Gallup: Republicans less likely to believe evolution

I agree. Most Republicans have not evolved.

According to Rasmussen Polling, 35% of Democrats believe Bush was behind the 911 attack.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

So, which party believes in whackier theories?

So, which party believes in whackier theories?

Posted by: S. Sherman | June 11, 2007 1:54

Republicans, obviously. They can't let inconvenient facts get in the way of their ideology.

S.Sherman you obviously have no way to defend the disturbing results of this gallup study so keep trying to change the subject.

Btw be careful on your summer road trip. Don't fall off the edge of the flat Earth that is the center of our solar system.

S. Sherman,
"Do you believe Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks?"
Based on the fact that Bush read the 8/5/01 N.I.E titled "bin-Laden determined to strike U.S", it is fair to say Bush had some advance knowledge.
"Did Bush conspire with the 9/11 highjackers?" was not the question asked, so it is misleading to paint the poll respondents as conspiracy theorists.
I've read the same drivel from conservative pundits over and over again attempting to make the same leap. It's an intellectually vacant conclusion, but as usual, it hasn't stopped the chattering class on the right from repeating it ad-naseum.

The scary thing is not their belief in the beginning of time, it's the belief in the end of days. Why we would want a political party & individual leader who thinks the end of days are coming and that it'll be a grand ol' day for him and his Sunday-buddies is beyond me. Sounds downright dangerous.

These people can go right ahead and believe in their fairy tales to their hearts content.. don't bother me... unless the guy with his finger on the nuclear button is potentially trying to live out the fictional story that is his faith... then it becomes everyone's problem. Keep your quaint little myths out of everyone else's reality!

I think it's hilarious that the Prez Chimpy right-wing dead enders don't believe that they descended from Apes.

Frank James is pulling out all the stops today. He must have had a bad weekend.
I'm sure a "Republicans hate stem cell research" post is coming soon.

John E - stop insulting the Apes.

Marko has a good suggestion for Gallup's next poll: "Do you believe the Earth is flat?" I'd love to see the results on that one.

Ah, love reading all the "intellectual" poop from the Loony Left. Just the other on this very subject one of the King Loons mocked Christians for thier beliefs because it meant "we all are the result of incest."

Interesting comment for us to look at.

Let's see ALL LIFE on this planet csme from the same original cells: plants, animals, bugs, people, fish, birds, etc.

Now, you folks who do believe in evolution, did all of a sudden there be hundreds or thousands of people at one time, so there were no cases of incest? That somehow these cells produced a mass crop of babies all over the world so no incest took place? And it makes no difference what these babies were: apes, spiders, etc. I mean the THEORY is that ALL life came from the same beginning.

Face it, no matter hjow one looks at it, there was incest early in time.

Now let's move up to today. Clearly the "brilliant thought" so often expressed by the Loony Left, it is quite clear most of you ARE the product of incest.

As usual, the fact-challenged Frank James cherypicks and rewrites a poll in order to make a political point.

I would invite commentors to actually read the Gallup question asked.
This is how Gallup defined "evolution" for this question: "Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?"

One can believe in "evolution" as Darwin defined it, and still answer no to this question, because Darwinism doesn't address the origins of life--i.e., how life forms came to exist on earth.

I just wish the "Swamp" would evolve into something other than a Frank James hate-Republicans fest.

Most politicians walked on all fours before they ever stood up and walked like everyone else - republicans included.

There is no such thing as an honest socialist; republicans practice the art of fascism the same as liberals.

Frank James is pulling out all the stops today. He must have had a bad weekend.
I'm sure a "Republicans hate stem cell research" post is coming soon.

Posted by: JD | June 11, 2007 2:43 PM

That's it, JD.. If you don't like the message, attack the messenger...

How dare Frank James report on a Gallup poll! And on an interesting cultural topic, too. The nerve!

Not a surprising result, considering that Republicans have believed every lie that W has fed them for six years.

I would hate for anyone who doesn't believe in evolution to catch one of those evolving germs that resists antibiotics. Their heads might explode.

Every good Christian knows that the fossil record is a deceitful trick of the devil. No doubt Bill Clinton had a hand in it to. Beam me up Jesus.

I have to agree with John E that it is deliciously ironic that those who are the staunchest supporters of Chimpy McFlightsuit don't believe in evolution.

To get a real sense of the part of the base to which the anti-evolutionists in the Republican Party are pandering, take a gander at the website maintained by to those who've challenged the fundamentalist anti-evolutionary viewpoint - the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - at www.venganza.org/

These are the same Republican geniuses that think cutting revenue and increasing spending on wars will lead to a balanced budget.

JohnF
"Based on the fact that Bush read the 8/5/01 N.I.E titled "bin-Laden determined to strike U.S", it is fair to say Bush had some advance knowledge."

