70 Percent Of Georgia Republicans Believe In Creationism Over Evolution

[Cali_Democrat]

70 Percent Of Georgia Republicans Believe In Creationism: PPP Poll
The Huffington Post | By Chris Gentilviso
Posted: 08/08/2013 12:52 pm EDT

A new Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll finds that a majority of Georgians believe in creationism over evolution.

Entitled "Georgia Miscellany," the Thursday item surveyed a pool of 520 voters on 32 questions. On the issue of creationism vs. evolution, 53 percent believe more in the former, compared to 29 percent choosing the latter, and 18 percent voting not sure.

When that question was transferred over to party lines, Republicans had a staggering split -- 70 percent for creationism, 17 percent for evolution and 13 percent not sure. Democrats split along closer lines -- 43 percent for creationism, 33 percent for evolution and 24 percent not sure. Independents held an even narrower divide -- 46 percent for creationism, 40 percent for evolution and 14 percent not sure.

Back in June 2012, a Gallup poll recorded some national growth among Americans believing in creationism. Among a sample of 1,012 adults, 46 percent said that they were believers, marking a two percent jump over the past three decades.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/08/georgia-republicans-creationism_n_3726445.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. well, the question has a big hole in it...

creationism vs. young earth creationism. there is a difference. the answers would probably fall in line with those believing in a deity or not believing in one. not nearly as dramatic as it seems...

sP

[longship]

2. I disagree. There is no difference.

Or, at least very little difference. No matter how they label it -- Intelligent Design, Young Earth or whatever -- it is the same damned thing, anti-science rubbish.

ID is nothing but creationism in a cheap tuxedo, rebranded to get it past federal courts. It didn't work. The federal court in Harrisburg, PA saw to that. You can read about it. Kitzmiller v Dover knocked ID off the playing field. This by Judge John Jones, a George W. Bush appointee who saw the Constitution as being more important than his religion. That judge hit one out of the park (to continue the sports metaphor).

Since then, ID is no longer credibly put forth. Instead, there's the more softer approach presented by the state legislatures these days: the criticism of evolution ploy. Rather than presenting a theory of their own, they now merely want to criticize evolution. Often labelled using a framing of critical thinking, it's just denialism.

But make no mistake. It's still young earth creationism at its cold, dead heart.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

3. but see, that is just your opinion

and you don't get to define what other people think of as creationism. nothing has been 'knocked off the playing field'... it should NOT be taught in schools, but that doesn't mean it ceases to exist as a belief. i know MANY evangelical christians that are of the 'creationist' bent that believe god simply got the thing rolling and allowed/used the forces put in place at the time of creation in conjunction with time to get things to where they are today. they don't believe in a 6 day creation story. they don't believe that god created Adam as a literal single being. they see the stories in the bible as allegory to explain the creative nature of god and NOT a god that literally grabbed a handful of dust and made a man out of it... and THEY see themselves as creationists...

sP

[longship]

4. Some sources for you.

Most importantly, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Kitzmiller v. Dover case which I cited in the post above.

Then, I suggest you take a dip into the NCSE Web site who has been fighting this battle for decades under their executive director, Eugenie Scott who, unlike those who profess a belief in creationism of any form, actually has a PhD in a related field, physical anthropology.

You can see and hear her here talking about creationism post-Dover:

Unlike the creationists, my opinion is informed by science.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. yeah... I guess the people are not good enough sources...

this has nothing at all to do with my post. i am not talking about teaching this in schools... in any size shape or form.

sP

[longship]

13. That's right!! Nature is the ultimate arbiter of truth.

Nature tells us what is true about the universe, not some silly sky fairy, or somebody who professes to speak for some sky fairy. For instance, a vast proportion of the Republican Party who see the USA as a Christian country and who are making these bills which are causing so much trouble.

Meanwhile nature keeps plugging along. It doesn't care whether people agree with it or not. It doesn't care about anything. But people better damned well care about what nature says. To ignore it, is not a very good idea. And religious opinions are irrelevant, and usually counterproductive.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

16. thanks for clearing up your motive... n/t

[nyquil_man]

11. That sounds more like Deism than evangelical Christianity,

and creationists such as the one quoted below would dismiss it as such.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=39

What is wrong with accepting any of these positions or the variants of them?

First, if any of these positions were true then God is not omniscient. He is not smart enough to do things right, whole and complete from the start. He lacks knowledge. He has to experiment over time in order to figure out how to accomplish the task. In this view God is a small god and He is not all knowing.

Second, if any of these positions were true then God is not omnipotent. He is not strong enough to do things right, whole and complete from the start. He is incapable of bringing all things into existence at one time. In this view God is a small god and He is not all powerful.

Third, if either the first or third of these groups were correct then God is not omnipresent. He is not present to do things right, whole and complete. In this view God is distant, cannot be fully known and only reveals Himself at certain times. In this view God is a small god and He cannot be relied upon to be there when you need Him.

Fourth, if any of these positions were true then God is not omnijudicious - He is not smart enough to judge all things in a right, whole and complete manner. He lacks absolute wisdom, righteousness and compassion. He is incapable of perfect righteous judgment because He is weak and capricious. He cannot fully identify with us. In this view God is a small god and He is not all judging.

[Glassunion]

5. What about those who believe in both?

That there is intelligent design behind evolution.

[hobbit709]

6. No intelligent designer would put the recreational area in the middle of the waste facility.

[Glassunion]

7. Well... We humans are all deuterostomes...

[AlinPA]

10. lol. Never heard that one before!

[99Forever]

8. As my favorite redneck comic puts it:

Ain't no fixin' stupid.

[bunnies]

9. From the comments section. lol!

Bravo 90

17 minutes ago ( 8:58 PM)
If humans have evolved from monky's, then why are there still monkey's? Just one of those things that make you go, hhhmmm !!!

Beccs

6 minutes ago ( 9:09 PM)
If humans came from dirt and ribs, why are there still dirt and ribs?

[B Calm]

14. LOL

[sakabatou]

15. XD

Still sad that the majority believe in creationism.

[Scurrilous]

17. LOL