Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Poll: American Public still not Galluping to embrace Darwinism

Spread the love

Only one in five (22%) Americans believes in Darwinism, according to a recent Gallup poll, higher than before but still nowhere near a winner.

What the poll doesn’t and can’t address is way more interesting:

Forty years ago, the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Physiology held a symposium of mathematicians and biologists. The conclusion of the mathematicians, after calculating all of the many wildly improbable layers of assumptions necessary for Darwinism to work, was that the origin and development of life according to Darwin’s old, worn out theory was simply impossible. What was the response of the Darwinist biologists? Simply this: The calculations of the mathematicians must be wrong since evolution happened. No evidence or analysis could disprove Darwinism.

What that means is that Darwinists are too lazy and too dumb and too corrupt to look for a more workable scientific theory for the origin and development of life. They view as “science” what props up their creaky ideology, just as Marxists consider their prophets’ failed musings as “science” and Freudians ignore all the utterly unproven assumptions in Freud’s theories as “science” and global warming disciples rewrite old temperature data to conform to their phony theory and consciously suppress data that disproves it.

Scientism is the enemy of science.

Bruce Walker, “Gallup, Darwinism, and Scientism” at American Thinker

It’s nice to know that at least one commentator on the poll remembers the Wistar meet of 1966 (over fifty years ago, actually).

Scientism is what happens when you shake most of the facts out of science but leave the dogmatism intact.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

See also: My Wistar Retrospective Talk (Paul Nelson, 2008)

and

Ann Gauger Sets Record Straight On Wistar II (2012)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

9 Replies to “Poll: American Public still not Galluping to embrace Darwinism

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    The poll question doesn’t have a place for the watchmaker viewpoint. God created life, along with the mechanisms for life to develop, and then life evolved using those mechanisms WITHOUT FURTHER GUIDANCE.

  2. 2
    Dick says:

    Actually, about 5% of the 22% are naturalistic biologists. The rest are their wives and children.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    If the people were asked how to test the claims of blind watchmaker evolution before they can say they accept it then no one would be in that category.

  4. 4
    Brother Brian says:

    This isn’t surprising. 22% of Americans accept evolution. 75% of Americans are Christians.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    22% of Americans accept evolution.

    Nice equivocation. Sad but typical.

    No one in that 22% knows how to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. That means that 22% accepts in on faith, blind faith at that.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    So the question that needs to be asked is why do people accept blind watchmaker evolution?

  7. 7
    vmahuna says:

    I think it’s in Michael Behe’s “The Edge of Evolution” that he suggests that there must have been at least FOUR (4) separate “interventions” in Life on Earth based on the complexity of the new types of life arising. That is, getting from plants to land animals is a Step Change. Getting from lizards to birds is a Step Change. Getting from birds to mammals is another Step Change. Getting from field mice to Humans is a Step Change.
    So The Designer has been watching over His or Her product development project CONSTANTLY for several billion years. In another billion or so years The Designer might decide to produce something like ET, from the movie of the same name, but if the purpose of the program was to produce a body suitable for containing an Immortal Soul and a suitably Intelligent brain, then Humans are likely to be the end of Step Changes. That is, you can replace the carburetor with fuel injection, but the car is still fundamentally a car. And the Designer might be satisfied with us “cars”.

  8. 8
    rhampton7 says:

    Birds to mammals? No, it was reptiles to mammals.

  9. 9
    ET says:

    Reptiles to mammals? Via what mechanism?

Leave a Reply