35% of Democrats believe Bush either had specific knowledge that al-Qaeda was going to hijack those planes and let it happen or that he brought down the buildings with planted explosives. There are prominent liberal Democrats such as Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen who are going around on TV shows espousing those theories.

Now, tell me. Which party is crazier?

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

So some Republicans don't believe that dinosaurs roamed the Earth. Or that man and other animals evolved and adapted from lower life forms. That's scary.

Sorry for what looks like a dumb question, folks. But, I really have to ask: What do evolution and politics have to do with one another? Of all the people who haven't evolved, homo-politicus is the furthest behind despite contrary "progressive" labels. Just like the mighty chimpanzee - of which so many here are fond - homo politicus only cares about trading banana for banana, and throws crap when angered or scared.

Seriously - I think this is all a bunch of religion baiting. The Swampers and the Gallup folks have to know that those who disagree with evolution do so out of religious conviction. I think the Swamp just wanted to dig something up to give a few of you target practice, and/or to get y'all more confused about the separation between church and state.

Frank James is pulling out all the stops today. He must have had a bad weekend.
I'm sure a "Republicans hate stem cell research" post is coming soon.

Posted by: JD | June 11, 2007 2:43 PM

The truth hurts, doesn't it James?

How about the new theme park in Tennessee that combines dinosaurs with Bible stuff.

Hilarious!

All you nutty neo-cons who believe the Bible is a literal document. Riddle me this: How did procreation take place after Adam & Eve had kids?

Fun for the whole family?

All you nutty neo-cons who believe the Bible is a literal document....

Posted by: Doug Zook | June 11, 2007 6:04 PM

Doug,
You obviously don't know what a neocon is. You don't have a clue.

Here it is folks, Doug Zooks bible quiz:

"All you nutty neo-cons who believe the Bible is a literal document. Riddle me this: How did procreation take place after Adam & Eve had kids?

Fun for the whole family?"

You betcha Doug. Read the Bible and do the math. You have answered your own question.

"...35% of Democrats believe Bush either had specific knowledge that al-Qaeda was going to hijack those planes and let it happen...."

Them's fighin' words Sherm. Quote your source. When you do, make it a reliable one. Can't do it can you.

I grant you that there a lot of conspiracy theory whack black helicopter types out there but "35% of dems" is a bunch of male bovine fecal matter.

John D.,

Wow!

You cop to the incest thing. Disregard science, carbon dating, etc. and still expect to be taken seriously.

Wow!

"Sorry for what looks like a dumb question, folks. But, I really have to ask: What do evolution and politics have to do with one another?"

John W- Unfortunately the anti-evolution folks have decided to make it a political issue by attempting to force their views, which you yourself admit are religiously motivated, into the science curriculums of the public school systems.

"...I think this is all a bunch of religion baiting."

Perhaps, but it's also very telling that religious fundamentalists don't believe in evolution. I would posit that Republics have more in common with the Taliban than those of us accustomed to reason.

Hey Sherm want to see a nutty neo-con - look in a mirror!

John W,

I've read the Bible. It's an interesting work of fiction.

The RR part of the Wingnut party actually believes that dinosaur's don't exsist because they wouldn't fit on Noah's Ark.
hahahahaha!

John W,

You can't disregard parts of your party (W.,Cheney, Rove etc.) and claim that they are not "real" Republicans when they all clearly have (R's) in front of their names.

Cut your losses John, this isn't your dad's GOP anymore, or continue to be lumped in with them because they are your guys until they are ALL gone and remember this, we are the Big Tent Party and you are always welcome to join us.

2nd John E., motion John W.,

Come over from the Darth Side.

"...and let it happen or that he brought down the buildings with planted explosives."

That's your embellishment of the Rasmussen poll question.
It was never asked, but gladly answered incorrectly by the right. Nice try. BTW, Rosie O'Donell and Charlie Sheen are entitled to their misgiuded opinions, just as you are.

Doogie Zook: Please state how whether one believes in evolution or the Bible that incest did not take place all those years ago?

Also, please explain how all life on this planet came from the same being? Science says everything on this planet came from the same cells.

And, the Bible also speaks of great beasts and other creatures, which most Biblical scholars say are the dinosaurs.

Anyway, evolution is still a theory, it is not a scientific fact. Scientists still cannot explain much or prove much.

But why bother reasoning with scum who have no ability to reason, debate, think or basically do nothing but hate.

John E posted in part:

"You can't disregard parts of your party (W.,Cheney, Rove etc.) and claim that they are not "real" Republicans when they all clearly have (R's) in front of their names."

John E,

I never said they weren't real Republicans. I said they weren't real conservatives - and I'm right, they're not. I have also stated that, to the degree the neo-cons have abandoned fiscal and institutional conservatism, they have alienated a sizeable portion of their own party base.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

...Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?...

...the debate continues...

So are Apes just waiting to evolve now or did they just not evolve?

Crazy John Devolo,

Now lets get this straight. You don't believe in Global Warming. You don't believe in Evolution. You think W is doing a heckuva job. And you have the audacity to call other people loons? Why hasn't your head exploded yet?

Are you, Bruce, and Sherm on a Jihad against the Tribune?

I read these comments of yours from your favorite "fair and balanced" magazine, American Spectator:

Good to read your column and I must agree. For more than a year now I've had many discussions with the Public Editor of the Chicago Tribune: Don Wycliff. His responses were much the same as what you have received. Mr. Wycliff even did a column based on one of my criticisms of the Chicago Tribune. Google me or him and you'll find it.

My criticism was that it seemed the Tribune puts good economic news in the business section (the least read section) and bad economic news on the front page of the front section. Well he tried to disprove my theory. Funny, though, just this week the main article on Trib was "new homes sales frosty." Yet when home sales were up every month those articles always were in the business section and often times played down.

Also the day of and the day before the State of the Union speech the Trib had three front pages articles about the "bad economy" even though unemployment is at 4.7 percent. I recently e-mailed Mr. Wycliff (who is leaving Trib for Notre Dame) about these recent developments and never heard back from him or the publisher, Mr. David Hiller, whom I've also had some e-mail dealings with.

Also recently I inquired with a series of questions why the Tribune felt compelled to print more Abu Ghraib photos but has a policy against printing the Muhammed cartoons. Never heard back on that one either.
-- John Dyslin
Streamwood, Illinois

Abu Graid=Muhammed Cartoons?

When will Republicans realize that Tim Russert is nothing but a Democratic operative acting as if he was a nonbiased journalist? It was dumb for Virginia's Kilgore to accept a debate with Russert as a moderator. Russert may pretend to be tough on both sides, and there was a time when I thought the same. But in the past few years I've noticed a big change. He'll occasionally ask a tough question to a Democrat, but more times than not there is no follow-up. His tone and demeanor are different as well. He'll often be on the attack with a Republican. That same attack is not there for a Democrat. If you get the chance, watch a replay of his interview with Howard Dean earlier this year or watch how he interviewed Michael Chertoff and how he interviewed New Orleans Mayor Nagin.

And then there are Russert's appearances as an analyst on the Today Show. The liberal slant, spin and talking points memo is quite evident when he "analyzes" on Today show.

Republicans must begin challenging Tim Russert and stop acting like he is fair and unbalanced. The former Democratic operative is anything but.
-- John Dyslin
Streamwood, Illinois

Tim Russert is a Democratic operative?

Duhhhh.....When I see a Monkey or a Dolphin read and talk to us....I go with EVOLUTION.
If you want to believe other-wise,hey good luck.
To all of us believers...We were touched by the hand of God!

Paulo

weinerdog43 posted above in relevant part:

"Perhaps, but it's also very telling that religious fundamentalists don't believe in evolution. I would posit that Republics have more in common with the Taliban than those of us accustomed to reason."

Right, I almost forgot about how Republicans and the Taliban are so much the same because we, too, routinely murder our daughters or wives in "honor killings;" we, too, consider it a confession to adultery when they accuse a man of rape, and so we have them stoned to death; we, too, beat our women for not wearing head coverings; we, too, own our daughters and forbid them to drive or get an education other than religious instruction; we also forbid music (well, at least since Lawrence Welk died, anyway), and murder our political opponents; yada, yada, yada. Yeah, there are all kinds of parallels.

So, weinerdog43: I’ve read all the same crap on The DailyKos before. Did you get it there, or did you think this up all by yourself?

Where's david k? Where are you?

Here you go david. Here's a faction, right in your midst - and they have nothing but scorn and contempt for people who have religious convictions. And their scorn is not limited to those instances where religion transcends society and enters the realm of politics. You want to play count the Democrat with me? It’s fun - kind of like counting Volkswagens on the freeway.

So, doubt me no more. You have your proof. You are part of it.

Sherman writes most Dems believe Bush behind 9/11. When you think of it as who had the most to gain, it was Bush. The moment those planes hit the towers, Bush was re-elected and elected with power to do whatever he desired. It's not that dems believe in wacky theories, it's just that when something happens as traumatic as that and we see our government not going after an aggresive investigation and we see the White House stonewalling the investigation, we get a little suspicious. Mepublicans just can't get over being partisan. Because the party is made up of mostly males, they treat it like they are rooting for their favorite team in the super bowl. They are pretty biased and can't admit to mistake.

Oh Reamer, I mean John E., still investigating me, huh?

In response to Tim Russert being a Dem operative, let me give you some history. Before working at NBC News, Tim Russert worked for Mario Cuomo and Tip O'Neill, both liberal Democrats. Just like before going to work at ABC News, George Stephanopoulos worked for Bill Clintoon.

So, that makes Russert and Stephanopoulos "Democratic operatives."

John D
It seems the story of Adam and Eve, Kane and Able is laced with an undertone of incest. After all, they populated an entire planet from only 2 people. Why aren't you ranting about that?

Those who attack evolutionists as being anti-religion have it all wrong. While SOME believers in the Theory of Evolution are atheistic, many others are theistic (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.). It is perfectly consistent to be a believer in the Christian God and evolution at the same time (most mainstream Roman Catholics do, I believe). However, those who read the Bible - both the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the Christian Bible (New Testament) as the LITERAL truth necessarily discount the scientific record that convinces me that evolution is the most likely basis for the present state of life on Earth.

So, just because person believes in evolution doesn't mean they are attacking (Christian) religion - because many (a majority of the world's)Christians belive in evolution. These evolutionists may, however, disagree with one of your core beliefs - your belief that the Bible is literally true . . . .

In response to Tim Russert being a Dem operative, let me give you some history. Before working at NBC News, Tim Russert worked for Mario Cuomo and Tip O'Neill, both liberal Democrats. Just like before going to work at ABC News, George Stephanopoulos worked for Bill Clintoon.

So, that makes Russert and Stephanopoulos "Democratic operatives."

Posted by: John D | June 12, 2007 9:09 AM

Dear, I have asked Bruce this question but he doesn't respond to me. What would you say Dick Morris is-- neonut or lefty loon? Don't you think that most of the punditocracy bleats out the conventional wisdom of the day just for the money? Don't you feel that most of them are intellectually lazy?

Again, Phil and the rest of the Loons: Let's say everything was by evolution, how many people were there back in the day? How many humans evolved from the toad or the fish serpent? I have heard evolutionists say we did originally come from fish, so how many humans evolved from the fish? Was it 2 at a time? Did 100 humans come from the serpent fish at one time? 1,000 people suddenly evolve? If it was just a few humans that evolved, how did get from just a few to dozens to hundreds to thousands to millions, etc.?
And, even though I know the answer, why don't you Loons ever answer the questions???

Speaking of Loons, I happened to notice that one of the Chief Loons posted nonsense under my name using my work e-mail address in Eric Zorn's blog a few months ago.

So, please Weirdo Loony Leftists, stop whining about being called that. When you folks resort to investigating folks, posting your filth under other people's name, then you folks clearly are Weirdo Loony Leftists!

"If it was just a few humans that evolved, how did get from just a few to dozens to hundreds to thousands to millions, etc.?"

Johnny D, evolution happens across large populations over a long period of time. New species don't just suddenly one day "evolve".

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_47

Did you hear about that "Creation Museum" in Kentucky - you know, the one that shows humans and dinosaurs together - has a big PR problem? It hired an actor to portray Adam in a film, but it's been revealed that the actor runs an Internet porno site.

I guess that means he's "evolved"!

A couple of things that we should all keep in mind concerning this topic, first of all Charles Darwin himself, as indicated in his mothers writings, expressed doubt in his theories and submited that there must be a Creator. Secondly, the scientific feild is increasingly "Evolving" to a Creationist/evolution position. Science tells us that there can not be an action without a cause. The "Big Bang" could have happened only with a cause. Genesis specifically describes this event.
We as people are so desperate to be right that we are not facing the fact that it is all parts of the same puzzle. Science Digest reports that "Scientist who utterly reject evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientist supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." This is a telling trend. I would recommend that anyone who has questions regarding this read Lee Strobels "The Case for a Creator" you will definately see that there are two sides to the issue but that they are not mutually exclusive.

Catherine, Dick Morris is neither a Leftist Loon nor a Neonut. Morris has worked for politicians on both sides of the aisle, from Bill Clinton to Trent Lott. If one actually listens to what he says, he is often equally critical of Democrats and Republicans.

While he fully admits he hates Hillary (remember, he did work for and with her for more than a decade and they actually were friends at one time), Morris is not a partisan. Overall, I would say Dick Morris' politics are pretty much straight down the middle, leaning to the right on some issues (defense, in particular) and slightly to the left on others, but never too far to the right or too far to the left on any issue.

But Morris also is used for his analysis. Russert and Stephanopoulos are employees for NBC and ABC, host programs for them, are the Washington Bureau managing editors for their respective networks, and analyze for their networks. Yet, prior to working for their networks were emplooyed by Democratic politicians.

John D,

Russert lets the current admin get away with murder on his show that's why they keep coming back. He lets them dodge a softball question twice then moves on.
To believe he is biased to the left is just plain loony.

