Intelligent Design

The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance

Spread the love

Following the recent Harris pollwe now have a Pew Forum pollout today on who believes what about evolution, and we can expect another round of reports from the elites on the shocking ignorance that continues to persist in fly-over land. Unlike the Harris poll which asks about belief in Darwin’s theory of evolution and usually runs around 50% for and against, the Pew Forum poll presents participants with the vague and less meaningful choice between “humans and other living things have evolved over time” versus “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” Most creationists would have no problem with the first choice and not surprisingly 7% of the people gave up on the false dichotomy. Nonetheless 33% did choose full out stasis, enough to disturb and embarrass science writer Lauren Friedman given the “overwhelming evidence.” Friedman gets credit, however, for while many writers would not deign to provide any actual reasoning (condescension followed by a quick exit is always safer than trying to explain how it is we know the world arose spontaneously) Friedman at least provides several links to evidence for why “evolution is real.” Let’s have a look at why we are so ignorant.  Read more

11 Replies to “The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance

  1. 1
    Piltdown2 says:

    Excellent post pointing out why it’s best for science journalists to say as little as possible about the “overwhelming evidence” for evolution. Here, Ms. Friedman references, as you describe it, “a cartoon version of evolution” that exposes her own ignorance of evolutionary theory rather than that of the people who question it.
    Of note, and missing from Ms. Friedman’s article, is that a follow up question was asked in the poll and only “About half of those who express a belief in human evolution take the view that evolution is ‘due to natural processes such as natural selection’ (32% of the American public overall).”
    It is encouraging that so many people remain skeptical of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

  2. 2
    Moose Dr says:

    Friedman, “From generation to generation, well-understood molecular mechanisms reshuffle, duplicate, and alter genes in a way that produces genetic variation. This variation is the raw material for evolution.”

    So what is her deal, does she not understand her theory, or is she trying to gloss over the truth. I am sure it’s true that molecular mechanisms do reshuffle, and duplicate genes. However, she totally disacknowledges the role of random genetic accidents as the supposed source of genetic variation.

    The organized reshuffling engine within the DNA of more advanced organisms (I don’t believe it exists at all in bacteria) is well disciplined. It doesn’t produce much in the line of new information. It certainly isn’t responsible for the orphan genes that are so ubiquitous.

    We all know that the data showing all of these mechanisms, including random destruction, are by no means adequate to explain the data found in DNA.

  3. 3
    juwilker says:

    Piltdown, I admire that you are encouraged that so many people remain skeptical of Darwinian theory. But I’m pessimistic: that means 2/3rd of Americans have gulped, hook line and sinker, one of the biggest fairy tales ever created by man. That’s depressing.

  4. 4
    Piltdown2 says:

    Juwilker, the statistic from the poll was 32% believing in human evolution through natural processes like natural selection. So two thirds have not bought into the Darwinian creation story. This despite the full court press of the media,various atheist organizations, and some legal setbacks. Maybe I am seeing this through rose colored glasses, but I find it encouraging.

  5. 5
    juwilker says:

    I should be more specific. I was referring to the antithesis of those 33% who agree with “full out stasis” (which I agree with if that helps where I’m coming from). In my view, the other 2/3rds have bought into some form of the Darwinian story. Plus, my language was a bit embellished. I hope you are right in that we see a reversal of this trend.

  6. 6
    Axel says:

    You’ve all heard of the Bermuda Triangle? Well the atheist loony-toons have an Oogly-Oogly Bird Triangle: Nothing turns itself into everything, everything turns itself into Mind, and Mind reverts back to nothing.

    Very parsimonious. Nothing into something, then back into nothing, in rag-time. Very tight, ever-decreasing circles, until disappearing up their own fundament.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    What is truly sad, in the large percentage of Americans that give Darwinism any credibility whatsoever, is that Darwinism doesn’t even qualify as a ‘hard’ science in the first place, in that it has no rigid mathematical basis in which to falsify it!

    Notes along that line:

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    “For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works.”
    Gregory Chaitin – Proving Darwin 2012 – Highly Respected Mathematician

    “It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
    Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

    In fact, although Darwinism has no rigid mathematical demarcation criteria so a to demarcate it as a ‘hard’ science, in so far as math can be applied to Darwinian presuppositions through population genetics, math does falsify Darwinian claims:

    Waiting Longer for Two Mutations – Michael J. Behe
    Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that ‘for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years’ (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless “using their model” gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.
    http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

    (Also see Axe and Gauger’s in BioComplexity)

    Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, Intelligent Design (ID) does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor:

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

    ,, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such:

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”
    – Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

    Well, do neo-Darwinists have evidence of even one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes?,,, I have yet to see even a single novel protein arise by purely neo-Darwinian processes much less a entire molecular machine! Without such a demonstration and still their dogmatic insistence that Darwinism is true, then as far as I can tell, the actual demarcation threshold for believing neo-Darwinism is true is this:

    Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/

    How Darwinists React to Improbability Arguments (Dumb and Dumber – You mean there’s a chance!?!) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA

    Music and Verse:

    Nine Inch Nails – Everyday Is Exactly The Same – music
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEHHE64xpfY

    2 Peter 1:16
    For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    ,, I hope neo-Darwinists can help us to designate a more rigid threshold for neo-Darwinism, since as far as I can tell, without a rigid demarcation criteria, neo-Darwinism is in actuality the pseudo-science they accuse Intelligent Design of being!

  8. 8
    Jaceli123 says:

    Darwinism is a joke. If you really look at the evidence it shows how bad the theory is. Recent polls show many people don’t believe in it and soon many more people wont. For new years fun heres some videos of what evidence Darwinists have: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GdNaP5BYaeU

  9. 9
    OldArmy94 says:

    A quote from Ms. Friedman in the article:

    “Due to billions of years of evolution, humans share genes with all living organisms. The percentage of genes or DNA that organisms share records their similarities. We share more genes with organisms that are more closely related to us.”

    Isn’t that a grand example of circular reasoning?

  10. 10
    melvinvines says:

    I love the “believe in” part. Would anyone ask that of physics or astronomy? That tells you what kind of “science” this is.

    http://evillusion.wordpress.com/

  11. 11
    jstanley01 says:

    Prof. Hunter @ OP:

    Following the recent Harris poll we now have a Pew Forum poll out today on who believes what about evolution, and we can expect another round of reports from the elites on the shocking ignorance that continues to persist in fly-over land.

    Prof. Hunter @ linked:

    According to the poll, almost three in five Americans trust the information from scientists only a little or not at all, and that skepticism rises to more than four in five Americans when the information comes from science journalists.

    I could be wrong, but I think a big reason numbers for “the consensus” are so bad “on the ground” nowadays — particularly out here where we have dirt floors and go barefooted — is its whole-hog backing of what the unwashed, such as myself, call The Great Global Warming Scam and Attempted Political Power Grab.

    Before it decides which of its fads it wants to back, “the consensus” might do well to reflect on the fact that credibility is a tenuous thing, and rightly so.

Leave a Reply