• 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

Blindinglight

Disciple of Chaos
By this statistic, we can conclude that 70% of Republicans are blind fools who reject scientific and archeological evidence to support evolution.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hi lilithu,

You quoted me...
"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.

...then you said:
Meaning that 70% believe that the universe was created in six days?? bleh... How many Republicans are there?

Well, let's see if we can figure that one out.

According to the US Census Bureau (c. 2004), there were 202,746,417 American citizens of legal age (and eligibility) to vote.

The current estimated number (by percentage) of self-identified Republicans stands at 31% of any/all/none party-affiliated voters. 31% of of that total equates to (appx.) 62,851,389 self-identified Republicans.

If we apply the Gallup poll results that reflect a 68% disbelief (of Evolution theory) amongst Republicans, we are left to conclude that 42,738,944 of Republicans believe in "Creationism, that is, the idea that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Bottom line: If you believe the above statement/sentiment to be true, then you do not accept Evolution theory as probable fact.

I agree with rocketman and CX. In having taken polls and being confronted with choices, none of which state exactly what I believe or feel and more than one of which state some part of it, sometimes I choose the one that best fits. Sometimes I choose both. Sometimes I choose neither. Either "both" or "neither" could lead to weird poll results.

Sure. I've been there too, especially when "push" polls engage in leading questions focused upon gleaning foregone/assumptive conclusions (ie, "Do you believe it was wrong for John McCain to father an illegitimate mixed-race child as consequence of an adulterous relationship?"); or facile polls that seek to reduce complex issues/concerns to "black/white" delineations ("Do you believe in God?"; "Do you support 'socialized medicine'"?; "Is abortion murder?"; "Is Global Warming real?", etc.).

I have no doubt that the majority of Americans do not fully understand evolutionary theory.

Neither do I, but a clear majority think they do...

We still routinely on RF get the poster who thinks he can disprove evolution by pointing out that monkeys still exist. But I think that most people understand that evolutionary theory says that all species evolved over a long period of time through changes in pre-existing species, rather than being created de novo.

I think the polling results speak for themselves...

My guess in this situation is that they are choosing to listen to only one part of each scenario. So they're basically saying "yes, I believe in evolution but God guided it." And I think they just don't care that much about the time frame in which it happened. "It was a really long time."

But, if that is the crutch, or the couched argument in deliberative response... it is moot.

Evolution theory neither addresses nor investigates any claimed supernaturalistic influences/causes regarding naturalistic evolutionary outcomes. None. Theistic belief (or lack thereof) is not a factor in either acceptance or rejection of Evolution theory as being probable fact. Science neither disproves, nor relies upon, any faith-based claims of deities, "creators", or "first-cause agents" as support of evidentiary conclusions.

Beliefs that insist that "Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years", are not borne out by any credible evidences or scientific discoveries of any kind whatsoever. None. As Al Gore might quip, such is the "Inconvenient Truth" of Evolution theory. One may fairly believe/claim that "God guided evolution", and I dare say that any evidential/testable proofs of such a belief would be readily examined upon it's merits by tens of thousands of objective scientists/skeptics.

As our species seems uniquely "evolved" to employ reason/critical thought to evaluate and dissect the meaningful nuances between "faith" and (estimable) "fact", we alone must bear the responsibility/consequences of both our discoveries and reasoned conclusions.

I don't mind that many believe that "God did it"; what bugs me is that many more can not (or will not) accept the very possible/probable fact that an observable, natural existence does not require any "God" as a "most likely" explanation for the cosmos. Creation myths only delve within the "why (and to a much lesser, utterly untestable degree of how)" of an existent cosmos, or life, "came to be". But then, we're really talking about "cosmological origin theories", not any theory of Evolution.

I'll concede that the OP poll does not seek to either validate or discredit any faith-based beliefs, nor does it promote any particular political viewpoint/perspective.

Evolution theory does not present any favored religious ideals. perspectives, or opinions. Either one accepts the factual foundations/conclusions of Evolution theory as being most probably true, or one does not.

Our planet orbits around a local star, which we call "the Sun". This "fact" is not predicated upon any faith-based belief, nor doctrinal claim. Yet, this scientifically-derived conclusion is primarily predicated upon a scientific "theory", which few informed people would seriously doubt or reject as being "false", or "doubtful, or "questionable". Ironically, science presents many more solidly concrete evidences of Evolution than of any cosmological origins theories, yet Evolution remains the more tenuous and controversial evidence-based conclusion?

I can only wonder why...
 
"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

If the above is true i for one welcome the fact that the chinese are starting to take over things.
I just hope its not contagious.
In britain belief in creationism is very rare, but then i think its safe to say we are not as religious a country.
The american comedian Bill Hicks hit the nail on the head where these nut jobs are concerned.
 

Blindinglight

Disciple of Chaos
Well I certainly believe the earth is young so I I guess I am YEC.
Why? There is much proof that shows a young earth is impossible. There have been human artifacts that are abit older than 70,000 years old found. Along with the fossil records, fossil fuels, and other things show a young earth to be a theory based on falicy.
 
Why? There is much proof that shows a young earth is impossible. There have been human artifacts that are abit older than 70,000 years old found. Along with the fossil records, fossil fuels, and other things show a young earth to be a theory based on falicy.
Bravo mate.
Though with the type of person you trying to persuade you probably better off banging your head against a real brick wall.
Science and fact are not in there sphere of interest.
a frubal for trying though
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
If the above is true i for one welcome the fact that the chinese are starting to take over things.
I just hope its not contagious.
In britain belief in creationism is very rare, but then i think its safe to say we are not as religious a country.
The american comedian Bill Hicks hit the nail on the head where these nut jobs are concerned.

1) I do not welcome any prospects of China "taking over things", and here's why:
China mandates atheism as an authoritarian, statist view.

Liberty - "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views"

Religion is bunk...but only mankind's inalienable liberties, and the right to freely think for ourselves will eventually overcome our species' proclivities in embracing superstition, supernaturalism, and theistic claims/beliefs as the preferred examination/explanation of cause/effect outcomes/circumstances that yet elude contemporary scientific understanding/naturalistic explanation.

2) I do not consider YEC's or other "creationists" to be "nut jobs". Fear and ignorance are far more influential factors upon the human psyche, and it's not "crazy" to hope that one's personal existence (ultimately) serves a "greater", or more lasting "purpose".

Think about it. How puny, how insignificant, how inconsequential is our impact upon the cosmos as a whole? One stray comet or asteroid, and--*poof*--humankind is but another unrecorded footnote in the unrepentant and inexorable course of the emotionless cosmos.

Our species (Homo sapiens sapiens) has been kicking around for perhaps 250k years or so (or 1.82482e-05 of cosmological time), and assuming an average human life-span of 75 years for a present-day person, each individual existence equates to but 5.4745e-09 of cosmological time (over 13.7 billion years). Put another way, if we were to equate the age of the cosmos to one 24 hour earth day, one person's entire life span would amount to 0.000007884 sec. of cosmological time. Quite literally, much less time than a blink of an eye. That's a pretty sobering thought, no matter what your philosophical perspective upon your own existence might entail or suggest...

I do not consider someone that buys a Powerball lottery ticket to be a "nut job", just because they retain a hope that they might purchase a (the) winning ticket. That's the hope of every lottery ticket holder. What might be qualified as "crazy" is the rare ticket holder that claims/knows that they possess the only winning combination of numbers that promise their just rewards...and that any other resulting combination of winning numbers must be a conspiracy to deny those just rewards to the "true winner".
Any "alternate outcomes/options" must therefore be false, unfairly manipulated, or untrue.

It's never "crazy" to hope for fortuitous outcomes. After all, it's only...human...

But denial (especially of probable/statistical realities)...ain't just a river in Africa...and the cosmos is not in the habit of evincing any predictable rewards/punishments for such earnest hopes; only ambivalent consequences.
 

kmkemp

Active Member
Why? There is much proof that shows a young earth is impossible. There have been human artifacts that are abit older than 70,000 years old found. Along with the fossil records, fossil fuels, and other things show a young earth to be a theory based on falicy.

Ummm, a young earth is only impossible if you assume everything was created in a simple, original state.
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
Why? There is much proof that shows a young earth is impossible. There have been human artifacts that are abit older than 70,000 years old found. Along with the fossil records, fossil fuels, and other things show a young earth to be a theory based on falicy.