I personally find it amusing to here folks debating whether we should all "believe" in a scientific theory. See, I went to this place called school and there I learned that belief has nothing at all to do with science. Belief has to do with religion and faith. So to be scientifically correct, no one can actually "believe" in evolution. Once one begins speaking of science in terms of belief, it becomes a question faith and the stream of thought becomes muddy. So for those who truly hold a scientific view, the question is "Can you prove it?" not "Do you believe?"

Anyway, evolution is still a theory, it is not a scientific fact. Scientists still cannot explain much or prove much.

But why bother reasoning with scum who have no ability to reason, debate, think or basically do nothing but hate.

Posted by: John D | June 11, 2007 7:39 PM

John D... Gravity is not a scientific "fact". If the bible said gravity didn't exist, would you want that taught in our schools? In fact, nothing can truly be 100% proven in science. Scientific theory is always subject to update or correction. Doesn't mean we have to teach every half-baked, fictional story out there to our schoolchildren. We teach what is most supported by empirical observations (in this case, undoubtably, evolution).

Biblical Creationism is no more supported by empirical observation than Flying Spaghetti Monster-ism.

JohnDearest:
I must say that I respectfully disagree with you about Dick Morris. I believe him to be a partisan hack of the worst kind- a media whore if you will. I certainly don't know why Morris hates Hillary so much now. Maybe she had to slap him when he was making a move toward her toes or something.

John W... I'm here.

Did you get a chance to see my reply to your "proof" that there's anti-religious bigotry in the Democratic factions? With the exception of your outrage at anti-religious blog chatroom postings (which is just downright retarded, for lack of a more PC term), every single incident you referenced was a discussion on religion's influence on politics. If you choose to always interpret it as religious persecution, that's your problem. The rest of us shouldn't be cowtowed out of participating in political discourse, even when religion's influence on politics happens to be the topic.

Catherine, my dear, I didn't say Morris wasn't a media whore, there is no doubt he loves to be on TV. But a partisan hack? No. His career is full of working for folks in both parties, with Bill and Hillary his biggest clients, especiallky from the 1980s until 1996. But somewhere by the mid 1990s, he and Hillary did have a falling out. Maybe it's cause he knows what she is really like!!

Thank you Jeffrey and JB for rational reponses! There are those of us who believe that science and faith go hand in hand, which is the so-called Interlligent Design thinking, of which many scientists believe in as well.

But to the God haters any belief in a higher power, a God, is something for them to deride and mock.

John D... Gravity is not a scientific "fact". If the bible said gravity didn't exist, would you want that taught in our schools? In fact, nothing can truly be 100% proven in science. Scientific theory is always subject to update or correction. Doesn't mean we have to teach every half-baked, fictional story out there to our schoolchildren. We teach what is most supported by empirical observations (in this case, undoubtably, evolution).

Biblical Creationism is no more supported by empirical observation than Flying Spaghetti Monster-ism.

Posted by: david k | June 12, 2007 1:33 PM

There are those that have the right to not be subjected to the theory of creationism. Where is my right to not be subjected to the theory of evolution?

"In fact, nothing can truly be 100% proven in science"

Except for Global Warming of course.

..ahhh the old "flying Spaghetti monster" rears its head straight from the halls of left wing pseudo intellectualism.

Now we know all about you David K. Left wing, thru and thru.

What next "a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle?"

Hey, if you don't like religion, just make fun of it.

It's very endearing and it's why so many admire the radical left.

Oh wait.....

Neocons, conservatives (republicans) and liberals are all socialists. Socialist is a politically incorrect name for a liberal. Liberals and conservatives are all socialists but most liberals are fascists. A fascist is a liberal and a gun basher. All named here have helped to destroy liberty in America.

Many conservatives will claim to be religious to increase their chance of re-election.

There is no such thing as an honest socialist - they all lie.

To all the folks here that think that creationism should be taught along with evolution in the schools - Which creation story should be taught?

The Judeo-Christian Genesis story? (If so which version, there are two different orders of creation in Genesis)

How about the Native American Creations myths?

How about the Islamic creation story from the Koran?

Old Norse?

Wiccan?

OH MY SCIENCE

david k posted and said:

"John W... I'm here.

Did you get a chance to see my reply to your "proof" that there's anti-religious bigotry in the Democratic factions?"

Yes, david, I did. And you responded just as I predicted. I knew I could count on you to respond without any objectivity whatsoever. In fact, you can look around this blog and see how people diss religious belief in general (apart from any reference to political views too), see that many of those who do so here are Democratic supporters, and STILL not admit the Democratic Party has anti-religious factions. You could look a polar bear in the face and insist that its only fuzzy ice.

And, BTW, no one is making you kowtow to anything. I only asked you to be honest, and you failed. That's YOUR problem, not mine. To thine own self be true.

