• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gallup poll: "7 in 10 Republicans Don't Believe in Evolution"

What is your presenent political affiliation, and what is your stance?


  • Total voters
    88

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
"The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain. Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.
The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend. That Republicans tend to be frequent churchgoers helps explain their doubts about evolution.
The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago."

pr070611ii.gif


Source: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847

And more bad news...
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm
 

rocketman

Out there...
The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago."

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. 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?
 

CaptainXeroid

Following Christ
...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?
I concur 100%, and that's why I'm not voting in this poll.:D The 'black and white' choices do not line up with my political affiliation nor belief about the theory of evolution.:sorry1: Maybe next poll.
 

Mercy Not Sacrifice

Well-Known Member
"The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain. Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.
The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend. That Republicans tend to be frequent churchgoers helps explain their doubts about evolution.
The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago."

pr070611ii.gif


Source: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847

And more bad news...
http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

Doesn't surprise me in the least. People who choose to not understand what evolution is, tend to have a much more difficult time accepting it.

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. 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?

What exactly do you mean by this?
 

Random

Well-Known Member
Given that I am skeptical about Evolution as it is currently understood and presented, and the fact that I despise politics in general, I found the option I choose above the least limiting one. The emphasis should be on "probable", thankfully not "incontrovertible"...
 

Kungfuzed

Student Nurse
I'm registered as a Republican and fully accept evolution as fact. It's as obvious to me as gravity. It's in every living thing I see.

I haven't really explored politics much and never really cared to. It's just a big popularity contest anyway. None of the political parties seem to be on my side. What I'm saying is that I'm not really sure if I'm a real Republican. I can't seem to find out what a Republican is supposed to be since no two seem to have all the same beliefs and I get a different story from each person I talk to. But my parents are Republican so I'll just stick with it until something better comes along.
 
I voted for the option of "I am a Republican, and I reject Evolution theory as probable fact."

That is only because I reject the concept of macro evolution and one common ancestor, micro evolution(adaptation) is an observable fact.
 

rocketman

Out there...
What exactly do you mean by this?

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. 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.
 

rocketman

Out there...
Don't blame the poll.

Look at CaptainXeroid's post and fascist_crusaders's post. It's not a simple yes/no issue for most of us who wouldn't automatically say 'yes', and the approaches reflect the complexity of different peoples levels of acceptance. As I mentioned just now in the post above, many say no because they don't want to endorse the whole theory.

The bulk of the 'no' crowd have few problems with recent evolution, just problems with the really old stuff, and the further back you go, the better are the reasons they have to be skeptical. That kind of healthy logical skepticism is not represented in the survey. The survey fails to show the common ground and reinforces a black and white stereotyping effect that hardly does the debate any good imho.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
The bulk of the 'no' crowd have few problems with recent evolution, just problems with the really old stuff, and the further back you go, the better are the reasons they have to be skeptical.
imho.


What is supposed to have happened between now and the "old stuff" For the rules of belief to have changed.

We are never likely to fill in the all the gaps in pre history ( that is why it is called pre historic) But gaps do not change the established principal.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Look at CaptainXeroid's post and fascist_crusaders's post. It's not a simple yes/no issue for most of us
It is what it is. People are quick to blame a poll for making them look "stupid". The poll will reveal either the stupidity or the intellect of those who take it. It's a two edged sword, but it's NOT the poll's fault for how you appear.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
the truth is that there are three answers.. yes, no, and abstain.
If you don't agree with either answer, don't answer. If you answer no: but, and people don't get to see your "but" don't complain if it makes you look silly. IMHO

wa:do
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
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 "false numbers" does my poll present?
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Captain Xeroid said:

I concur 100%, and that's why I'm not voting in this poll. The 'black and white' choices do not line up with my political affiliation nor belief about the theory of evolution. Maybe next poll.
Unfortunate. Here, lain before you, was your opportunity to rise above stultifying "black and white" opinion polls, and lend your own informed perspectives as to why/how neither your particular political affiliation nor "beliefs" were fairly represented. I invite you to reword the current "black and white worded" poll of this thread, to better suit/satisfy your standards of properly "greyed" acceptability/applicability.

