Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Jun 8, 2004
1,763
0
0
okc
#1
Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution
Gallup Survey Finds 68% Of Republicans Disbelieve Scientific Explanation Of Creation
June 12 2008


(AP) The three Republican presidential candidates who indicated last month that they do not believe in evolution may have been taking a safe stance on the issue when it comes to appealing to GOP voters.

A Gallup poll released Monday said that while the country is about evenly split over whether the theory of evolution is true, Republicans disbelieve it by more than 2-to-1.

Republicans saying they don't believe in evolution outnumbered those who do by 68 percent to 30 percent in the survey. Democrats believe in evolution by 57 percent to 40 percent, as do independents by a 61 percent to 37 percent margin.

The poll also said that those who go to church often are far likelier to reject evolution than those who do not. Republicans are likelier than Democrats or independents to attend church services, according to Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll.

At the GOP's first presidential debate last month, the 10 candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution. Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo raised their hands.

The Gallup survey, conducted May 21 to 24, involved telephone interviews with 1,007 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 

MustangPokeFan

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2005
8,403
4,184
1,743
Mustang, Ok
www.newshoesband.net
#7
Evolution is not contrary to believing in God. Evolution as defined by some claiming to know it all perhaps. There are too many "leaps of faith" made by proponents of evolution and then promoted as "fact" rather than "theories" which is what they are.

Things obviously evolve. People get taller, faster, etc. There is obviously merit to the premise of the survival of the fittest. I think most Republicans acknowledge that things evolve and they credit God for it. I don't think we can second guess what methods God used in bringing the universe about. When you try to comprehend the totality of the universe which is beyond our ability to comprehend you realize that you will die not knowing all the answers. That's a simple fact.

The title of this should be edited to read "Most Republicans Reject Evolution as defined by Evolutionists"
 
Nov 1, 2004
4,529
480
1,713
#8
MPF, those are good clarifications.

One more clarification ... based on what I've read over the years ... as I'm not close to working with "scientific method" ... but my understanding is in science, "theory" is as high as the standard goes. Meaning something that is theory remains theory as long as data continues to support ... but the first time that data doesn't support ... the theory becomes invalid and adjustment is necessary ... to come up with an "adjusted" theory (my term).

So to say something is theory would generally mean data has been tested over and over ... and the data has each and every time supported the theory. The degree, including number of times, to which data has been tested could obviously vary ... but what has been tested will support the theory. I'm speaking here of any scientific theory, not just as it applies to the theory of evolution.

Last point ... it is probably not all that difficult to take plenty of scientific theories and come up with matters those theories doesn't fully explain. To me, that doesn't make those theories less valuable (or maybe a better term is no longer valuable) ... it merely suggests there is some, or much, that is not fully understood ... a point that MPF makes very well.
 

OkstateKerr

Territorial Marshal
Jan 13, 2005
6,474
2,033
1,743
35
#9
One more clarification ... based on what I've read over the years ... as I'm not close to working with "scientific method" ... but my understanding is in science, "theory" is as high as the standard goes. Meaning something that is theory remains theory as long as data continues to support ... but the first time that data doesn't support ... the theory becomes invalid and adjustment is necessary ... to come up with an "adjusted" theory (my term).

Actually I believe that "law" is as high as it goes. A law is just a group of closely related theories that have strong supporting evidence. Thats what I love about science. They arent afraid to say, Oops, Screwed up on that one. Nothing is ever proven true. All that happens is that you strongly support you theory. Even such laws as gravity arent 100% true because there could be that case where something heavy get throw out the window and goes up instead of down. Bam! There goes gravity.
 

Slugger926

Federal Marshal
Oct 19, 2004
11,665
1,653
1,743
#10
I think the press and a lot of scientists use the term "theory" way to loosely. "Theory" can only be used officially when a "HYPOTHESIS" is fully proved. Since there are a lot of holes on the evolution model, it is still a "HYPOTHESIS" and not a "theory". In some cases, they should be using the term "THEOREM" in place of "theory".


Theorem = an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof.

Theory = A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Hypothesis = A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. or Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.


Golbal warming politicians are pushing a hypothesis as a full blown theory.
 

Slugger926

Federal Marshal
Oct 19, 2004
11,665
1,653
1,743
#13
Slugger, how does the scientific community generally cast evolution ... as theory or hypothesis or something else?
With all of the holes still out there, hard core scientists would call it a hypothesis. It is very tough to make it up to the status of theory.

Luckily the burden of proof to throw someone in prison for crimes is only beyond a resonable doubt rather than a full proof required by the scientific method.:D
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
37
OKC
#14
some other crazy scientific theories:

- the earth revolves around the sun

- gravity

I mean seriously, who are the quacks that came up with that?....
 

Pokefan

Territorial Marshal
Aug 3, 2004
8,661
39
1,678
67
Between Pryor and Adair on Beautiful Lake Hudson
#15
It's not really a "Theory" after all, these tens of thousands of scientists who work with "Theories", and in its proper definition, must have it wrong. They don't know anything. I'll just believe a poster on a message board instead. :rolleyes:

We have tens of thousands of pieces of empirical evidence that support the theory of evolution. Albeit with holes in it.