Who is arguing for creationism Tony? I mostly hear about Intelligent Design. I havent' heard about people protesting about creationism.....I could be wrong though.

http://slate.com/id/2118388/

There are those that have the right to not be subjected to the theory of creationism. Where is my right to not be subjected to the theory of evolution?

Posted by: Anonymous | June 12, 2007 3:10 PM

Anonymous... If you want your kids to not be subjected to science (or math, or english, or gym, for that matter), then home-school them. But don't send them to public school and then try and change science class into theology class. Try and petition your school board to discuss religions (note: plural) in Social Studies, where it arguably belongs. But don't try and sneak faith into the science classroom just because you're uncomfortable that learning scientific theory might make your kids think twice about what they're told on Sunday.

Faith and science don't mix. Science, by definition, doesn't operate by faith.

"In fact, nothing can truly be 100% proven in science"

Except for Global Warming of course.

Posted by: JD | June 12, 2007 5:43 PM

Leave it to JD to miss a point... That being that you don't have to wait (in fact, CAN'T POSSIBLY WAIT) until something is 100% proven by science before you can make a reasonable assumption that it exists and act accordingly (like with gravity and, yes, global warming).

In Gravity's instance, if I release a piano from over your head, I'm gonna guess you'd move out of the way, and not just stand there saying "Gravity hasn't been 100% proven by science yet!" as gravity works its magic unto your dome.

But with global warming, I'm guessing you'll wait until it smashes over your cranium (or maybe your grandkids' craniums), and THEN you'll consider selling the Hummer...

... and then you'll blame scientists for not 100% proving it earlier.

..ahhh the old "flying Spaghetti monster" rears its head straight from the halls of left wing pseudo intellectualism.

Posted by: JD | June 12, 2007 5:43 PM

I mention Flying Spaghetti Monsterism because, as preposterous as it is, it's the perfect rebuttal to Intelligent Design. Fundies find FSM so frustrating because there is not an iota of reason why FSM would have any less right to be taught in science class than Creationism (even repackaged as ID). As much as it may suck to admit it for many, both have equal scientific basis.

What the hell does it mean to "believe" in evolution?

If you ask stupid questions, you're going to get stupid answers.

Find a better pollster before you get into a tizzy.

Leave it to the independents & demon-crats to think they are smarter than a divine God.

www.ReyFloresAmerica.blogspot.com

I love it! The LIBune says Darwinisn "under religious attack," and "Republicans knock evolution!!!"

Ooooooohhhhhhh, but bad religious people and Republicans!! Sorry to burst the LIBune's pea-brain bubble, but one can be a devout Christian, Republican and still believe in the Bible's teachings AND EVOLUTION!!!! They are not mutually exclusive and one can believe in both very easily. Get a clue, Trib Losers.

Those who say that evolution is just an unproven theory don't seem to put the literal biblical story through the same rigorous analysis... I wonder why?

Obviously all you people are retarded. Anyone who knows anything is aware that we are descended from space aliens.

Republican or Democrat is a moot point! If God created everything, then God created the process that became known as "evolution". This would seem to satisfy both camps and fit in with a newly evolving phenomenon known as "political correctness".

"There are those of us who believe that science and faith go hand in hand, which is the so-called Interlligent Design thinking, of which many scientists believe in as well."

Posted by: John D | June 12, 2007 2:59 PM

Overlooking the fact that you can't spell intelligent, once again you have no idea what you are talking about. How can you use the scientific method to test Intelligent Design?

John D, you sound like a member of NAMBLA.

Wow. What more can one say? Simply, wow.

"What the hell does it mean to "believe" in evolution?

If you ask stupid questions, you're going to get stupid answers.

Find a better pollster before you get into a tizzy."

Posted by: Aaron | June 13, 2007 8:29 AM

Well Aaron, to the vast majority of regular people it means "do you believe the theory of evolution to be true?"
In other words, does it have scientific merit? can it be proven? or is it some variation of Jewish mythology? Most people can put two and two together...So much for stupid questions as they are the only questions that are not asked...like: "how can I prove creationism?", the answer to which is of course..."um....you got me there."

John D, you wrote:

"Anyway, evolution is still a theory, it is not a scientific fact. Scientists still cannot explain much or prove much."

The word theory (like the word "primitive") are used differently in science than in everyday language. Evolution is BOTH a theory and a fact. Look it up. If you think scientists can't explain much, what they CAN explain is based on careful research and tireless testing. On the other hand, holy books such as the Bible and the Koran explain absolutely nothing. They don't talk about molecules, or genes, or bacteria, or viruses, things that science has discovered and that we know for a fact exist. That's because they were written by men who were oblivious to these facts because they lived in a time in which people thought the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.

