >>
So -- if a majority of the parents believed in a flat-earth, or in geo-centrism, or that flies are created from rotting meat, we shouldn't teach their children any differently? What about the parents who believe that algebra or history or economics is a waste of time -- should we drop those courses?
Majority opinion of the parents does not determine curriculum -- Thank goodness!
From a former public school and college teacher.
M
Just my own survey of ID supporters. I've asked for nearly three months what ID supporters would teach. I've also asked whether they agree with Behe and Denton. So far not a single person has agreed with Behe and Denton.
On the other hand, a number have responded that they disagree. All it takes to prove me wrong is find some Freeper ID advocates who accept common descent and a multi-billion year-old earth.
Thanks for posting that article. Mr. Augustine made the point much better than I did.
One in four Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Do you blame the scientists for that? Or do you agree with the "skeptical" 25%?
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.