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 1-5051-100101-150151-174 last
To: dartuser
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, "Who is this that darkens counsel. By words without knowledge? Now gird up your loins like a man, And I will ask you, and you instruct Me! Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, Who set its measurements? Since you know."

God reveals his handiwork in His Creation. Job didn't have the ability and insight to see what we can see today. We can only go by what God set in the foundations of our world and universe. that does not deny God, but reveals more of His Glory. Or do you believe God will make our world one way, but desribe it differently? Then it is our interpretation of Scripture, which was written by Man, a fallen, sinful being, that needs to be revised. I cannot believe people would limit God in what he can do. No where in Scripture does it say how old the world is, nor how it was made. We can only look a the evidence God gave us and that says God has been doing a lot of work, for billions of years, before we were here.

151 posted on 06/15/2007 8:03:28 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: doc30

yep, students are not qualified to see both sides, including creationism theory. Your argument is so messed up...hope you come out of your confusing thoughts.


152 posted on 06/15/2007 8:56:53 AM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: doc30
A literal interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent the observation of God's Creation.

There's no conflict between a literal interpretation of The Genesis and God's Creation. Except, of course, you take some produced 'scientific' assumptions like evolutionism for true. I've heard your argument before, though not from a Christian.

Since man is Fallen and imperfect, then it is not the physical world around us that is in question but the interpretation of Scripture.

So you're implying that our Holy Bible is just a book to be interpeted at will? Do you notice that you could use the exact same argument saying that the quran or Marx' capital had just been 'misinterpreted' by fallible men, and are indeed meant as books of 'peace' and of 'social justice'?
That's the kind of stuff I'd expect from a staunch liberal...
153 posted on 06/15/2007 9:00:10 AM PDT by wereatwar (We're at war, behave accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

>>So if a theory actually predicts that you wont find any evidence for it ... should the scientific community reject that theory as being non-scientific?<<

It could still be a scientific theory but it would be “non-useful” and would not normally be taught as part of a curriculum. Russell’s teapot is the classic example.

Some famous and important work has started as non-useful but become useful (like wave particle duality) as applications were found.

Other work continues to be non-useful but large amounts of research are applied to it because it is believed to be be promising or it fills a need to resolve a contradiction (like string theory).

But generally, if a theory is taught at the high school level, it meets the requirement of “useful.”


154 posted on 06/15/2007 9:32:34 AM PDT by gondramB (Do not do to others as you would not wish done to yourself. Thus no murmuring will rise against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

>>The material in Genesis is historical narrative ... this happened, then that happened, then this other thingy happened ... and so on. The entire book is like that. Whether Genesis is actual history is another question.<<

Who was the observer. I would suggest the only possible observer was God. And thus the retelling translating the billions of years into days and not going into the enourmous complexity makes it more or a parable.

But I’m open to another word - I don’t really like “parable” here but it seems closest. God knows how long it took for supernovas to explode and deposit iodine on earth and that supernovas are where iodine comes from. So when He told man the story - it really is a (parable or something) more than a history, IMO.


155 posted on 06/15/2007 9:37:19 AM PDT by gondramB (Do not do to others as you would not wish done to yourself. Thus no murmuring will rise against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: fabian
that’s good because there is alot more scientific evidence for creationism than evolution.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. The universe can't be any older than 6000 years.

156 posted on 06/15/2007 6:02:47 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
You are uninformed. Christians and Christian based societies have been responsible for the greatest plethora of achievements and advancements in science and technology than any other culture or religions (especially atheists) in the history of mankind.

Yes. But Franklin, Copernicus, Einstein and yes, Darwin, didn't answer their scientific questions with "God did it". Creationists do. And when "God did it", scientific inquiry is over.

I was an agnostic for over 30 years and thought just as you. Now I am Christian. Now I know what an ignorant ass I was about Christianity. I was bigoted and incredibily uninformed.

That's funny, I went the other way. I studied to be a missionary in college, but gave it up before I finished. I discovered that the solid Christians that I loved and trusted were in reality fakes and in one case a literal child molester. When I finally asked myself the question "why was I a Christian" rather than Buddhist or animist, the answer I discovered was the place of my birth. I was a Christian because my parents were, and everyone I grew up with. Had I been born somewhere else, I could have been worshiping rocks and no doubt would have been equally convinced they were genuine gods. Why was I so lucky to have been born into the "correct" religion of Christianity? Answer... it wasn't the correct religion, and none are.

Christianity is a great love story that can move one to tears, just like a good love story in a movie. But both are fiction, which only proves that you can give your heart to something that doesn't exist.

If my sharing of my witness has caused you to think twice about your faith, remember that this always occurs when Christians challenge evolution. Some Christians will lose their faith when challenged with the conundrum of evidence for an old earth and evolution. Others will never find Jesus when the person telling them the Good News also says they must reject their scientific understanding. Many Christians have no problem accepting that God created evolution first. I suggest to all Christians that they accept that fact, which will remove the stumbling block that many have with the faith.