"Again, Phil and the rest of the Loons: Let's say everything was by evolution, how many people were there back in the day? How many humans evolved from the toad or the fish serpent?"

It seems you don't understand how evolution works. Evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution is driven by two factors: genetic mutation and natural selection. That is, some genetic mutations tend to ocurr (because of mistakes during DNA copying) at random that are beneficial to organisms and allow these organisms to reproduce more successfully (by giving them an advantage at being able to survive in their environment long enough to reproduce). These mutations build up over time and create new species. Take two apes for example: humans and chimps. They both had a common ancestor but after a while (I'm talking millions of years here) they slowly developed new traits which made us what we are today. We share more than 98% of our DNA with chimps after all. And we diverged from them "just" 5 millions years ago.

"I have heard evolutionists say we did originally come from fish, so how many humans evolved from the fish? Was it 2 at a time? Did 100 humans come from the serpent fish at one time? 1,000 people suddenly evolve? If it was just a few humans that evolved, how did get from just a few to dozens to hundreds to thousands to millions, etc.?"

You obviously know nothing about how evolution works (other than how it is explained by the "Intelligent" Design folks I'm sure).

"And, even though I know the answer"

No you don't. We didn't "evolve from the fish" just like we didn't "evolve from the monkeys"...most current existing species didn't evolve from other current existing species. Chimps and Humans evolved from a common ancestor, some type of ape-like creature. These two and the gorillas evolved from a common ancestor...further back in time, gorillas, chimps, humans and organgutans had a common ancestor...further back in time, add the gibbons to the mix...even further back...the monkeys join us by having a common ancestor with us...and so on and so forth. Perhaps if you go back in time further enough, we might have had evolved from a fish-like creature.

As for most Republicans not beleiving in evolution...I have no problem with people believing in God, Zeus, Mithra, Osiris, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, etc., etc. Unfortunately, these people tend to want to force their beliefs down our throats, and that is unacceptable. Evolution has mountains of evidence behind it, while Intelligent Design (and other flavors of creationism) have absolutely no facts to back them up at all.

The day creationist can come up with a "theory" that can be tested and not proved wrong, that day I'm sure most of us wouldn't mind such a theory being thought in schools, but until then, as a bumper sticker I saw once said, "keep your theology off my biology."

Really, the only thing this poll suggests is the dumbing down of society (37% of independents and 40% democrats is quite a large percentage as well).Which, of course, is nothing new. Just turn on the TV or radio, see what passes for quality programming. The Tribune is doing it's part with "Red Eye" which is quite possible the biggest bunch of rubbish in print. Soon we will be living in a true idiocracy.

As a student of theology I must say that most respectable theologians do not even debate this issue. They privately accept that evolution is an accurate scientific depiction of life and tend not to talk about it with their parishioners so as not to upset those who cannot grasp the concept without losing faith or alienate those who can and do "believe" in evolution.

Just a few Biblical interpretive facts for you all... Literal creationism was never even thought of as a viable option until enlightenment thought forced hard headed conservatives into a corner about it in the late 1800's. The Catholic Church (specifically John Paul II) stated that there is no conflict between evolutionary theory and the Bible and has always adopted an allegorical understanding of the creation myths in Genesis. Scientific inquiry is always open to correction based on future evidence but it usually corrects itself in a new vein along the same line of thought. There is hardly an instance in the history of scientific inquiry when new evidence brought to bear created a complete 180 in the consensus of thought. Just some food for thought...

40%, I repeat, 40% of Democrats also reject Evolution. I'm not impressed with the snarky partisan attacks when so many Democrats also reject Darwin's theory. Moreover, a vast majority of Americans reject Neo-Darwinian Materialism on solid philosophical grounds. Please save your playground insults for the other junior-high kids you congregate with, and do not hurt your brains attempting to engage in discourse above your heads.

Oooooh Walter says I sound like a member of NAMBLA!!! I love the debating skills of the Loony Left. Let's call him gay! Let's call him a "bible thumper!" Let's say he is a memnber of NAMLBLA! Let's call him a Nazi!

Weirdos, those who support NAMBLA are Clueless Loony Leftists. My solution for NAMBLA is to remove them from this planet. The Left Ilk want to protect and help them. Just go to the ACLU's website, OK?

Really, you folks are even more of an embarrassment as some type of human being than I ever imagined. That's why you folks always have been and always will be ON THE FRINGE!!

"True and false are attribute of speech, not things" (Hobbes).

Say whatever you wish. Evolution is what it is. Believing or not believing doesn't change that.

"What do evolution and politics have to do with one another? " It ios a good indicator as to how much we should rely on/trust certain members of Congress to make law based on scientific findings. If a lawmaker refutes scientic findings for evolution, how can we trust him or her to make decisions on nutrition, stem cell research, environment, water and air pollution, medicines, etc.

