Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

[Supermick]

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.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847

[umalak_]

so?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Supermick

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.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847

good lord - 3 people (of what? 10) is a decent sample to make that claim that those 3 actually represent the majority view and the 7 do not?

so much for ever paying attention to gallup

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

ummmm... did you read the article?

you're kidding right?

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

Have to call you out on this one...

sampling size was 1007 people (which is a statically large enough amt to extrapolate to the entire population) in about 4 or 5 different polls worded differently.

this does not surprise me in the least tbh

that is a larger sample than what was suggested then isn't it


and, I'm still not wasting my time reading it - I've seen polls like that - I've been asked to fill them out etc etc they require selection of pre-drafted answers... which don't permit for explaining why one thinks about the question in the way that the do. Thus the strict reading is correct and the accuracy still crap.

[DataBass]

This just in, Eric S. enjoys cocaine.

[PETA]

you're slipping man... I need more vulgarity and much greater offensiveness or I'm gonna ask Ash to cancel your insult accredidations

[Blake]

honestly, i don't see why this even matters.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by shadymuz

what percentage of democrats and independents doubt it?


and honestly, i don't see why this even matters.

it matters because some idiot asked GOP candidates at a debate... a very pressing issue to be sure



Edwin you rtfa - did it make sure the pollee was distinguishing between evolution as a theory to explain how life diversified and evolution as a theory to explain the origin of life? Because its valid in the former - but not the latter. I suspect that distinction wasn't made blah blah blah

[umalak_]

exactly xian. God is the origin of life, any self-respecting person knows that. Science is full of shit! JESUS FTW!!!!!!

did you enjoy last Sunday's service? I was filled with the holy ghost f'real.

[WaitingForATrain]

Originally Posted by Supermick

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.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27847

I think this is actually a smart move. To quote from Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power

Law # 38

"Think as you like but Behave like others

If you make a show of going against the times, flaunting your unconventional ideas and unorthodox ways, people will think that you only want attention and that you look down upon them. They will find a way to punish you for making them feel inferior. It is far safer to blend in and nurture the common touch. Share your originality only with tolerant friends and those who are sure to appreciate your uniqueness."

By going for the majority vote, it secures them a position of immense power and favorability. Slowly with time they can leak whatever ideas they had been holding.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Kaliente

I think this is actually a smart move. To quote from Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power

Law # 38

"Think as you like but Behave like others

If you make a show of going against the times, flaunting your unconventional ideas and unorthodox ways, people will think that you only want attention and that you look down upon them. They will find a way to punish you for making them feel inferior. It is far safer to blend in and nurture the common touch. Share your originality only with tolerant friends and those who are sure to appreciate your uniqueness."

By going for the majority vote, it secures them a position of immense power and favorability. Slowly with time they can leak whatever ideas they had been holding.

but what I suggested and I'm not sure was clear is "what does the theory of evolution that these cats rejected mean?" Did they reject the notion that live evolved from simple to complex or did they reject the notion that evolution explains the origin of life? Evolution explains how things changed - not how they got here in the first place. I'd be willing to wager that Darwin would not have disagreed. So, who really knows what the majority view actually is?

[WaitingForATrain]

Originally Posted by xian

but what I suggested and I'm not sure was clear is "what does the theory of evolution that these cats rejected mean?" Did they reject the notion that live evolved from simple to complex or did they reject the notion that evolution explains the origin of life? Evolution explains how things changed - not how they got here in the first place. I'd be willing to wager that Darwin would not have disagreed. So, who really knows what the majority view actually is?

My apologies. You weren't clear in your statement so I misunderstood you.

I think anyone with half a brain would agree the theory of evolution revolves around the idea why/how things changed instead of explaining the origins of life.

I think (therefore I am) almost certain that someone has a severe lack in comprehending exactly what the Theory of Evolution discusses. I've come to the conclusion too many politicians run their mouth without actually having a grasp on the concept of discussion. (although this is nothing new)

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Kaliente

My apologies. You weren't clear in your statement so I misunderstood you.

pardon?

I said....

Originally Posted by xian

Edwin you rtfa - did it make sure the pollee was distinguishing between evolution as a theory to explain how life diversified and evolution as a theory to explain the origin of life? Because its valid in the former - but not the latter. I suspect that distinction wasn't made blah blah blah

Originally Posted by Kaliente

I think (therefore I am) almost certain that someone has a severe lack in comprehending exactly what the Theory of Evolution discusses. I've come to the conclusion too many politicians run their mouth without actually having a grasp on the concept of discussion. (although this is nothing new)

or rather what is reported is a much truncated and unrepresentative blurb of their complete thoughts on the matter

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

it asked both ways. quite good poll questions actually...

fucker.... you're just trying to get me to rtfa.... might even work.... we'll see

[PETA]

A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

B. 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



further down


Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?





so, either one belives in evolution or one believes in creationism for the origin of life?

Those are not the only options Edwin. I don't believe God zapped humans onto the planet 10,000 years ago nor do I believe evolution explains the origin of life - nor was it intended to do so.

Evolution is true - ask the Pope. But is silent as to the origin of life.

This poll asks one to chose one or the other (evolution or creationism 10,000 years ago) as the origin... but evolution 1) doesn't explain it and 2) was never intended to explain the origin of life


the comprison of evolution to creationism is apples to oranges