I still think Christianity is the best of all religions. It is tolerant, it has given birth to western civilization, the greatest that has ever existed on Earth. And it has tolerated dissent against it, such as me. Since most humans, I believe, are hardwired to need a faith, I hope more find Christianity than otherwise. That's why I urge Christians to get over their passion for hating Darwin, and learn to accept that the Bible isn't a science textbook. Just as they did when they discovered that lightning was mere electrons instead of the voice of God, and that the rain was sent by condensation of water that had evaporated from the ocean, rather than the tears of Him.

157 posted on 06/15/2007 6:28:19 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; betty boop
If humans evolved they evolved to believe in God...
Therefore only the less evolved do not believe in God..

Darwin and Dawkins missed that... pity

158 posted on 06/15/2007 6:36:09 PM PDT by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narby
I suggest to all Christians that they accept that fact...

No doubt to make you feel more comfortable, rather than for the comfort and benefit of anyone else. Your selfishness seems to have no bounds.

You, who should know better in the eyes of God, do seek to spread the hardness of your heart with others, and turn them away, as you yourself have turned away.

God will judge us all in due time, and though I tremble somewhat at the things that I have done, it in no wise compares to the fear I have for you when when that day cometh and your hardness be not resolved beforehand....

159 posted on 06/15/2007 10:08:32 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Two of the biggest questions human philosphers have been asking since man was created are unanswered by evolutionary theory.

What is the nature and origin of the forces that; 1) led to the genesis of life? (a chemistry motivated to propagate copies of itself) and 2) caused one tiny branch of those life-forms to near-instantaneously acquire a profoundly superior intelligence, a profoundly unique knowledge of God a subsequent creation of cultural evolution?

1) There is no explanation why some primordial sludge should ever acquire an impulsive "desire", "need", or compulsion to reproduce and make copies of itself. (they stunk anyway) and then be motivated to go on and conquer the world (viz. movie "The Blob" LOL).

There is certainly some force driving it. Nothing happens in nature without a force changing the state. A life force is as good a term as any to describe the redirection.

2) It is not understood how one particular primate species instantaneously acquired a superior intelligence and a knowledge of God and soul, but those characteristics have been wildly successful in advancing the goals of evolution for that species.

Culture is at the heart of the success and God is responsible. All cultural advancements are driven by and because of the knowledge of God. Its also interesting to note that the fundamental moralities and motivations that come with God are common across all human societies, no matter how isolated they were from each other. Just as amazingly they all "evolved" within the same small time period.

The big question then, why did one particular primate species suddenly decide to get smart, stop being a "chimpanzee" and begin worshipping God(s)?

The belief in God is the singular greatest feature that distinguishes us from atheist animals and the single greatest reason why we have become so successful and achieved such abundance.

Also since these human traits are so fantastically successful it is statistically unreasonable that no other species have evolved any similar characteristics. Why not?

[None of the evolutionary, atheist leaders, like Richard Dawkins have been able to explain it and they do acknowledge the strangeness of it all.]

God has driven man to adopt strategies, moralities and contrainstictual behavioural modalities (ooh cool term, it may deserve its own acronym, LOL) not found in other life forms.

The very idea of living life to gain reward after death is completely antithetical to base evolutionary theories. This alone suggests the need for science to consider additional process perturbations outside the current realm of scientific knowledge, such as "God", aliens, martians, whatever...)

160 posted on 06/16/2007 10:29:35 AM 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 141 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

One weakness of Evolutionary Theory is that there is no public, peer-reviewed, agreed-upon criteria for falsification. Without such falsification criteria, ET can’t be taken overly seriously by professional scientists.


161 posted on 06/16/2007 10:34:54 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; hosepipe; Alamo-Girl; MHGinTN
Hi presidio9! I think the way most people today would understand the question, "Do you believe in evolution?" would be as "do you believe in Darwinian evolution?"

A person can answer that question in the negative and not deny evolution outright; and accepting evolution in the broadest sense, not contradict the divine creation of the universe.

It seems God created a universe that evolves, is capable of development. Big bang and Genesis are not inconsistent with each other. Both describe "evolution" of some sort. Darwin got his insights for biological evolution principally from this source; i.e., the universe evolves, so it is reasonable to suppose that biological life must do likewise. So far, so good. But it seems to me Darwin got the assumption of a purely random development of exclusively material bodies out of thin air.

To me, all the word "random" really denotes is "something we don't understand." Just like the idea of so-called "junk DNA." We only call it "junk" because we don't yet understand what it does....

It is this context that Huckabees' and Brownbacks' and Tancredo's raised hands need to be understood. IMHO, FWIW.

162 posted on 06/16/2007 10:35:52 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Very well said! Thank you!
163 posted on 06/16/2007 11:06:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: csense
You, who should know better in the eyes of God, do seek to spread the hardness of your heart with others, and turn them away, as you yourself have turned away.

I seek to persuade Christians to lay off their attempts to destroy science, for two reasons. 1) it's bad for Christianity, because it forces people to chose between their understanding of science and their faith. 2) it's bad for science, because of the faith driven attacks against it destroy it's credibility for no good reason. Attack the handful of "scientists" who've sold out to the green's cash, but paleontology, anthropology and biology generally aren't guilty of that.