Who says they are that old? There are assumptions made when things are dated. There is also evidence that the earth cannot be very old at all, but it is ignored.
 
1) I do not welcome any prospects of China "taking over things", and here's why:
China mandates atheism as an authoritarian, statist view.

Liberty - "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views"

Religion is bunk...but only mankind's inalienable liberties, and the right to freely think for ourselves will eventually overcome our species' proclivities in embracing superstition, supernaturalism, and theistic claims/beliefs as the preferred examination/explanation of cause/effect outcomes/circumstances that yet elude contemporary scientific understanding/naturalistic explanation.

2) I do not consider YEC's or other "creationists" to be "nut jobs". Fear and ignorance are far more influential factors upon the human psyche, and it's not "crazy" to hope that one's personal existence (ultimately) serves a "greater", or more lasting "purpose".

Think about it. How puny, how insignificant, how inconsequential is our impact upon the cosmos as a whole? One stray comet or asteroid, and--*poof*--humankind is but another unrecorded footnote in the unrepentant and inexorable course of the emotionless cosmos

maybe nut jobs isnt the right english, but its laughable to take these people seriously, as for china no country is perfect and it will be a good twenty years before they form joint superpowerdom with the russians but that is what the future hold as far as the present course of things is growing.
America and the EEC are going to be more and more reduced as time goes on.
China has its problems mainly stemming from a communist past but thats changing very very fast, maybe too fast.
In twenty to twenty five years they will take over leadership in world affairs and personally i think they will make a better job of it than we have in the west.
Britain had its turn, Americas having its turn and next its Chinas turn it should be pretty interesting to witness should i live that long.

As for the young earth notion ive yet to see, hear or read a credible peice of evidence to support this.
A bit like weapons of mass destruction in iraq
 
Who says they are that old? There are assumptions made when things are dated. There is also evidence that the earth cannot be very old at all, but it is ignored.

Whats your science background?
There are margins for error it is true but the length of time the earth has been around is perfectly proven to be many thousands of times that of what the young earth brigade claim.
Im not trying to offend anyone but im afraid the Bibles wrong on this one.
Maybe its right and i am doomed to hell but as far as the age of the earth its wrong
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
Whats your science background?
None at all - but i can read and understand.

There are margins for error it is true but the length of time the earth has been around is perfectly proven to be many thousands of times that of what the young earth brigade claim.
The assumption is made that the enviorment on earth has always been similar but we believe that pre-flood earth had a very different enviroment which would effect the carbon dating of anything pre-flood - or so the scientists (young earth) say.
 

UnTheist

Well-Known Member
The assumption is made that the enviorment on earth has always been similar but we believe that pre-flood earth had a very different enviroment which would effect the carbon dating of anything pre-flood - or so the scientists (young earth) say.
The problem with that is you can't affect the nuclei of the radioactive elements. It is relatively constant no matter what you do to it.

The creationists saying the atomic "clock" has been altered just like to make up claims and have no evidence supporting their claims.
 
None at all - but i can read and understand.


The assumption is made that the enviorment on earth has always been similar but we believe that pre-flood earth had a very different enviroment which would effect the carbon dating of anything pre-flood - or so the scientists (young earth) say.

I do not deny there could been a flood at one time or other in noahs day but theres no evidence that it was a world wide occurance.
Geo science is very advanced these days and it would have been noticed.
If the science was there i would happily agree with the young earth theory but it just isnt.
And if god told noah to take two of everything why leave out the dinosaurs as they must surely have been about during his day if the young earth theory is correct.
I suspect it was a regional flood and nothing more.
If there was a world wide flood the soil core samples would tell us.
The pure science of a young earth just doesnt exist.
My only deity in this world is science and if science says no its a no.
 

Blindinglight

Disciple of Chaos
Who says they are that old? There are assumptions made when things are dated. There is also evidence that the earth cannot be very old at all, but it is ignored.
Carbon dating, and other forms of half life dating have proven the earth is much older than 6000 - 10000 years old. There is not an ounce of evidence to support a young earth theory.
 

s2a

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Update... (of a sort)

"Alabama and Mississippi Republicans don't believe in evolution ... but do believe Obama is a Muslim.."

Source

Source

*sigh*
 
Top