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

[rocketman]

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.

Obviously I was talking about the yes/no poll graphic. I wasn't commenting on the other polls. But if you insist, they too fail to show that many who don't say yes overall have no problem with the current observations. That is one major reason why there is apparant 'confusion", which is what I was trying to tell you in an earlier post. There is no other way for them to answer, and you wonder why I talk about 'ideas' and 'numbers'.

[I so detest spurious, and unspecified rejections...]

Spurious. Now there's a word I could use to describe the integrity of the image some of these polls convey.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

What "better reasons"?

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.

Please focus; we're talking about evolution. Now: what is this "divergence of scientific opinion" about evolution?

 

[rocketman]

Please focus; we're talking about evolution. Now: what is this "divergence of scientific opinion" about evolution?

I am focused, thanks. The divergence I speak of is with regards to specifics, not the theory in general. What did you think I meant? At any rate, the greater the number of guesses at what really happened in the distant past, the more reasons there are for doubters of ancient evolution to view the standard model with caution. And the further back you go, the more the guesswork multiplies as to the specifics (out of necessity), hence, a multiplicity of opinions, or a divergence if you will.

An interesting book on the 'differences over the details' can be found here.

There are a few divergences that never seem to be fully resolved and adopted by the majority of evolutionists. This one is a classic.

 

[painted wolf]

In every scientific idea there are details that will be faught over.... Physists are still arguing about the finer points of Gravity. This doesn't make Gravity any less believable or understandable.

wa:do

 

[s2a]

rocketman said:

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.

Could you be more specific in defining/detailing those [most compelling] divergent "gaps"...?

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.

I'm a skeptic, born hard and true. Skeptics question claims that present no evidence as support. Evidence of biological evolution is overwhelming. The scientific conclusions drawn from such evidences are both compelling, and reasonable beyond informed doubts.

If you wish to implore skeptics to consider alternative (and/or "better") explanations of the extant evidences, then you bear the burden of providing those more compelling and persuasive explanations. Disbelief or doubt of scientific estimations/conclusions does not serve to either discredit or falsify evidence-based claims of fact. Odd that so many "assumptions" borne of Evolution theory have led to so many predicted discoveries, and "alternate theories" have offered none. Zero. Zippity-do-da.

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.

Please define (or reference) the standard "scientific model" of ""abracadabra abiogenesis" as it relates to Evolution theory. Are you perhaps confusing "cosmological origin" theories with those of "Evolution theory"?

And it gets worse, with the entire evolutionary arc [not just biological] becoming less convincing the further back one travels.

Right. Claims of a cosmos that is but 6000 years old is so much more validated and acceptably compelling, as offered by the currently available evidences...

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.

Ahem. The "God Did It" model is the one that establishes and asserts that "abiogenesis" is the manifestation of "God's Will"...ie. a "Creator" either "spoke" or "willed" the cosmos (and life) into some instantaneous existence, from "nothingness". Where is the source evidence of that claim? How shall we test for that claim? What predictive finds does such a "theory" postulate? What structured hypothesis of prospective invalidation shall we pursue of such a "theory"?

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).

Indeed. I'm still waiting for the discovery of a fossilized human skeleton found within the belly of a fossilized T-Rex.
On that day...BOOM!
Evolution theory utterly discredited/invalidated in one fell swoop!

What proposed hypothesis regarding any "Creation theory" offers a like finding of utter falsification?

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.

OK, I take the bait...

Would you please provide the (or your) "Top Five", "very good questions about what happened in the distant past."?

Let's then evaluate just how probative or confounding those "[top 5] very good questions" stand under further skeptical review.

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.

Special pleading, and irrelevant testimony introduced as accepted evidence of established fact.

"Thinking people" deserve neither more nor less consideration in any compelling estimations of relevant and established/evident facts. "Thinking people" sit on juries, and deliberate upon the evidences, and deliver their verdicts bound upon standards of "reasonable doubt" (either for, or against a specified claim/charge).

If there were compelling extant evidence of a "Creator", then "science" (that monolithic and single-purposed conspiratorial entity that it is) would present that evidence as burdened validation of that "assumption".

Not all arguments are equal, nor are all claims equally legitimate in either superficial estimations, or their subsequently testable merits.