I keep my mouth shut about my lack of faith, until the subject of evolution comes up. Lay off evolution, and I'll keep my beliefs to myself. As I said in an earlier post, I think Christianity is the best faith of any, and since most people seem to be hardwired to require faith, it's the best choice. Just lay off evolution.

164 posted on 06/17/2007 10:33:23 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
What is the nature and origin of the forces that; ... 2) caused one tiny branch of those life-forms to near-instantaneously acquire a profoundly superior intelligence, a profoundly unique knowledge of God

Define "near-instantaneously". It's probable that "modern" humans existed for 20-30 thousand years before any serious advances occurred. Even then, the advances were likely cultural, not genetically driven (and most of that was during the domination by religions other than Judeo-Christian theology, such as Ra worshipers in Egypt, and polytheistic faiths of the Greeks, Romans and whatever the Chinese believed then).

Culture is at the heart of the success and God is responsible.

Culture is at the heart of humanities success, but you are ignoring huge chunks of history to assert that your definition of God is responsible. The Chinese were far in advance of Europeans for thousands of years, and our history books largely ignores this fact. And "Western Civilization" itself was built, as I said above, on the polytheistic philosophies of Athens and Rome. When Christianity did take over Rome, it heralded it's decline for a millenia into the dark ages, until very recent centuries when a few were able to implement a philosophy of a separation between church and state, and an individual liberty of the people to judge their own relationship to God. It was this removal of God as central to culture that sparked the most recent huge advances in civilization.

Also since these human traits are so fantastically successful it is statistically unreasonable that no other species have evolved any similar characteristics. Why not?

Someone has to be first. The ability to pose an unanswerable question is not a positive indication of the existence of a God. Much less a positive indication that your particular God is correct over some other persons concept of God or gods.

Christianity is a minority faith on the planet you know.

God has driven man to adopt strategies, moralities and contrainstictual behavioural modalities (ooh cool term, it may deserve its own acronym, LOL) not found in other life forms.

Please explain how those Chinese did those things without God. Unless your point is that generic faith is the cause of these things.

The very idea of living life to gain reward after death is completely antithetical to base evolutionary theories. This alone suggests the need for science to consider...

There is zero scientific evidence to suggest life after death. It is a highly emotional subject and perhaps very hard for humans to imagine otherwise, but the bottom line is there is no physical detector for "spirits", or reincarnation, or even the existence of a soul. Please enlighten me if there is such detection hardware, or litmus strip test, or anything besides philosophy and good feelings to back up the idea of life after death.

165 posted on 06/17/2007 11:30:24 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: narby
How can one destroy that which by definition is self correcting.
Your lack of faith is never silent unto both masters.....
166 posted on 06/17/2007 11:38:33 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: csense
How can one destroy that which by definition is self correcting. Your lack of faith is never silent unto both masters.....

Cryptic. I really don't want to guess at your meaning.

167 posted on 06/17/2007 11:44:27 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: narby

If you think it’s cryptic, then you understand neither science, God, or your own words.....


168 posted on 06/17/2007 11:51:29 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: csense
If you think it’s cryptic, then you understand neither science, God, or your own words.....

Your posts have multiple meanings that would waste my time to guess at. You must not have any real counters to my arguments, besides generic disgust at having to contemplate the idea that your faith in God could be entirely false. It was an emotional shock to me when I acknowledged to myself that God doesn't exist. It sucks to know that when you die, you die.

Just remember, anytime that the discussion of evolution comes up in a school, on FR, anywhere, the subject of the very existence of God will almost immediately come up. If you value your faith, and the faith of the young people around you, encourage the acceptance that evolution and Genesis are not contradictory.

Perhaps you are secure in the idea that scientific evidence can be false when it confronts the Bible, but some will not have your faith and will reject God rather than reject the evidence of their eyes. Fighting evolution is just not worth it for a Christian. Let my experience warn you of that fact.

169 posted on 06/17/2007 12:37:09 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: narby
....having to contemplate the idea that your faith in God could be entirely false.

What makes you think I haven't already been down that road. Only when you understand that God has more faith in us, than we will ever have in him, will you realize the error of your ways...and the signs and evidences are all around you. All you need do is look and listen...

170 posted on 06/17/2007 2:25:08 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: csense
Only when you understand that God has more faith in us, than we will ever have in him, will you realize the error of your ways...

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt(s). Once you realize that God doesn't exist, considering whether that imaginary God has faith in me doesn't make sense.

171 posted on 06/17/2007 9:26:30 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: narby

What more is there to say then....


172 posted on 06/17/2007 10:03:16 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I am a conservative Republican, and I teach all of my children that evolution happens. Sheesh, read a book.
173 posted on 06/17/2007 10:05:19 PM PDT by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExtremeUnction

Sheesh get to know AP. They purposely did not include the wording of the question because that would ruin the story about how all Republicans are rednecked Bible-thumpers. I believe that species evolve, but that that evolution is direced by God. I guarantee you that the AP poll would take that to mean that I reject evolution.


174 posted on 06/18/2007 6:51:19 AM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 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