I have no problem with people saying that "evolution is not a fact". But if they say that, I expect them to understand the scientific process and the actual theory of evolution.

david k posted and said:

"John W... I'm here.

Did you get a chance to see my reply to your "proof" that there's anti-religious bigotry in the Democratic factions?"

Yes, david, I did. And you responded just as I predicted. I knew I could count on you to respond without any objectivity whatsoever. In fact, you can look around this blog and see how people diss religious belief in general (apart from any reference to political views too), see that many of those who do so here are Democratic supporters, and STILL not admit the Democratic Party has anti-religious factions. You could look a polar bear in the face and insist that its only fuzzy ice.

And, BTW, no one is making you kowtow to anything. I only asked you to be honest, and you failed. That's YOUR problem, not mine. To thine own self be true.

Posted by: John W. | June 13, 2007 12:22 AM

I know you are, but what am I?

Sigh...

John W. the bottom line is that, when asked to show me an example of where any Democratic Faction was "dissing" religion that wasn't a discussion of religion in relation to politics... and you went and cited multiple examples of discussions of religion in relation to politics.

"....those same views would make him much less palatable to voters in the general election since the majority of them DO believe in the theory of evolution."

if that's true, then why have we never elected an aetheist for president?

it worries me that proven facts are still argued about (mainly by religious fanatics). How will we get to solving real, tangible problems (ie hunger, water shortage, homlessness,etc) if we debate on whether some invisible being created the entire galaxy!

Posted by: JG | June 13, 2007 10:37 AM

JG... don't even bother...

John D thinks evolution means that once upon a time a Chimpanzee had one boy human baby and one girl human baby, and we all evolved from those two. He can't grasp the concept of large evolutionary differences occurring from a common ancestral SPECIES (not individual) as a result of minute genetic mutations and natural selection over hundres of thousands of generations. No incest needed.

Why isn't it possible that God caused evolution to happen? I don't see why there needs to be an argument.

Why all the republican bashing & republican hatefest? Of the people polled, there are still 37% of independants not believing in evolution and 40% of Democrats not believing in evolution. Besides accrding to the scientific community, Evolution is still considered a scientific theory. It's not a scientific law, like the Law of Gravity in physics. Until it becomes a scientific law neither side is 100% right or 100% wrong.

david k:

I guess you didn't read my response to your reply.

(Sigh)

You spin. You lose.

Why are the 2 mutually exclusive? Is it not in the realm of possibility that some men evolved, and others were created by God?

Funny that as biological science advances constantly in support of Darwin's ideas, so that evolution is practically seen by most natural scientists as scientific law rather than theory, the Republicans just keep getting stupider.

Is it any wonder we keep lagging behind most of the industrialized world in science education and student performance.

What a shame!

John D., could you walk me through how you must have "loony leftist" programmed into your computer's clipboard? Since it's what you type the most, I figured you've got some cool function on your PC that inserts those words without having to actually type.

Once again, I read your posts and laugh and laugh and laugh.

Who ruled that the theory of evolution was atheism? I missed that decision and furthermore I don't accept it.

I'll say that 40 percent of democrats is a pretty large number, almost half. So don't think your in the clear. The whole poll is sad period, that is the issue not which side you are on. But in a country where Paris Hilton draws breaking news coverage what do you expect.

Mac: I don't know either but I bet I know who does...have you asked Rush Limbaugh? Odds are 10 to 1 he has the answer.

david k:

I guess you didn't read my response to your reply.

(Sigh)

You spin. You lose.

Posted by: John W. | June 13, 2007 1:16 PM

John.. you could've replied whatever you like... The sources you cited repleatedly said, in print, within the body of the articles, that they were discussing religion's relation to politics. Just because you refuse to read that part and focus on what you perceive as religious persecution doesn't mean it's there... it just means you are sensitive to a preconceived personal victimization. It's in print, black and white, for you to see. Religion AND Politics in everything you cited. You want me to "see" something that you just feel, despite what's actually written in the cited material.

You have faith that you're being persecuted by Democrats. I have empirical observations (facts) that state otherwise. It's a beautiful little microcosm of the whole debate.

This is a stupid poll. It's a peculiar species of Christian, the fundamentalists, who refuse to accept evolution. They also happen to be, generally, Republican. The poll is skewed because they're not culling out the morons. I hate blanket statements like that and I hate this divisive kind of chatter. I have plenty of republican friends and almost all of them believe in evolution. They think God planed it that way--but it counts.

BTW - I am a member of NAMBLA, thank you very much.

“Do you believe in evolution” needs to be followed up with a more pressing question, as to whether or not candidate would vote and/or withhold funds to public schools and universities that teach evolution as part of a b