Skeptics do NOT insist or "assume" that any/all explanations are equally merited or plausible. Skeptics operate from conclusions borne of burdened proofs, not of some sense of "fairness"...implying that any/all alternate perspective "deserves" some equivalent consideration--no matter how unfounded, probative, or uncomfortable to bear it may be to adherents of faith-based claims.

I can't help but wonder how much more mankind might discover if it could shed itself entirely of myth, superstition, and theological concepts/explanations of the natural world.

Whimsical claims predominate within the human condition...whether they be entrenched "beliefs" in fairies, ghosts, gods, ESP, or "boogyman" demons. Doubt/denial is not disproof, and ardent belief is not testable evidence.

If I awaken on a winter's morn to a freshly fallen blanket of snow, and observe a lone set of footprints and tire tracks leading to and from my mailbox, I can fairly "assume" that the assigned letter carrier delivered my mail. You are always welcome to question that "assumption", and cast doubt upon my conclusion--but if you wish me to skeptically ponder other alternative explanations...you'd better come up with something more/better than "Maybe god did it!".

Maybe...but why then would god leave either no evidence of an otherwise exceptional existence, or otherwise allow/permit false evidences to suggest an errant supposition and flawed conclusion? Skeptics believe in applying reason as an arbiter of "fair play" arguments; not as a rationale in deeming any/all available explanations/"assumptions" as being equally legitimate or plausible.

 

[rocketman]

Skeptics question claims that present no evidence as support.

From the Heineman Australian dictionary:
sceptic (say skep-tik)
in the United States spelt skeptic
a person who doubts the truth of a claim, theory or belief.
Word Origins: Greek skeptikos thoughtful

Disbelief or doubt of scientific estimations/conclusions does not serve to either discredit or falsify evidence-based claims of fact.

No, but it does qualify one as being a skeptic. And it encourages those who fit the same evidence into a different framework.

Odd that so many "assumptions" borne of Evolution theory have led to so many predicted discoveries, and "alternate theories" have offered none. Zero. Zippity-do-da.

(Way off topic, but hey...) Some of the skeptics predictions have since been found to be scientifically accurate. The rate at which helium diffuses through biotite springs to mind. And here is a good example of new scientific data adding some credibility to an alternate framework. Interesting quote for you: "Natural selection acts to preserve or eliminate traits that are beneficial or harmful, as the creation model would predict." Link. Many of their predictions are based on the same evidence others use. And let's not ignore that the skeptics predicted many failed predictions of the majority view. A few quick examples would include junk dna, homologous genes, the embarrassing big-bang prediction of a deccelerating universal expansion and so on and on.

Please define (or reference) the standard "scientific model" of ""abracadabra abiogenesis" as it relates to Evolution theory. Are you perhaps confusing "cosmological origin" theories with those of "Evolution theory"?

Perhaps you don't keep up with the latest thinking. Selection acts on higher levels of order than just biological mutation. This is a good read.

OK, I take the bait...

You are seriously not paying attention. There is no bait. I implicitly said that I'm not declaring if these people are right or wrong but rather that they have a right to be counted for what they believe and not be misrepresented. (Ok, granted they should abstain from these polls for now). You are wasting your time trying to (re??)educate me as to the undefendability of psuedoscience, especially where it attempts to prove something 'supernatural'. And you are also wasting your time trying to convince me that one cannot be legitimately skeptical of pre-historical evolutionary theory.

The 4 examples I offered demonstrate that reasonable people have reasonable concerns about all aspects of evolutionary theory, which logically inhibits them from declaring a full acceptance of the theory in these polls (my point is that no one rejects all of it, to do so would be to reject their own inherited genetic characteristics). Are these thoughtful people represented in the surveys? Hardly. If their motivation to investigate comes from some kind of wishful thinking, then so what? Motives and facts are two different things. Take a close look at the 4 examples of skeptikos people. Only one of them invokes God, and he does so as an EXTERNAL element. (All cosmologists invoke external, unproven elements). He does not mix it with the known evidence, doesn't try to water down that which has been observed. Think about that. (I expect nothing less from a man in in his occupation). This is the way the larger debate will travel in the future. But again, the specifics of that debate are for a different thread. Hundreds actually.

If there were compelling extant evidence of a "Creator", then "science" (that monolithic and single-purposed conspiratorial entity that it is) would present that evidence as burdened validation of that "assumption".

So where did you get the word conspiratorial from?

Whimsical claims predominate within the human condition...whether they be entrenched "beliefs" in fairies, ghosts, gods, ESP, or "boogyman" demons. Doubt/denial is not disproof, and ardent belief is not testable evidence.

You do realise of-course that the flip-side of your principle/test is that we cannot declare that which is whimsical/untestable to be 'false' just because we might 'doubt' it to be true. Therefore, those who believe in a higher power AND have tough questions about evolution should not be assessed on the former, provided it doesn't contaminate the science of the latter.

Maybe...but why then would god leave either no evidence of an otherwise exceptional existence, or otherwise allow/permit false evidences to suggest an errant supposition and flawed conclusion?

A good question. /giggles. I see you haven't read too much creationist and/or christian literature, lol. You know, by your own principle/test we cannot declare those who DO believe they have (personal) evidence (via experience or whatever) to be wrong until we can prove them wrong, even if we doubt them.

PS: I know it's your thread but how much more off-topic is this going to get??

 

[Haydaman]

What would you do if you're up for re-election and the majority of the people voting are religios, and they found out you're pro-evolution. I think it has more to do with what other people will think, then their own personal motives.

 

[Haydaman]

A good question. /giggles. I see you haven't read too much creationist and/or christian literature, lol. You know, by your own principle/test we cannot declare those who DO believe they have (personal) evidence (via experience or whatever) to be wrong until we can prove them wrong, even if we doubt them.

I shouldn't have to read that literature for proof that God exists. I don't have to read a book on evolution to look at a chimp, and be astounded..and think to myself, either you're wrong, or God ran out of creative juice when creating man and ape. I see my hand, I look at another animals hand. I feel my legs, my hearbeat..I'm sorry but God showing us signs has not come closer since the beginning of mankind, but evolution has made bigger steps in it's own existence then God ever has, or ever will for that matter.

 

[rocketman]

I shouldn't have to read that literature for proof that God exists.

I never said you did. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was pointing out to s2a that the answers to his question about God leaving no clues and/or clues that can possibly be misinterpreted is covered by the most basic tenets of the christian faith that it's laughable that one should even have to address it. [Well, I couldn't help but have a giggle]. If chrsitianity was about a God who chose not to be distant from everyone here and now then we'd all be believers. The bible is full from beginning to end as to why there is no personal relationship with God for all but those whom God has called. It was a point of accuracy about a religion, not a claim of proof either way.

 

[kmkemp]

I shouldn't have to read that literature for proof that God exists. I don't have to read a book on evolution to look at a chimp, and be astounded..and think to myself, either you're wrong, or God ran out of creative juice when creating man and ape. I see my hand, I look at another animals hand. I feel my legs, my hearbeat..I'm sorry but God showing us signs has not come closer since the beginning of mankind, but evolution has made bigger steps in it's own existence then God ever has, or ever will for that matter.

So what reason do you have to believe that God is not behind evolution? I know you will counter with something like "I don't have any evidence that he IS behind evolution", but you seem locked into your own opinion that lacks positive evidence. Why is that? It seems that your position should be more of "I'm not sure".

 

[Yerda]

So what reason do you have to believe that God is not behind evolution?...It seems that your position should be more of "I'm not sure".

True...but there is no reason to believe that it is the case, let alone possible way of demonstrating this evolutionary puppeteering. So it's not merely a false idea, but a nonsensical one.

 

[YmirGF]

Hello, my name is Paul and I am a card carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canadah, eh and I accept evolution as probable fact, eh.

In fact I tend to giggle at the reasoning of those who do not "believe". Their logic is fuzzy to say the least and uninformed at best. I suspect if we listened to the "religious wrong" err religious right then we would likely still be grunting around the campfires.

 

[fantome profane]

So what reason do you have to believe that God is not behind evolution? I know you will counter with something like "I don't have any evidence that he IS behind evolution", but you seem locked into your own opinion that lacks positive evidence. Why is that? It seems that your position should be more of "I'm not sure".

This is a good point. There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that “God” is not behind evolution. In fact there is no way there could even conceivably be any evidence that “God” is not behind evolution. The question of “God” is not really a scientific question.

When we are talking about the evidence of creationism vs. evolution we are not talking about whether or not “God” exists. The evidence for evolution is completely overwhelming. Either evolution occurred with “God” behind it, or evolution occurred without “God”. Either way evolution occurred.