Now show me the EVIDENCE in hand, to support the BELIEF of Creationism.
Something a bit more concrete please then the "bible says" or "Well life is so complex that God had to create it". Scientific evidence please.
Fact is all the creationists argue against the EVIDENCE of evolution, but present nothing concrete themselves to support their own belief.


(and please don't refer me to the website that shows a man riding a lama and it being touted as a man riding a dinosaur. I can't afford to laugh that hard again, my side hurt for hours)
 

Slugger926

Federal Marshal
Oct 19, 2004
11,665
1,653
1,743
#16
It's not really a "Theory" after all, these tens of thousands of scientists who work with "Theories", and in its proper definition, must have it wrong. They don't know anything. I'll just believe a poster on a message board instead. :rolleyes:

We have tens of thousands of pieces of empirical evidence that support the theory of evolution. Albeit with holes in it.

Now show me the EVIDENCE in hand, to support the BELIEF of Creationism.
Something a bit more concrete please then the "bible says" or "Well life is so complex that God had to create it". Scientific evidence please.
Fact is all the creationists argue against the EVIDENCE of evolution, but present nothing concrete themselves to support their own belief.


(and please don't refer me to the website that shows a man riding a lama and it being touted as a man riding a dinosaur. I can't afford to laugh that hard again, my side hurt for hours)
Prove that things weren't created pre-evolved by God. The hypothesis of evolution has just been shot down by a theorem.
 

kaje

Let's Go Heat!
Nov 19, 2005
15,892
7,914
1,743
37
Stillwater, OK
www.maczealot.net
#17
It's not really a "Theory" after all, these tens of thousands of scientists who work with "Theories", and in its proper definition, must have it wrong. They don't know anything. I'll just believe a poster on a message board instead. :rolleyes:

We have tens of thousands of pieces of empirical evidence that support the theory of evolution. Albeit with holes in it.

Now show me the EVIDENCE in hand, to support the BELIEF of Creationism.
Something a bit more concrete please then the "bible says" or "Well life is so complex that God had to create it". Scientific evidence please.
Fact is all the creationists argue against the EVIDENCE of evolution, but present nothing concrete themselves to support their own belief.


(and please don't refer me to the website that shows a man riding a lama and it being touted as a man riding a dinosaur. I can't afford to laugh that hard again, my side hurt for hours)
Obviously you haven't watched these then.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RXfAduDQpn0
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
37
OKC
#18
Prove that things weren't created pre-evolved by God. The hypothesis of evolution has just been shot down by a theorem.

prove that they were. neither of these things are provable without a time machine so all we really have are the fossil record and facts.

why do so many people feel that evolution and God are mutually exclusive? they don't have to be, we can be reasonable about what we know and believe i think.

usually i feel that people can believe what they want but when we tell kids that the earth is 10,000 years old and things like that it is not good.
 

Donnyboy

Lettin' the high times carry the low....
A/V Subscriber
Oct 31, 2005
25,703
22,524
1,743
#19
I'm not going to wade off in the who made what argument for the simple reason that creationist hold their beliefs based on faith.....so to your very good point pokefan about evidence......creationist simply don't care about the evidence as it is a faith based belief. You see you could take an evolutionist and turn them to a creationist....reincarnationist etc etc if that person chose to believe in what a certain faith does but to get a creationist to agree with evolutionary theory as it is presented isn't as much a question of look at this fossil but more of a your god isn't real......which is a hard sell no matter what you believe is or isn't god, and a message board probably isn't the medium where that takes place.

To the article........I am surprised this number isn't much higher in all three Reps, Dems, Indy's. It doesn't list the methodology but I would bet in the bible belt states the numbers for Reps are above 80% and for Dems above 70%....... The dominant religions be them catholic and protestant takes on Christianity have a guide book leads off with "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".....Muslims and Hindu's are creationist, maybe not the way the pope or Bro. So-and So over at the Baptist church is but they are creationist...... when you put the numbers in context they seem low.
 
Dec 18, 2006
2,861
0
1,666
37
OKC
#20
I'm not going to wade off in the who made what argument for the simple reason that creationist hold their beliefs based on faith.....so to your very good point pokefan about evidence......creationist simply don't care about the evidence as it is a faith based belief. You see you could take an evolutionist and turn them to a creationist....reincarnationist etc etc if that person chose to believe in what a certain faith does but to get a creationist to agree with evolutionary theory as it is presented isn't as much a question of look at this fossil but more of a your god isn't real......which is a hard sell no matter what you believe is or isn't god, and a message board probably isn't the medium where that takes place.

To the article........I am surprised this number isn't much higher in all three Reps, Dems, Indy's. It doesn't list the methodology but I would bet in the bible belt states the numbers for Reps are above 80% and for Dems above 70%....... The dominant religions be them catholic and protestant takes on Christianity have a guide that book leads off with "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".....Muslims and Hindu's are creationist, maybe not the way the pope or Bro. So-and So over at the Baptist church is but they are creationist...... when you put the numbers in context they seem low.
just want to point something out. i went to catholic schools my whole life and we were always taught evolution, and that the bible is not a history book. I know 0 catholics that don't believe in evolution. I think the same can be said about protestants. The creationist have a more fundemental background.