In public opinion polls, only 12-14% accepted unguided human evolution
In discussing a recent public opinion poll in Texas, the NCSE said,
I think that the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision by a crackpot activist judge has gone to Darwinists' heads, giving them the impression that the fundies and other critics of evolution are pushovers. These opinion poll results certainly show that such an impression is utterly false -- the Darwinists are the ones who are behind the 8-ball.
Among the questions on the poll was the standard Gallup question — "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?" — with the choices (1) "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process"; (2) "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and God had no part in the process"; and (3) "God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago."
In the Texas poll, 38% of respondents chose (1), 12% chose (2), 38% chose (3), and 12% chose a fourth option, "Don't know." Comparing the results with a national Gallup poll conducted in 2008, in which 36% of respondents chose (1), 14% chose (2), 44% chose (3), and 5% offered a different or no opinion, it might seem as though Texans are slightly less inclined to creationism than the nation at large — but the explicit presentation of a "Don't know" option in the Texas poll and not in the Gallup poll is probably responsible for the discrepancy. (Also, the Texas poll was only of registered voters.)
I think that the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision by a crackpot activist judge has gone to Darwinists' heads, giving them the impression that the fundies and other critics of evolution are pushovers. These opinion poll results certainly show that such an impression is utterly false -- the Darwinists are the ones who are behind the 8-ball.
Labels: Kitzmiller v. Dover (new #3)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 3/15/2010 03:43:00 PM
9 Comments:
The poll only shows the stupidity of some of those polled. Those who answered #3 probably came from some mental institution.
Jim appears to be looking in the mirror. His post speaks for itself.
My friend Darwin B. Leaver argues that it's stupid to question any notion, such as Darwinism, which is conventional enough to be advocated by TIME magazine. TIME-reader Leaver says:
What's "smart" is what sides with me,
While "stupid's" the opposite, see?
That logic's so strong,
It proves, all along,
I'm the brightest dude that can be!
Creationism has not one a court battle or convinced any accredited science college since the Scopes trial.
Wouldn't you think that if Creationism and it's fake mustache identity of ID were in any way correct you would be able to convince at least one biology department from at least one accredited University somewhere in the world?
>>>>>Creationism has not one (sic) a court battle <<<<<
You Darwinists are not sitting as pretty in the courts as you think you are. The Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1897) is old and is based on the "Lemon test," which is now widely discredited. The Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish decision came within a single vote of getting an en banc (full court) appeals court rehearing and within a single vote of being granted certorari by the Supreme Court, and the judges/justices that dissented from the denials of certiorari and en banc rehearing wrote long dissenting opinions (especially unusual at the Supreme Court level, where denials of certiorari are usually made without comment). Selman v. Cobb County was vacated by the appeals court because of missing evidence and the school board then took a dive by settling the case out of court. There is just the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision by a crackpot activist judge who said that the decision was based on his cockamamie notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions. Kitzmiller has not been challenged by other court cases because legislatures and school boards have found ways to "lawsuit-proof" the teaching of criticisms of evolution in the public schools.
>>>>>> Wouldn't you think that if Creationism and it's fake mustache identity of ID were in any way correct you would be able to convince at least one biology department from at least one accredited University somewhere in the world? <<<<<<<
Biology departments usually do not express a group opinion about evolution.
So, not one single court case supporting Creationsim, Hmm
"Biology departments usually do not express a group opinion about evolution."
Absolutely true. However, they certainly do have a common opinion about Creationism.
Correction -- Edwards v. Aguillard was decided in 1987, not 1897.
You need to do a little more reading regarding court decision against Creationism. Especially if you think Dover and Aquillard are the only two.
a poll in texas, not the most unbiased polling group. I'd like to see the national polling results before you jump to conclusions about a group. No wonder some americans refer to us in Canada as the "godless north" since 59% of our nation believes in evolution.
Post a Comment
<< Home