 

[UnityNow101]

Republicans do not want to lose their grip on the Religious "Right", most of whom openly denounce the theory of evolution without questioning their own stance on the issue. I am one that believes that whatever is revealed by science has been revealed by God, in that all that is revealed is revealed through the Will of God. Why do people fail to see that evolution is the process chosen by God? We see that things are in constant change and that the earth is continually renewing itself. I reject the theory of the link between man and ape, as the missing link has yet to be found and never will.

 

[logician]

Religion has always been a hindrance to the furtherance of science, and still is, despite the church's statements to the contrary,

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Though I voted in the poll (I am an Independent, and I reject Evolution theory as probable fact), I found the options a bit limiting. By evolution, does that mean micro- and macro- evolution? Or is it just macro-evolution that the poll is talking about?

 

[Haydaman]

If chrsitianity was about a God who chose not to be distant from everyone here and now then we'd all be believers.

You think a God who wouldn't want his children to suffer, would show some proof? If I created life, I wouldn't want to make my children suffer because they don't believe in me. If I truly am omniscient then I would already know they would reject me, and that they'd be destined for Hell.
How is that a just God?

 

[rocketman]

You think a God who wouldn't want his children to suffer, would show some proof? If I created life, I wouldn't want to make my children suffer because they don't believe in me. If I truly am omniscient then I would already know they would reject me, and that they'd be destined for Hell.
How is that a just God?

Why are we getting so far away from the OP? That's the second time you seem to be arguing something that already has well-known explanations in all of the 'big 3' religions. Why don't you study them? Or better yet, start a new thread if you have so many questions.

 

[s2a]

Hello rocketman,

You offered:

From the Heineman Australian dictionary:
sceptic (say skep-tik)
in the United States spelt skeptic
a person who doubts the truth of a claim, theory or belief.
Word Origins: Greek skeptikos thoughtful

Allow me to extend/expand upon your superficial definition with these other references as well...

"a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it."
Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

"One inclined to skepticism in religious matters."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

"Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found."
--Miguel de Unamuno, "Essays and Soliloquies," 1924
Source: Online Etymology Dictionary,

I said:
Disbelief or doubt of scientific estimations/conclusions does not serve to either discredit or falsify evidence-based claims of fact.

You replied:

No, but it does qualify one as being a skeptic.

Or, maybe just a religious apologist. ;-)

Odd that so many "assumptions" borne of Evolution theory have led to so many predicted discoveries, and "alternate theories" have offered none. Zero. Zippity-do-da.

Some of the skeptics predictions have since been found to be scientifically accurate.

Let's be fair here. Science is skeptical of it's own findings/conclusions. No valid theory is etched in stone. When you say, "some of the skeptics", just whom are we talking about here?

The rate at which helium diffuses through biotite springs to mind. And here is a good example of new scientific data adding some credibility to an alternate framework. Interesting quote for you: "Natural selection acts to preserve or eliminate traits that are beneficial or harmful, as the creation model would predict."

"Creation models" often conveniently cite whatever science "fits", and discount/ignore whatever does not. Elements of coincidence alone do not serve as validation of any given claim or "model".

Many of their predictions are based on the same evidence others use. And let's not ignore that the skeptics predicted many failed predictions of the majority view. A few quick examples would include junk dna, homologous genes, the embarrassing big-bang prediction of a deccelerating universal expansion and so on and on.

Indeed. Good thing that science is both tractable and readily accepting of the best explanations available whenever new/better evidence becomes available. "Creation models" operate from a foregone, and immutable conclusion--"A Creator did IT". ANY "evidences" that serve to contradict that conclusion are (obviously) either flawed or misconstrued/misinterpreted.

I asked:
Please define (or reference) the standard "scientific model" of ""abracadabra abiogenesis" as it relates to Evolution theory. Are you perhaps confusing "cosmological origin" theories with those of "Evolution theory"?

Perhaps you don't keep up with the latest thinking. Selection acts on higher levels of order than just biological mutation. This is a good read.

It is a good read, and I am hardly one to claim any pathfinder breakthroughs or paradigm breaks with contemporary convention. I am but a child of the 60's and 70's, and exposure to any contemporary thinking just frightens me. ;-)

Pssst.You did not provide anything that suggested some scientific model of abiogenesis linked with evolution theory.