If the poll had instead inquired/inserted [of] "Gravitation theory" (or Relativity theory) in the (otherwise) same polled wording, would you have yet insisted upon more qualified "beliefs" distinctions, or areas of "grey"? If so, how so?

[FWIW, Evolution theory is more scientifically "sound" as accepted fact than present "Gravitation theories" (no kidding). Yet, there seems to be a lack of credible [audible?] doubts or presented "alternatives" to present Gravitation theories in our schools and science classrooms. Why do you suppose that is true? No one today can [directly] "observe" the effects and outcomes of our planet's gravity that occurred 6000 years ago; 100,000 years ago; or 100 million years ago. Is it unreasonable to accept that gravitational effects "existed" 1 billion years ago, even though they have never been observed firsthand?]
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
fascist_crusader said:

I voted for the option of "I am a Republican, and I reject Evolution theory as probable fact."

That is only because I reject the concept of macro evolution and one common ancestor, micro evolution(adaptation) is an observable fact.

Cool!!!

Do you have a particular/specific illustrative point of evidence/fact that you regularly cite as support of your validated rejection of macro evolution?

Science loves utter repudiations/invalidations of accepted fact-laden theories (no really, it does!).
I know that I would enjoy reading/evaluating any empirically supported/tested/validated scientific results/conclusions that would explain the available contemporary data in a better way, while serving to disprove (and not just "question") the current prevalent theories.
 

rocketman

Out there...
What "better reasons"?

What is supposed to have happened between now and the "old stuff" For the rules of belief to have changed.

We are never likely to fill in the all the gaps in pre history ( that is why it is called pre historic) But gaps do not change the established principal.
This is somewhat off-topic topic so I'll try to be brief. The further back in time one looks the greater the divergence of scientific opinion and the more gaps there are in the knowledge base. This is to be expected of-course. If we apply the idea that a common principle will hold it all together then we have to be honest and admit that we are making assumptions along the way, which is fine, but this also adds to the level of skepticism. The standard models' "abracadabra" moments like abiogenesis are as far-fetched to creationsists as their belief in a God is to many atheists, and rightly so. And it gets worse, with the entire evolutionary arc [not just biological] becoming less convincing the further back one travels.

It's not that the weakness of the abiogenesis idea or the flimsiness of the cosmological model or even the currently unknown finite limits of mutation itself that lend any magic bullet to a creationist argument, but rather that these 'assumed areas' encourage skeptics to evaluate the evidence through a different lens. Everyone uses a framework of some kind. Keep in mind that the skeptics have accepted the same evidence but interpreted it into a different framework. And frankly, where there are holes or differences of opinion or assumptions in the standard model then they are well entitled to do so. Like any scientific theory, if one part of it turns out to be wrong, then the entire fit may be wrong (however unlikely that would be).

Back on topic: The outmoded survey simply doesn't cover the largest and fastest growing group of non-evolutionists(?), that is, those who don't deny what's happening now but have very good questions about what happened in the distant past.

As I read the ideas of people who have those questions, such as outlined in the randomly selected links below, I can't help but wonder how much more we could discover if we were less inclined to stereotype and more inclined to sit together and talk. (I'm not saying they are right or wrong but it should be obvious that they are not behaving in an ignorant fashion). I reckon these thinking people deserve better representation and less stereotyping, that's all.

1 2 3 4
 

rocketman

Out there...
It is what it is. People are quick to blame a poll for making them look "stupid". The poll will reveal either the stupidity or the intellect of those who take it. It's a two edged sword, but it's NOT the poll's fault for how you appear.
You're right. Those who say no but don't mean it probably should abstain, as Painted Wolf suggests. Maybe I should blame them? Still, it'd be nice to have a poll that covers reality....
 
Top