Darwin’s followers struggle with unfavourable poll numbers
| June 14, 2012 | Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, News |
In “Wright and Ruse on Creationism” (Evolution Blog, June 13, 2012), Jason Rosenhouse attempts to account for a recent poll of Darwinian evolution vs. other alternatives (guided evolution, creationism), observing:
Well, the latest numbers are out, and they are not good news. The creationism number, which was at an all-time low of 40% two years ago, is now all the way up to 46%. Theistic evolution is down from 38% to 32%, while atheism went from 16% to 15%. That six percentage point jump for creationism and corresponding drop for theistic evolution could well be a blip in the data, but it is significant enough to promote some chatter in the blogosphere.
Dismissing the theories of others, he offers one of his own:
I’m not really sure why these latest poll numbers are provoking so much hand-wringing. The 46% figure is far more consistent with the history of the poll than was the low 40% figure of two years ago. Probably the low figure was just an outlier, and the polling data has just reverted to what it has typically been.
But if we are looking for an explanation, I’m surprised that neither Wright nor Ruse mention a really obvious candidate. It’s hardly news that religious and political extremism tends to flourish in bad economic times with high-levels of uncertainty. In fact, when I consider the sheer level of political dysfunction in this country right now, to the point where I think we can discuss seriously the idea that we are no longer a functioning democracy, I almost hope Wright and Ruse are right. Far better that people be influenced by a handful of atheist writers than by the well-funded and malevolent right-wing forces eager to take advantage of our current economic distress.
Well, the trouble with Rosenhouse’s idea – not that we anticipate him either noticing or considering it – is that these figures are unchanged from better economic times featuring less dysfunction. If a war broke out, the figures would still not likely change.
Darwin and his followers do not have convincing explanations for life. And the best they can come up with is that we evolved so as to not believe them. True. We evolved to believe in reason, logic, and evidence instead.
Alternatively, did you know that religion evolved partly to limit female unfaithfulness? That little girls evolved to like pink , even though the association between girls and pink is only a century old? Gosh, if we could work Elvis into evolution, he’d be spotted once again at a local donut shop.
It’s been a while since that happened here, so maybe by now it would be evolution …
Seriously, truth, falsehood, and nonsense all strive to defend Darwin, but nonsense prevails so much of the time, and that’s not something that most of Darwin’s supporters even want to try to get under control.
See also Breaking: 46% of Americans still believe God created man, woman
7 Responses to Darwin’s followers struggle with unfavourable poll numbers
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.....da-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.
The true underlying story behind the ‘Monkey Trial’ was far from what was portrayed in the movie ‘Inherit The Wind’
Here is a recent movie that goes a long way towards setting the record straight on the ‘Monkey Trial’ (Of note: be careful to click through the advertising bluffs to get to the movie on the page):
Here is a portion of Hunter’s Civic Biology textbook on Human Evolution that was banned from Tennessee Classrooms:
Moreover, in spite of the relentless propaganda by Darwinists (with the help of big media), the fact of the matter is that the evidence that Humans may have evolved from some ape-like ancestor is weak. Furthermore, a actual demonstrated mechanism for establishing such Darwinian is even realistically feasible is non-existent!:
correction: for establishing such Darwinian change is even realistically feasible is non-existent!:
Political problems? Is this a thumbs down for the African “president”?
If creationism was given a fair and constant hearing before the public and especially the kids the numbers would rise for the good guys.
If evolution is wrong then intelligent people should see through the error once they fully understand the claims on both sides.
Especially in the anglo-American civilization which for centuries has been more intelligent.
Think of all the attention and establishment and media support evolution gets and it stills struggles to hold its own relatively.
Every authority teaches that evolution is true beyond criticism .
Imagine if there was a fair shake for YEC and ID in public and media institutions!!
The great error would be sent to the ashheap of wrong ideas in history.
Yes along with marxism and company of which usually these evolutionists have historical DNA with
It figures.
Robert,
Umm . . . oh never mind.
“There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine.”
I note that you use “religious doctrine” without defining a specific religion or a specific doctrine. Without such, your statement, properly worded, should read, “any argument against the Theory of Evolution requires rejection of the doctrine of atheism”.
In other words, you are not protesting against inclusion of a particular doctrine, just against something which is against the specific doctrine of atheism. Therefore, it is actually you who are being sectarian.
The best argument against the Modern Synthesis is the fact that has not been shown to be a sufficient account for a multitude of extant biological features. For example, It has not been demonstrated to be a sufficient explanation of the origin of unique organs, tissue types, cell types and body plans. Nor of the unique properties of the human mind.
The best argument against the Modern Synthesis is that it is grossly deficient.