There is little doubt that cosmological (extra-planetary) events have shaped/impacted/influenced the course of evolution on this little blue ball...subtly, or dramatically. But let's keep our proper perspective here. Evolution theory does not attempt to explain asteroidal impacts, or the causes related to such circumstances. Simply put, cosmological origin theories can entertain deductive conclusions about where/how the essential elements of life (as we know it) came to "be".
Evolution theory may overlap with cosmological theories, but does not rely upon such suppositions. Evolution describes the observable changes of life itself, but does not suppose to answer it's "origins".

Evolution happens. Evolution is scientific fact. What remains for investigation is to discover just what mechanisms and and influences cause evolution to unfold the way it does.

Food (or fodder) for thought...
"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"

"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."
- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990

You are seriously not paying attention. There is no bait. I implicitly said that I'm not declaring if these people are right or wrong but rather that they have a right to be counted for what they believe and not be misrepresented.

If you won't, I will. People that deny evolution as established (most probable) scientific fact are plain wrong.
*whew* I feel better already...;-)

The poll I offered was not intended to "misrepresent" any particular view. If non-respondents prefer to cherry-pick Evolution theory ("I'll buy that one part...but that other part conflicts with my deeply held convictions..."), but that's only begging the larger question.

You are wasting your time trying to (re??)educate me as to the undefendability of psuedoscience, especially where it attempts to prove something 'supernatural'.

This was not my intent, nor interest.

And you are also wasting your time trying to convince me that one cannot be legitimately skeptical of pre-historical evolutionary theory.

I'll need some clarification on that usage.

"Historic and historical have different usages, though their senses overlap. Historic refers to what is important in history: the historic first voyage to the moon. It is also used of what is famous or interesting because of its association with persons or events in history: a historic house. Historical refers to whatever existed in the past, whether regarded as important or not: a minor historical character. Historical also refers to anything concerned with history or the study of the past: a historical novel; historical discoveries. While these distinctions are useful, these words are often used interchangeably, as in historic times or historical times."
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

historical
"...of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research"
"...having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief"
"...used of the study of a phenomenon (especially language) as it changes through time"
Sources: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1); WordNet® 3.0, © 2006

One may certainly "doubt" the conclusions of evolutionary theory. I would but inquire of a "skeptic" of "pre-historical evolutionary theory" upon what evidences/sources do they primarily premise their doubts? Is it due to a lack of some declarative 100% certitude on the part of science itself? Is it due to some "new evidence" that "raises questions", but does not serve to alter or invalidate standing conclusions? Or is it something else?

The 4 examples I offered demonstrate that reasonable people have reasonable concerns about all aspects of evolutionary theory, which logically inhibits them from declaring a full acceptance of the theory in these polls (my point is that no one rejects all of it, to do so would be to reject their own inherited genetic characteristics).

Even reasonable people can be wrong. ;-)

 

[s2a]

Are these thoughtful people represented in the surveys? Hardly. If their motivation to investigate comes from some kind of wishful thinking, then so what?

Problem is, most people that are motivated by wishful thinking are rarely moved to investigate things they don't like, or otherwise contend with their most comforting notions.

So what? Wishful thinking is a poor investigative methodology.

Motives and facts are two different things.

Yes, they are...

I opined:
If there were compelling extant evidence of a "Creator", then "science" (that monolithic and single-purposed conspiratorial entity that it is) would present that evidence as burdened validation of that "assumption".

So where did you get the word conspiratorial from?

Here's one source (just for comic relief):
"Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine"

Some others, most earnest:
"Most scientists are non-regenerate if not anti-God.""
"Modern evolutionary astronomers and cosmologists have thus ruled out the idea of a personal, omnipotent, omniscient God as Creator of the universe...
"With the rise of evolution and naturalism, 'science' has become the enemy of Christianity, but true science 'declares the glory of God' (Psalm 19:1). ICR desires to return science to its proper, God-glorifying, position."
-Dr. Henry Morris, ICR founder

"The atheist belief structure is the norm in science . . . The fact is that the majority of leading evolutionists are atheists, or at best nontheists for whom God is irrelevant to their daily lives and their views about the natural world and the universe."
- Jerry Bergman, ICR

"I view this whole battle (creation v evolution) as one between God and anti-God forces."
--Paul Ellwanger (Deposition, McLean v Arkansas, 1981

That's just for ice-breaking fun...I gots lots more...;-)

Whimsical claims predominate within the human condition...whether they be entrenched "beliefs" in fairies, ghosts, gods, ESP, or "boogyman" demons. Doubt/denial is not disproof, and ardent belief is not testable evidence.

You do realise of-course that the flip-side of your principle/test is that we cannot declare that which is whimsical/untestable to be 'false' just because we might 'doubt' it to be true.

Indeed. That is where scientific methodology and burdened proofs are permitted to illustrate distinctions between fanciful claims/beliefs, and reasoned deductions predicated upon testable facts.

You may claim that there is an invisible elephant sitting in my living room. I say, "OK, convince me of the validity of your claim". If you then say, "Well, I can't really 'prove it', but it still might be true anyway since you can't disprove it."...

Fair enough, but there's no deductively compelling reason for me to conclude that the claim is true, or even likely to be so. My doubt is predicted primarily upon your inability to produce any evidence in support of your claim. To say, "I have my doubts about evolution (theory)" is to necessarily confront, then better explain--the crushed furniture, emptied peanut shells, trumpeting sounds, sizable piles of elephant droppings, lovely odor, and elephant foot-like impressions left on the living-room carpet--as being something other than an invisible resident elephant.

Therefore, those who believe in a higher power AND have tough questions about evolution should not be assessed on the former, provided it doesn't contaminate the science of the latter.

Indeed (though not my assertion to begin with). But "tough questions" should prevail on their own merits, and not be predicate to any beliefs in "higher powers". I would only note the obvious in saying that that are a great many "believers" of/in "higher powers/authories" that fully accept evolution theory as most probable fact. The question rests primarily in what beliefs lend themselves most to reasonable doubts of scientific fact?

I asked:
Maybe...but why then would god leave either no evidence of an otherwise exceptional existence, or otherwise allow/permit false evidences to suggest an errant supposition and flawed conclusion?

A good question. /giggles. I see you haven't read too much creationist and/or christian literature, lol.

It was a rhetorical question. As you may now fairly surmise, I have (painfully) read a great deal of works attributed as "scientific creationism", and other similar bunk.

You know, by your own principle/test we cannot declare those who DO believe they have (personal) evidence (via experience or whatever) to be wrong until we can prove them wrong, even if we doubt them.

Perhaps, but faith is not any sort of empirical evidence that can be fairly tested or measured objectively. Of what value or benefit is a capacity for reason, critical thinking, or deductive conclusions...if mere doubt alone (any doubt) was the benchmark of reasonably acceptable fact or burdened proofs?

Does the fact that, while god-beliefs persist in our society--and no "categorical disproofs" of any claimed/believed god/deity are universally established--that in criminal justice proceedings, "God made me murder that guy!" is not a valid defense in any established exoneration (or an invalidation of incriminating evidence) beyond a "reasonable doubt"?

I remain of the opinion that the wording of the poll as initially offered fairly allows for personalized (faith-based or not) doubts regarding acceptance of of evolution theory as probable scientific fact. There is no way to fairly encompass every introduced caveat/stipulation imaginable in outling the broader supposition.

Example:
When the general population is polled, and the question is put: "Do you approve/disapprove of the job performance of the President?"

Sure you could beg off and say, "Well, I kinda like this about Him, but I don't like that thing/aspect, so...it's not a completely fair question...therefore, I won't answer, 'cos I don't want to be misrepresented in my views".

Fine. But when you have a busted toilet, all you really want is a competent plumber, and a satisfactorily repaired crapper. What was the end result? Does it really matter if the plumber was ugly, smelled bad, or wore no underwear?

"Good job?"
"Bad job?"

I fail to see how one must "compromise" their overall estimations (or personal integrity) of a lent conclusion just because certain "unpleasant" details linger from the wording itself.

Here are some "yes/no" poll questions which may seem alike (and often mistakenly interchanged), but are not (with my answer in parens):
"Do you believe in Evolution?" (No. Heck, I must be some right-wing Republican!)
"Do you accept Evolution theory as probable fact?" (yes)

"I believe Evolution theory explains the origins of all life." (no)
"I believe Evolution theory best explains the origins of man." (yes)

"I believe Big Bang theories explain the origin of man." (no)
"I believe Big Bang theories explain the origin of the cosmos." (yes)

"I believe Evolution only exists within a closed system of cause/effect events" (no)
"I believe Evolution is affected by an open system subject to external (and random) effects" (yes)

Yes, how the question is framed, and how it is worded...matters.

And...Dubya is doing a really lousy job as President...no matter how the question is asked. ;-)