Gallup Survey: Most Republicans Reject Theory Of Evolution

Posted by Michael Peacock on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 at 11:24 PM. Read 2601 times. Tags: , , , ,
{name} pic

According to CBS News, a recent Gallup Survey shows that 68% of Republicans “Disbelieve Scientific Explanation of Creation”:

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.

As Jon Stewart might say, “Republicans, meet me at camera three”.

OK, Republicans, we understand that you’re devout.  We understand that you love God.  That’s simply beautiful, it really is.  Regardless of that, you have to stop cherry-picking the facts.  Evolution is a fact, just like some of those other facts that are somewhat less controversial, like Heliocentrism.  OK, this is less controversial now.  The church no longer arrests and executes people who believe that the sun is at the center of our solar system because there’s just simply such an abundance, a cornucopia if you will, of observational evidence, that no rational person would claim otherwise.

The same is true for the facts of evolution: That species emerge and change over very long periods of time.  That some species that used to exist, no longer exist.  Further, it is a fact that humans appeared relatively recently in the history of our world.

The facts are irrefutable.  They are written in the very bedrock of our planet.  They are there for everyone to see, everywhere: older species in strata below newer species.  Never an exception.  No human jawbones have ever been found in a Tyrannosaurus nest. No dinosaurs after 65 million years ago. No Australopithecenes after about 2 million years ago.  No homo sapiens before about 500,000 years ago. None.  Anywhere.

Now, while you can certainly take a religious position on the explanation of evolution, you cannot take a religious position on the existence of evolution.  In other words, you can certainly disagree with the leading scientific Theory of Evolution, which explains how such facts as we observe everywhere in the world came to be (and does so quite nicely, thank you very much), but you can only disagree with the facts of Evolution to the same extent that you can disagree with the fact that the sun is at the center of the solar system, or that Pasteurization helps preserve foods, or that DNA codes genetic information for all species on earth.

We need to remember that, as Stephen Jay Gould said, there’s a difference between a fact and a theory, and Evolution is both:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

If you’re planning on rejecting the Theory of Evolution, you know, the scientific mechanism that Darwin proposed almost a century and a half ago, you have to follow the rules.  The rules are simple.  Come up with a better explanation for the Fact of Evolution.  Just make sure it doesn’t require anything beyond what we can expect from our normal, natural, very nonmagical world.

Crossposted from Smugbaldy.com

Comments:

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 06/13/2007 at 02:45 AM

Sadie Jane pic

In other news, scientists have recently discovered that water is wet.

 Signature 

There’s still time to change the road you’re on.

zilch Austria Posted on 06/13/2007 at 03:48 AM

zilch pic

No wonder the Republicans are trying to kill science- they want to make the world safe for Republicans.

 Signature 

You were born.  And so you’re free.  So happy birthday.
- Laurie Anderson

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 06/13/2007 at 09:18 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

The rules are simple.  Come up with a better explanation for the Fact of Evolution.  Just make sure it doesn’t require anything beyond what we can expect from our normal, natural, very nonmagical world.

Whoops, we just lost ‘em.

elwedriddsche United States Posted on 06/13/2007 at 09:25 AM

elwedriddsche pic

What do you mean, we just lost ‘em? They’re not even done with ignoring the facts yet.

 Signature 

Science is answers that must always be questioned.
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that must never be questioned.
Politics is answers that lobbyists pay for.

Mike United States Posted on 06/13/2007 at 01:50 PM

Mike pic

That was pretty much as well worded of an answer to people who reject belief in evolution as I’ve ever read.  I always mock (and I would to their face) people who say creationism should be taught as science.  It should not, because its not science.  Science requires facts, creationism is theology...and not even good theology at that. 

So all those that say: “the jury is out on evolution”...umm...no its not you nincompoops, seeing as evolution actually has proof.  A leap of faith, is not proof, no matter how much people would like to believe that it is so. 

