1 of 3
1
In case you need further proof that Americans are stupid….
Posted: 28 October 2005 07:04 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2005-07-18

Only 15% believe in evolution…

NEW YORK (Oct. 23) - 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.

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.

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.

I wonder what percentage believe in the theory of gravity?

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051024100409990019&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2005 03:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  280
Joined  2005-02-24

Somehow I feel really cynical about this article. I’d want to know more about the details of this poll before I take it seriously.

The Theory of Evolution isn’t something for people to “believe in” anyway. It’s a scientific theory, not a belief system. Taking a poll like this is in itself misleading. It’s a very bad case of equating apples and oranges.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2005 12:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  137
Joined  2005-03-21

This is exactly the kind of thing the plutocrats in the republican party are counting on. No matter how many scandals and how
many screw-ups, they can always count on the dazed xtian
cattle who will faithfully vote for them everytime. Then they can
relax in some high class strip club and laugh about how moronic
people like the Chumpion are.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 October 2005 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1229
Joined  2004-12-22

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.


Is telephone interviewing a valid polling method anymore?

Points to ponder:

1. Call Screening/Caller ID

2. Cellphones vs Home Phones

3. “Unlisted” numbers

50 years ago, almost everyone had a home phone and the number was listed, and they answered their phones.

Now I would guess 25 to 30% of people have unlisted home numbers, 50% or more use some kind of screening or caller id to avoid salesmen, and 30% or so probably use a cell phone as primary phone with no “home” number at all.

I know some of this is partly true, because companies that use “cold call” services (the hated telephone solicitor) are having issues contacting some demographic sectors of the population.

So who is at home answering their phones?  I know its not me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2005 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  291
Joined  2005-04-02

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.


When I was much younger, I got a temporary job as a telephone surveryor. In my experience there, I would estimate that I had to get about seven answers before one of them would actually answer any of the questions. Mostly, they seemed to the ones who had nothing better to do than answer a bunch of stupid questions from a stranger on the phone. I never participate in phone surveys, especially when I’m contacted by phone. What we need is fewer polls and more real leadership.

[ Edited: 31 October 2005 11:21 AM by ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 October 2005 10:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

Bliss, excellent point.

Beyond our speculations on the type of person who hangs around to answer a phone poll, I would add that the terminology and the concepts represented are so hopelessly overloaded in the common usage, that simple questions rarely are.

Case in point:  I was at a cocktail party not all that long ago, when the subject of ID came up.  A lady proclaimed that she “didn’t believe in evolution”.  Rather than attempting to shout her down (a thought which I sheepishly admit flickered across my mind for a moment or two), I asked her to explain herself further.  She went on to say that she didn’t think that it was the place of science to tell her that there was no God.

Clearly, in her mind, evolution and atheism were conflated concepts.  Obviously they keep close company, and the rumors that they are having an affair may be well founded, but to claim that they are one and the same?  Please!

And on that note, I clearly need to sleep.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2005 09:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

First Time Atheist, thanks for the wonderful news.

Matter of fact, if that is the case that only 15% of Americans believe in evolution, HOW COME 100% of public schools teach this nonsense? We might as well teach creation!

Well, we shall see. We’re on the road now to removing evolution from the public school. Hey, if you want to teach in a liberal private school like we teach creation in our Christian private schools, by all means. Just stop hijacking the public school with your liberal agenda.

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2005 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1377
Joined  2004-12-21

Matter of fact, if that is the case that only 15% of Americans believe in evolution, HOW COME 100% of public schools teach this nonsense? We might as well teach creation!

Scientific questions are not decided by popular vote, or by what the religion de jure happens to believe.  If it were, the earth would still be flat, in the center of the universe, and 6000 years old.  It is none of these things.

The fact of Darwinian Evolution is the absolute cornerstone of Biology, supported by a mountain of incontrovertible evidence, and every scientific and educational body in the world, yet our president “thinks” that we should give equal time to teaching a repackaged supernatural fairy tale.  Even his own Science Advisor disagreed with him.

The alternative to evolution is not creationism, it is ignorance.

 Signature 

http://powerlessnolonger.com

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2005 10:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

hampsteadpete, and still all these many years later you guys stick to his theory? Talk about backwards. We have technology and data that he did not have. And you folks want to stick with what he said?

By the way, and be honest now, carbon dating is only reliable back to 5000 years. So, for all we know, the earth is really on 5000 to 6000 years old. You really cannot prove anything beyond that.

Funny thing…..

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2005 12:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  237
Joined  2005-04-28

[quote author=“TheChampion”]hampsteadpete, and still all these many years later you guys stick to his theory? Talk about backwards. We have technology and data that he did not have. And you folks want to stick with what he said?

By the way, and be honest now, carbon dating is only reliable back to 5000 years. So, for all we know, the earth is really on 5000 to 6000 years old. You really cannot prove anything beyond that.

Funny thing…..

Are you ignorant or a liar?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 October 2005 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2005-07-18

[quote author=“TheChampion”]We’re on the road now to removing evolution from the public school.

No we’re not.[quote author=“TheChampion”]Just stop hijacking the public school with your liberal agenda.

It has nothing to do with left/right.  It’s SCIENCE.  Surely you know the difference.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2005 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  707
Joined  2005-05-16

Then why is America still the most innovative country in the world.  We create more new technology in a year, then most of the world does in a decade.  Just look at who wins most of the Noble prizes for science and which country produces the most patents and copywrites.
The majority of Euporeans may believe in evolution, but they still believe in socialism, which is why they have double digit unemployment and stagnet economies.
There are many forms of stupidity, like creationism and socialism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2005 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3166
Joined  2005-04-25

And while we’re at it, lets start teaching creation in public schools, get back to saying a prayer before ballgames, proudly display the 10 commandments outside of every courthouse, a soup kitchen in evey ghetto, a salvation army in every skid row!!! Let’s do itt!!!!!!!

Yeah!!

 Signature 

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-29

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 November 2005 03:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2005-07-18

Settle down, Mody.  I was exaggerating to make a point…which you picked up on:[quote author=“MrMody”]There are many forms of stupidity, like creationism

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2005 02:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  102
Joined  2005-07-08

Do you think it will be true in 50 years, that America will still be the hot-bed of innovation?  I have no crystal ball, but the signs are pointing to no.  Asian countries have developed far superior educational systems, and are growing at a much faster pace.  We spead on guns, they buy books and computers.  Unless we plan on attacking them for innovating faster, our stratedgy seems pretty backwards.

Throw in the Champian/X-tian morons running the government, turning no-brainers like science education into controversy, and you’ve got the recipe for decline.  But to even suggest as much is political heresy.  God Bless America!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 November 2005 03:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2005-10-31

The Champion - the funny thing, buddy, is that you are right about the drastic disparity between teaching evolution in public schools and overwhelming public belief in alternate story of creation. Incidentally, majority of the same public is fat or even obese - should we stop advising people about the dangers of being overweight and the benefits of being fit? Beliefs of ignorant herds don’t change scientific facts, my brother in Christ.
Now, why in the perfect world we should be teaching evolution as a part of biological curriculum? Well, because evolutionary theory is a part of biological methodology and practice. We all know how sceptical the heaven-bound are when it comes to evolution and how much they like evidence, so don’t take my word on it and search for the keyword EVOLUTION at the largest public depository of biomedical literature, Pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
If you are not as lazy as are most of your brethren, you’ll discover that evolution is mentioned in hundreds of thousands of biomedical articles. Even more surprising for a creationist would be your next discovery, that of the fact that the keyword EVOLUTION as a rule is not found in the context of papers denouncing God or advocating same-sex marriage or sodomy. Actually, you are much more likely to find discussion of evolution in a context of emergence of new pathogens, antibiotic resistance, or assigning functions to genes in newly sequenced genomes.
Those are all very important subjects, both scientifically and from a public health point of view, and frankly speaking it would irresponsible for us as scientists to pretend that ignorance of biblical creationists or imcompetence of the intellectual refuse that makes up the ranks of ID proponents, have any place in these studies. In perfect world we’d want to teach students the state of the art science and not to cave in to the sentiment of public ignorance.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed