September 8, 2005
IF EVERYONE THINKS WE'RE WRONG THEY MUST BE:
Evolution & Intelligent Design: Understanding Public Opinion (Matthew C. Nisbet and Erik C. Nisbet, September 2005, GeoTimes)
Across several surveys, Gallup has measured the public’s beliefs specific to the view that humans developed over millions of years with no role played by God, the “theistic evolutionist” view that humans developed over millions of years with God guiding the process, or the creationist view that God created humans pretty much in their present form at some time in the last 10,000 years.When Gallup first asked the public in 1982 about their views on the matter, 38 percent indicated they believed in the creationist explanation, 33 percent believed in the theistic evolutionist explanation, and 9 percent chose the “no God” account. Beliefs changed slightly over the next 10 years, trending toward the creationist explanation. In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47 percent chose the creationist explanation, compared to 40 percent for the theistic view, and 9 percent for the “no God” account. Gallup administered the question again in November 2004, showing beliefs changed little, as 45 percent chose the creationist explanation, 38 percent the theistic evolutionist account, and 13 percent the “no God” explanation. A December 2004 Newsweek poll replicates the most recent Gallup result within the margin of error.
A public divided on the role of God in evolution would not be surprising, given that a 1997 survey of U.S. scientists finds that only 55 percent subscribe to the idea that humans developed with no role played by God, compared to 40 percent who agree with the theistic evolutionist account. What is surprising, however, is the increase over the past two decades in public support for the creationist viewpoint, with Young Earth creationist beliefs reaching near-majority levels.
Although it might be difficult for some scientists to imagine even posing the question, polls indicate that when queried generally about the possibility of teaching creationism instead of evolutionary theory, only a slight majority of the public opposes such a move. If asked generally about teaching both creationism and evolutionary theory in public schools, the public is also remarkably consistent in favoring both.
It's always fun when these folks claim that if their opponents only understood the science better they'd agree with Darwinism, when, in fact, most of us were taught hoaxes as fact when we were in school--Haeckel's embryos, Peppered Moths, speciated finches, and the like--and we rejected it even when supported by such manufactured evidence. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 8, 2005 6:47 AM
OJ - you are really funny....
PUT A PSEUDONYM OR DON'T POST.
Posted by: at September 8, 2005 2:05 PMIMO, most people of faith continue to reject evolutionary theory because its loudest proponents make wildly unscientific claims on its behalf. A religious person is inherently good at identifying when another person (in this case a scientist) is spouting religion at them, and Darwinism is a religion.
I'll grant to the Darwinists that Evolution is a scientific theory (albeit a weak one as scientific theories go), and Intelligent Design is not. However, as long as the Darwinists continue to make theological claims based upon the theory of Evolution, most rank-and-file people of faith will continue to treat it as a religion rather than as a science.
As one of those 40% of scientists who support the "theistic evolutionist" view, I'll keep my science as science and my faith as faith.
Posted by: BrianOfAtlanta at September 8, 2005 5:39 PM"How does I.D. differ from Darwinism?"
ID posits an Intelligent Designer; the theory of evolution does not.
What is "Darwinism" these days? Is it something as narrow as "macro-evolution via natural selection" or is it a broad philosophy/religion/worldview that necessitates atheism etc.?
You mentioned in another thread that I keep confusing evolution and Darwinism. For the sake of clarity, I usually use the term "theory of evolution" instead of "evolution", and I did so in the comments that you were responding to.
I prefer to avoid the term "Darwinism" altogether; it only leads to confusion.
Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 2:46 AM"Although it might be difficult for some scientists to imagine even posing the question, polls indicate that when queried generally about the possibility of teaching creationism instead of evolutionary theory, only a slight majority of the public opposes such a move. If asked generally about teaching both creationism and evolutionary theory in public schools, the public is also remarkably consistent in favoring both."
Only a small majority however, wants to see creationism taught as science in science class.
Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
Wednesday, August 31 2005 @ 10:59 AM PDT
Contributed by: arch_stanton
Views: 60
Right Wing NutsIn a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey (LAURIE GOODSTEIN, 8/31/05, NY Times)
In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.
Incidentally, the poll mentioned in the article above shows a slight shift away from creationism and toward the "no God" explanation. Since the fastest growing religious preference in the US is "none", that makes sense.
Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 3:17 AMIndeed, that's the only difference. One says evolution is entirely random and driven by Nature. The other says it reflects signs that intelligence has been at play.
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 7:12 AMDarwinism doesn't cause any confusion, it covers everyone who thinks evolution is totally random and unguided.
Similarly, Creationism covers everyone who thinks God plays a role and Intelligent Design covers everyone who sees signs that intelligence plays a role but not necessarily the Abrahamic God.
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 7:42 AM"Darwinism doesn't cause any confusion, it covers everyone who thinks evolution is totally random and unguided."
The term "Darwinism" causes confusion, because you use it to mean different things at different times, sometimes just macro-evolution via natural selection, sometimes the belief that "evolution is totally random and unguided" (and your claim of "totally random" betrays either sloppiness or lack of understanding of the theory of evolution), and sometimes encompassing a whole worldview. Since you skip from one to the other at a whim, it is confusing, and I prefer not to use it myself.
Posted by: creeper at September 10, 2005 7:59 AMcreeper:
It's all the same thing. You say Nature. I say God. IDers say some intelligence. The rest is just differences of dogma within the faiths.
N.B. That at any rate is the tripartite definitional regime that most people use and that we've imposed here.
Posted by: oj at September 10, 2005 8:29 AMMr. Judd:
Yes they are alike except for two things:
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes.
Creationism/Design is a historical science, and laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes..
Posted by: Anon at September 10, 2005 8:51 AMMr. Judd:
The post attributed to me above replaced all my words following the colon.
Is there a problem with your site?
no, with your comment.
Posted by: oj at September 11, 2005 8:48 AM