Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible, Editor & Publisher, March 08, 2006 ... NEW YORK A Gallup report released today reveals that more than half of all Americans, rejecting evolution theory and scientific evidence, agree with the statement, "God created man exactly how Bible describes it." Another 31% says that man did evolve, but "God guided." Only 12% back evolution and say "God had no part." Gallup summarized it this way: "Surveys repeatedly show that a substantial portion of Americans do not believe that the theory of evolution best explains where life came from." They are "not so quick to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence." The report was written by the director of The Gallup Poll, Frank Newport. ... Newport wraps it up: "Several characteristics correlate with belief in the biblical explanation for the origin of humans. Those with lower levels of education, those who attend church regularly, those who are 65 and older, and those who identify with the Republican Party are more likely to believe that God created humans 'as is,' than are those who do not share these characteristics." Gallup has asked this question, in different forms, going back to 1982, but has consistently shown support at 45% or higher for the notion that "God created man in present form." The most recent poll, last September, posed the question this way: "Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings." This produced the 53% who chose "God created man exactly how Bible describes it," the 31% who said man did evolve but "God guided," and the 12% who backed evolution with God playing "no part." ... [The first alternative, "God created man exactly how Bible describes it" is ambiguous, and the 53% would include Old Earth/Progressive Creationists who don't like the other two alternatives. Newport is correct that "Only 12% back evolution," since "God guided" evolution is "not evolution at all", as Darwin, Dawkins and the scientific community understand "evolution" to mean, "God had no part":
"Darwin wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," W.W. Norton: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249. Emphasis Dawkins')
Therefore, those who reject evolution (in that all-important "standard scientific theory" sense):
"In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that `the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.' Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)
are the vast majority totalling 84%!]
Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"
"Admitting, then, organic and other evolution, and that new forms of animals and plants (new species, genera, etc.) have from time to time been evolved from preceding animals and plants, it follows, if the views here advocated are true, that this evolution has not taken place by the action of `Natural Selection' alone, but through it (amongst other influences) aided by the concurrent action of some other natural law or laws, at present undiscovered. It is probable also that the genesis of species takes place partly, perhaps mainly, through laws which may be most conveniently spoken of as special powers and tendencies existing in each organism; and partly through influences exerted on each such organism by surrounding conditions and agencies organic and inorganic, terrestrial and cosmical, among which the `survival of the fittest' plays a certain but subordinate part." (Mivart S.J., "On the Genesis of Species," Macmillan & Co: London & New York , Second edition, 1871, p.23. Emphasis original)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment