I’m kind of a poll buff. After all, I worked in the polling industry (in one capacity or another) for 4 years. So it was only a matter of time before I searched the Poll Vault on questions relating to Intelligent Design…
In Apr. 2006, CBS News asked: " Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin of human beings? (1) Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process. (2) Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process. (3) God created human beings in their present form."
God Created in Present Form: 53%
Guided by God: 23%
God Had No Part: 17%
Gallup has asked a similar (but less precise) question from 1982 to 2008. Over the past 26 years, there has been almost no change in the results.
And what does the future hold?
According to a 2005 Gallup poll, only 18% of American teenagers “believe that evolution took place without God playing a role.” So there is no “generation gap” on this issue.
In 2004, CBS News/New York Times asked a flawed, but intriguing question: "Would you generally favor or oppose teaching creation along with evolution in public schools?" Obviously, Intelligent Design is NOT creationism, but here are the results…
Favor: 65%
Oppose: 29%
Wow!
And this is an important issue for a lot of Americans…
In 2005, CNN/USA/Today asked, “How much have you, personally, thought about these different explanations for how human beings came to exist on earth: a great deal, a moderate amount, not much, or not at all?"
A Great Deal: 41%
A Moderate Amount: 35%
Not Much: 17%
Not At All: 6%
The follow-up question: "How much does it matter to you which of those theories is correct: a great deal, a moderate amount, not much, or not at all?"
A Great Deal: 40%
A Moderate Amount: 26%
Not Much: 19%
Not At All: 14%
Despite the strong interest, there isn’t much knowledge about Intelligent Design, specifically. Yet.
In that same poll, people were asked: “How familiar would you say you are with each of the following explanations about the origin and development of life on earth--very familiar, somewhat familiar, not too familiar, or not at all familiar? Intelligent design?”
Very familiar 17%
Somewhat familiar 28%
Not too familiar 27%
Not at all familiar 25%
-Todd
**UPDATE, JUL. 1, 2009**
In Jan. 2009, the Discovery Institute commissioned a poll by the Zogby Institute which asked about 1,000 likely voters some in-depth questions about evolutionary theory and revealed some positive results. See below...
Question:
“Now, I am going to read you two statements about the development of life. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?
Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection.
Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.”
Statement A 33%
Statement B 52%
Question:
“Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?”
Strongly agree 54%
Somewhat agree 26%
Somewhat disagree 6%
Strongly disagree 11%
Agree 80%
Disagree 17%
Question:
“Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, ‘…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.’ Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with
Strongly agree 45%
Somewhat agree 31%
Somewhat disagree 6%
Strongly disagree 12%
Agree 76%
Disagree 18%
Question:
“I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach
Statement A 14%
Statement B 78%
When young adults age 18-24 were posed with the same choice, the poll said no respondents -- 0 percent -- thought only Darwinism and its supporting evidence should be taught.
**UPDATE, JUL. 10, 2009**
Some new poll number’s from the Pew Research Center (Apr.-May 2009):
“Which comes closer to your view?”
General Population:
31% Humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time
22% A supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today
32% Humans and other living things have evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection
(These numbers corroborate pretty well with the Jan. 2009 Zogby poll (see above), in which a majority of Americans (52% in Zogby, 53% in Pew) seem favorable to the concept that – in the words of the Zogby poll - “The development of life was guided by intelligent design.”
The Pew survey, however, has some trends. In Jul. 2006, the numbers were 42%, 21%, and 26% respectively. In Jul. 2005, the numbers were 42%, 18%, and 26%, respectively. This suggests that materialism may have GAINED ground over the past 3 years as the Intelligent Design movement has hit a trough.
Pew also polled 2,500 scientists in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Those scientists answered 2%, 8%, and 87%, respectively. Wow! That’s quite a difference!
While it’s a little off-topic, I also liked this poll question…
Just your impression: Do you think of scientists as…a politically liberal group, a politically conservative group, or as neither in particular?
9% Conservative
20% Liberal
64% Neither in particular
And here’s the response among the scientists themselves…
2% Conservative
56% Liberal
42% Neither in particular
Would you like a party breakdown of the scientists? Well, here’s a report from Taegan Goddard’s Politcal Wire…
55% of scientists identify as Democrats, while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP.
So there’s a big discrepancy here…73% of Americans think scientists are “conservative” or have no political bias…but 56% of scientists acknowledge that scientists ARE a liberal community…and the facts seem to be with the scientists, as 81% identify with or lean to the Democratic Party (only 12% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party). If the American people knew those facts, I wonder if they would be so quick to call the scientific community “objective” and “unbiased.” In any case, as I reported in my 2-part series on “Darwin’s impact on philosophy and politics,” Darwin leads to moral relativism, and…
“As [philosopher Richard] Rorty demonstrates (and other experts have observed), relativism (while seemingly centrist and moderate) is actually an ideology of the left.”
To quote from Peter Berkowitz’s article, Pragmatism Obama Style…
“Rorty teaches that the proper aim of American politics is nothing less than to embody in social and political life "a new conception of what it is to be human." This new conception rejects all claims to "knowledge of God's will, Moral Law, the laws of History or the Facts of Science." Instead, Rorty concludes, the pragmatist will make "shared utopian dreams" his guide to politics.
“The new pragmatism makes use of a fundamental deception. Purporting to focus on practical consequences, it equates what works with what works to increase government's responsibility to promote social justice in America. Although it reduces morality to interest and dismisses the distinction between true and false as a delusive vestige of an obsolete metaphysics, it treats the progressive interpretation of America as, in effect, good and true.
“To realize its utopian dreams, the new pragmatism makes use of a fundamental deception. Purporting to focus on practical consequences, it equates what works with what works to increase government's responsibility to promote social justice in America.”
I wonder if promoting “academic freedom” constitutes “social justice.”
Oh well.
**UPDATE, OCT. 29, 2009**
The results of a new British Council poll on evolution can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment