rocketman said:
There is another factor at work. Times have changed. These days most of the people who say 'no' in these kind of polls actually do believe in contemporary evoultionary events, just not prehistoric ones that no one witnessed.
Then they don't understand what constitutes (or is required by) an established and qualified scientific "theory".
Of course, one of the major failings of this sort of rationalization lies in characterizing scientific methods/principles/theories as being either "
believable", or "
unbelievable".
Let's say that a man claims himself to stand 5' 7" tall,
exactly (in bare feet). Let's then say that one hundred people are chosen to measure the height of the claimant with a standardized rule (a certified measuring stick) that all agree is
precisely accurate. If 99 of those 100 people
confirm the claimant's height as being
exactly 5' 7", is there any need to simply "
believe" (leave to unearned trust, or "faith") the subsequently validated claim as being factually "
true"?
Wouldn't it be
better to say that, predicated upon all of the objectively obtained data, that you could
accept the claim of exactingly measured height as being
probable fact?
Is is
more reasonable to "
disbelieve" the claim as "
unproven" instead, simply as a matter of some undefined doubting faith or lacking trust in/of the claimant themselves? Which element of such a specified claim deserves more weight in estimations of credibility, or credulity? The claimant (as a person), or the collective data that serves to either support/invalidate the claim itself?
Even a compulsive
liar may occasionally say/claim something that is considered "
true", but on the whole, that
liar is
generally not to be "
believed" (heck, even a broken clock is precisely accurate twice a day). Compare and contrast that individual liar with 100,000 or more objective claimants that agree on a specified claim, and have mountains of conformational experimental data as provided support to validate their conclusions. There is no
one person or claimant to doubt regarding questions of individual credibility, or broader evaluations of earned trust of someone's personal character. There is no requisite call to either "
believe" or "
disbelieve" the
source of the claim themselves: you either
accept that the provided supportive data/evidences/conclusions illustrate a probable fact...or you
do not accept them as providing such.
In the case of something as compelling, case-burdened, and scientifically accepted (as fact) as Evolution theory, it is incumbent upon the doubters (
unbelievers?) to either discredit/invalidate the repeated objective validations/evidences; discredit/invalidate the employed methodologies involved; or, present a more compelling and credible explanation/theory predicated upon the
very same currently available data. In other words, what alternate/divergent
scientific theory (other than present Evolution models) presents a
more compelling explanation of the fossil record, while incorporating the other scientific disciplines whilst concomitantly employing/utilizing the "
accepted" theories of geology, chemistry, cosmology, physics, mathematics, and..,
ahem...biology?
Polls like this make some people seem dumber than they are. I don't think 'yes or no' questions cut it any more. Isn't it about time pollsters found a better question, or a third option?
If you had taken the time to follow (and then read) the included [clickable] links offered in my OP, you might have discovered that many alternate "
questions", and "
third options" have been indulged in similar polls.
and...
What I mean is that for many people neither a strict yes or no answer is accurate. This is true of most modern creationists who don't have a problem with genetics, minor speciation etc etc. Many say no because they don't want to endorse the whole theory, and some go further and don't answer at all. Those who do say 'no' but don't fully mean it are 'counted' as ignorant and unscientific, because they have in effect just said they don't believe in any evolution at all, even the stuff we see going on around us.
OK...just to be
clear here..."
ignorant" means "
lacking knowledge or awareness in general"; not a suggestion that someone that is "
stupid". It's probably fair to say that the majority of the US populace can be regarded as largely "
unscientific" regarding their understandings of modern technology, biology, math, physics, etc.
Just for fun, is there any valid reason to suppose that many/most Americans are
ignorant of what Evolution theory
actually presents/concludes?
Hmmmm....
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2163
The silly thing is that many science-minded folk get a giggle out of how 'flat-earth' the thinking of these people 'must be', and all the while the unscientific poll has given them false numbers and a wrong idea.
The poll I have presented is unquestionably "
unscientific". Are you referring to another (referenced) poll instead? If so, specifically
which one, and what is
your presented
invalidation of their methodology/results? What "
false numbers" and "
wrong ideas" do these specified "
illegitimate" polls present...
specifically?
[I so detest spurious, and unspecified rejections...]
For that matter, what "
wrong ideas" or "f
alse numbers" does
my poll present?