I hear: “Its not nice to pick on people just because they believe in God.” There is nothing wrong with having faith, but being an ignorant turd and denying something in face of facts, is something that I personally consider to be ignorant, and ignorance is equievalent to stupidity, and stupidity should be painful, so therefore there is nothing wrong with picking on stupid people.  If they didnt want to be humiliated, critisized and belittled, they’d work on not being idiots.

Last_Hussar United Kingdom Posted on 06/13/2007 at 02:22 PM

Last_Hussar pic

MP- that first few sentences I could hear Jon S reading!

normal, natural, very nonmagical world.

But surely magic is part of the natural world, therefore can be used to explain stuff.

In other news, scientists have recently discovered that water is wet.

For a given value of quantum, anyway.

 Signature 

“Pickles are evil”
- K Patrick Glover, 10 June 2007

Sadie Jane United States Posted on 06/13/2007 at 02:23 PM

Sadie Jane pic

Mike:

...ignorance is equievalent to stupidity…

Not necessarily true. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, is the height of stupidity.

 Signature 

There’s still time to change the road you’re on.

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 06/13/2007 at 02:45 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Any sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from stupidity…

Greg United States Posted on 06/13/2007 at 02:47 PM

Greg pic

I just wish there were some deniers of evolution around to hear this…

Sean United States Posted on 06/13/2007 at 11:13 PM

Sean pic

But as someone over on PZ’s site commented, at least a higher percentage of Republican presidential candidates accept evolution than Democratic voters.

Forty percent is still a frightfully high number.

timmeh United States Posted on 06/14/2007 at 06:58 AM

timmeh pic

You have to take into account that a lot of “Republicans” are realy “libertarians”. Bible thumpers only make up about a third of the party.

 Signature 

Confucius says, Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Webs United States Posted on 06/14/2007 at 11:09 AM

Webs pic

Just remember, reality has a well known liberal bias.

 Signature 

Brother Spikey Mace of Patience

Unitarian Jihad Name: Get Yours
Unitarian Jihad Background

Anii United States Posted on 06/17/2007 at 08:51 AM

Anii pic

I think all of this shit is getting redundant. We know republicans are idiots.

I think I’ll only manage to muster up a “GASP!” when the scientists finally discover the cure of this batshitinsane syndrome.

itdontmatter United States Posted on 06/17/2007 at 10:28 AM

itdontmatter pic

You have to take into account that a lot of “Republicans” are really “libertarians”.

Then why are these Republicans / libertarians so homophobic?  I would have thought that libertarians would not be pushing for constitutional amendments that fuck gays in very bad ways.

Consigliere United States Posted on 06/17/2007 at 11:29 AM

Consigliere pic

I would have thought that libertarians would not be pushing for constitutional amendments…

You thought right, because libertarians within the party are not.  You fail to make some important distinctions and separate out the different folks who tend to vote Republican because of a conservative/libertarian ideology and the social conservatives.

Then why are these Republicans / libertarians so homophobic?

Well, you make the classifications up about what is and what is not homophobic, such that all who don’t agree with your agenda fall into such a classification.  Given that, I would have to say I know almost no libertarians that are homophobic, when the proper definition of homophobic is employed.
 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 06/17/2007 at 11:47 AM

decrepitoldfool pic

the proper definition of homophobic

I think you’re onto something that is a source of miscommunication between people on both sides of the gay rights issue.  It seems likely to me that many people who oppose, for instance, gay marriage are saying to themselves; “But I’m not afraid of gays, I just...”

Ok, not afraid of gays, just of the effect they might have on society if we treated them like human beings and let them form lifetime partnerships.  Got it - that’s totally different.  We certainly need a different term.

Consigliere United States Posted on 06/17/2007 at 07:20 PM

Consigliere pic

Ok, not afraid of gays, just of the effect they might have on society if we treated them like human beings and let them form lifetime partnerships.

Dof, I don’t believe there is any impediments to lifetime partnerships.  I believe the issue has to do with recognition of same sex marriages, not same sex partnerships.  I say that because nothing I know of prevents the formation, continuation or dissolution of a partnership. Words and definitions are important as the above clarification makes clear.

 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

decrepitoldfool United States Posted on 06/17/2007 at 08:34 PM

decrepitoldfool pic

Consi, once again you are being deliberately pedantic.  You know perfectly well what prevents the formation, continuation, or dissolution of the partnerships in question, which I identified as “marriage”. 

Marriage is a legal shorthand for literally hundreds of government-sanctioned partnership benefits that are available only to straight people.  Some of these benefits are at the federal level so moving to a state or municipality that recognizes gay marriage doesn’t solve the problem.

itdontmatter United States Posted on 06/17/2007 at 08:51 PM

itdontmatter pic

I say that because nothing I know of prevents the formation, continuation or dissolution of a partnership.

Those are totally inferior to marriage, and Virginia has a constitutional amendment that at least trys to prevent the formation or continuation of a gay partnership.

Last_Hussar United Kingdom Posted on 06/17/2007 at 09:29 PM

Last_Hussar pic

Civil partnerships in the UK have not lead to the breakdown of society.  Why does Consi always argue against them?  His arguement appears always to be “You can’t get married because its not legal.”

Change

The

Law

It can be done. It used to be illegal for blacks and whites to marry in some places.  Gosh, and now they can.

 Signature 

“Pickles are evil”
- K Patrick Glover, 10 June 2007

LuckyJohn19 Australia Posted on 06/18/2007 at 12:02 AM

LuckyJohn19 pic

This same-sex-marriage thingy is a long way off in Oz.
Our PM is still living in the 1950s – although …

A Newspoll poll, commissioned by the Humanist Society of NSW, taken February 2006 said 52 percent of respondents agreed that the government should introduce a law to recognise same-sex relationships (whether through marriage or civil unions was not specified), while 37 percent disagreed.[

Even the ‘left’ side of politics helped push through a bill making it even harder for Australians to have Absolute Equality of and between the Sexes.
I find narrow-minded people so hard to understand – most of their opinions are driven by FEAR and or HATE.
I’m sure many think they’ll be infected by gayism if they give gays equal rights.

 Signature 

I’ve discovered that it all boils down to brain wiring: your brain is wired to worship magic or it isn’t, either it’s wired to utilize logic or it isn’t, either it’s analytical of myths or it isn’t.

Consigliere United States Posted on 06/18/2007 at 01:01 AM

Consigliere pic

Why does Consi always argue against them?

I don’t.  I have never written against partnerships on this site. 

You know perfectly well what prevents the formation, continuation, or dissolution of the partnerships in question, which I identified as “marriage”

You didn’t DOF, which is why I pointed that out.  The two words mean different things and are not interchangeable.
 Signature 

To die one’s self is a thing that must be easy, & light of consequence; but to lose a part of one’s self--well, we know how deep that pang goes, we who have suffered that disaster, received that wound which cannot heal.
Mark Twain- Letter to Will Bowen, 11/4/1888

Psychromorbidus Canada Posted on 06/18/2007 at 04:00 AM

Psychromorbidus pic

In actuality, the Scientific Community really is out to lunch over the Creationist science debate.  We still can’t decide if it is ham or baloney.  Ham has its supporters because it seems to focus on mass media rather than actually publishing materials.  But baloney has a strong argument with its powerful truthiness.  I think it is more like macaroni loaf.  A nutty combination that is the greatest thing in the world for a very select group of people.

 Signature 

The protein prospector!

timmeh United States Posted on 06/18/2007 at 05:41 AM

timmeh pic

I did’t say all were, but amongst people who vote republican there is about a third that are libertarian.

 Signature 

Confucius says, Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

timmeh United States Posted on 06/18/2007 at 06:05 AM

timmeh pic

There is a big difference in social and fiscal consevatives. Boise, Idaho is an example of being a more fiscal republican than social. Around here most people don’t give a rats ass what you do as long as you don’t mess with anyone else.

 Signature 

Confucius says, Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main