Poll shows belief in evolution, creationism

[babylonsister]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-07-evolution-debate_N.htm

Poll shows belief in evolution, creationism
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Majorities of Americans in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll say evolution and creationism are both likely explanations for life on Earth — underscoring the complexities of an issue that has put Republican presidential candidates on the spot in recent weeks.

Two-thirds in the poll said creationism, the idea that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years, is definitely or probably true. More than half, 53%, said evolution, the idea that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, is definitely or probably true. All told, 25% say that both creationism and evolution are definitely or probably true.

POLL RESULTS: Public views on the origin of life on earth

Geoffrey Layman, a politics and religion expert at the University of Maryland, says people are trying to reconcile science and religion. "They might believe the science, or they might see the science as hard to dismiss, and they don't necessarily take Genesis to be literal," he says. "But they do think that God played some role in directing this evolutionary process."

more...

[mainegreen]

1. 25% percent think both are true? What?

Huh.... um...
*bzzzt*

[RC]

3. It's the education system in this country.

It does not teach critical thinking. All too often they teach to the test.
This has been a growing problem at least since the early 50's. Belief in creationism is a failer of our public education system.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. But it's done a great job with doublethink (n/t)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. intelligent design, is what i think a lot of people believe in.

on edit: i think the concept of intelligent design is unscientific crap.

[depakid]

2. The assault on reason continues

with Gallup leading the way....

[UNCLE_Rico]

4. Which tracks closely with certain recent poll results and confirms beyond doubt ...

That approximately 28% of Americans seriously need to do as follows:

1) Get a brain, MORANS!
2) Start using it on occasion.

[BadgerKid]

5. Recent irreducible complexity article

Anybody seen this piece?

'Irreducible Complexity' is Reducible Afterall

Which brings us to the latest discovery in evolution: DNA needed to make synapses, the sophisticated junctions between neurons, in none other than the lowly sea sponge. Considered among the most primitive and ancient of all animals, sea sponges have no nervous system (or internal organs of any kind, for that matter), notes Todd Oakley, assistant professor in the Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. But, he adds, they “have most of the genetic components of synapses.”

...
What were genes for synapses doing in a sponge, which has no neurons and therefore no synapses? This is where the irreducible-complexity crowd makes a fatal error: they assume that whatever the function of a biological component (gene, protein, biochemical pathway . . . ) today must have been its function in the past. Maybe you noticed that my mouse trap example above wasn’t very persuasive; even without a base and a bar, a spring can be a useful little device. So it goes with biological systems. For instance, of the 42 proteins known to make up the bacterial flagellum, 40 have been found to serve as ion channels or something else in bacteria. It is therefore perfectly plausible that they really were hanging around—serving some function that would have allowed evolution and natural selection to keep them around generation after generation—until they all got together and formed a flagellum.

So it seems to be with the genes for synapses. The sea sponge did not use them for their current purpose, but that doesn’t mean the genes had no use. “We found this mysterious unknown structure in the sponge, and it is clear that evolution was able to take this entire structure and, with small modifications, direct its use toward a new function,” said Kosik. “Evolution can take these ‘off the shelf’ components and put them together in new and interesting ways.”

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2007/06/06/irreducible-complexity-is-reducible-afterall.aspx

[Bucky]

11. Yes, but look at this banana.

Look at how I grip this banana. Notice how it curves into my mouth. Mmmmm. Notice how it doesn't bukake all over my face with I slide it into my mouth. Oh, God, yes, you invented this banana just for me, Oh Lord! YES!

No look at this coke can. Doesn't it prove that there's a Coke can maker? A coke can doesn't just evolve out of nature by itself over millions of years. It has to be made by a coke can maker. So, too, look at nature. It's so complex, it had to be made by a Maker too! Something as complex as life doesn't just occur in nature, you know.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. The people Layman talks about should have said "neither", not "both"

"They might believe the science, or they might see the science as hard to dismiss, and they don't necessarily take Genesis to be literal," he says. "But they do think that God played some role in directing this evolutionary process."

If they don't take Genesis as literal, their answer to "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" should be at least 'probably false', if not 'definitely false'. But 25% of people answered 'true' in some form to "Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life" . The 2 concepts are directly contradictory, both in the process and the time scale.

[Bucky]

9. No one wants to say "I don't believe in God" in public. Only half will doubt science.

People compartmentalize. This is based on one-question responses, not in-depth scientific reviews of data. The high school kids I teach just about universally sneer at Creationist explanations of the world and its life forms. But then, they're exposed daily to the rigor of scientific inquiry.

In twenty years most'll be like their parents: less interested in science as a topic and getting exposed once a week to a minister who'll tell them how all powerful God is. As long as right wing demogogues try and bogus up a conflict between religious faith and reality, you'll have conflicting findings like this.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Ya Just Gotta Believe

I know many people who try to walk both sides...conflicted between their upbringing and society pressures of identifying with an organized religion...and keeping at peace with it...while realizing the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution is just as valid...it all depends on whose listening and where the person wants to put faith above science or visa versa.

I see a big divide between religion and science in most people...and how people can jump from being subserviant to a religion on a Saturday or Sunday and then back into the "secular" world immediately thereafter. The problem with science is it doesn't offer the same "rewards plan" a religion does. Believe and be a "good (put the faith name here)" and there are some rewards in some undefined hereafter. It's been the biggest selling tool for religion and buying into the whole plan is almost always required.