Discoveroids React to the Gallup Poll

A few days ago we posted 2017 Gallup Poll on Evolution, which shows that since 1982 in the US, belief in man’s non-theistic evolution has increased from 9% to 19%, while belief in the divinely caused existence of man has dropped from 44% to 38%.

Like all creationist organizations, the Discovery Institute is upset with the trend. To show their displeasure, they posted Latest Gallup Polling on Evolution Fails to Enlighten. It was written by David Klinghoffer, a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. We’ll give you a few excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis.

Trifling evidence and momentous conclusions. That is evolution in a nutshell, and news of the day from most mainstream sources bears out the observation once again.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Discoveroids have no shame. Then — and not relevant to our subject today — he mentions some speculative conclusions from two recently discovered fossils. PhysOrg wrote about it here: Scientists find 7.2-million-year-old pre-human remains in the Balkans. After that gratuitous remark, Klinghoffer tuns his attention to the Gallup poll and says:

Equally unenlightening, in a different way, is the latest Gallup polling data on belief in evolution, announcing “In US, Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low.” I understand that surveys like this ask the same questions year after year in order to track major trends in opinion. In this case, unfortunately, the question reflects the primitive nature of the evolution debate when Gallup first started polling on it.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Klinghoffer is dismissive of the “the primitive nature of the evolution debate” back in 1982 when Gallup first started asking its questions. He complains that since 1982 they’ve been asking:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings — 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

Yes, that’s what Gallup has been asking. But Klinghoffer thinks they’ve got it all wrong. He explains:

What I wish they would ask is:

[Klinghoffer’s preferred question:] Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of living creatures – 1) Animal and human life arose and developed over billions of years, guided by a designing intelligence, whether God or otherwise, 2) Animal and human life arose and developed over billions of years, by strictly blind, natural processes, unguided by any intelligent agent, 3) God created all animal and human life at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

Why is Gallup asking such a stupid question, when Klinghoffer thinks his version is so much better? Let’s read on:

[T]he modern intelligent design movement didn’t exist 35 years ago, so Gallup is stuck in 1982.

Ah, that explains it. Gallup’s question is an obsolete relic of the primitive past, before the incandescent brilliance of the Discoveroids’ intelligent design “theory” was revealed to a world wallowing in sinful Darwinism. Klinghoffer continues to criticize Gallup:

That doesn’t stop them from trying to insert ID after the fact. They assert, “Often rebranded as ‘intelligent design,’ especially as it relates to education, the creationist viewpoint has met defeat in the Supreme Court but continues to surface in curricula across the U.S.”

How disrespectful — and ignorant! Another excerpt:

This is of course false. Are they also taking dictation from the National Center for Science Education? ID is not “rebranded” creationism – the ideas are worlds apart.[Hee hee!] Teaching creationism in public schools has indeed been rejected, but ID is not creationism. [Hee hee!] ID does not “surface in curricula across the U.S.” It’s not in public school curricula anywhere.

Technically, maybe ID isn’t specifically listed as a topic in any school district’s curriculum, but some do indeed teach the so-called “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution — and those alleged “weaknesses” are the entirety of intelligent design. Klinghoffer unwittingly acknowledges this:

The idea of allowing teachers to challenge students with a range of mainstream evidence about evolution, not ID, has had notable success in a number of states. But that, again, is a different matter. I won’t rehash the rest here.

He concludes his post with some advice for the Gallup Organization:

It sure would be helpful if a major polling company like Gallup refreshed their awareness of the evolution debate next time they survey about it.

What the Discoveroids want is for Gallup to specifically ask how many people believe in intelligent design. First, because it would give their “theory” some legitimacy, by treating it as a topic worthy of polling. Also, the figure for believers in intelligent design will show some increase, because their fictional theory didn’t exist until they concocted it and began to promote it. A respected poll showing that increase would undoubtedly impress the Discoveroids’ generous patrons.

We think the current Gallup polling question is just fine: theistic evolution, non-theistic evolution, and hard-core creationism. Those are the only real choices. Intelligent design is nothing but a sleazy version of the last of those three, and it doesn’t deserve recognition as a separate option.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Discoveroids React to the Gallup Poll

  1. Klinghoffer would prefer that the poll would have asked whether life “developed over billions of years, guided by a designing intelligence, whether God or otherwise.”
    The problem here, it seems to me, is that a ‘deslgning intelligence’ who is not God might as well be called….God; who or Who else would it be?

  2. Klinghoffer must have reworded his original version of the poling question. Previously it said: 2) Animal and human life arose and developed over billions of years, by strictly blind, natural processes, unguided by any intelligent agent, also, anyone that believes this is a stinky-poopyhead who is going to hell.

  3. Ross Cameron

    We`ve got to move on from considering creationism and intelligent design as a ‘theory’ and realise it is a delusion, a mental problem that needs treatment. When you retreat from reality into a dream world, alternative explanations won`t have any effect, so why use it?

  4. Eric Lipps

    I take it that it’s the “millions of years” part of alternative #1 which upsets K. Other than that, it seems pretty compatible with ID, unless one also insists that species don’t change once “designed” into being–which dumps “adaptation” over the side. And if one rejects both an old earth and the possibility that species can change over time even at the level of “microevolution,” one has pretty much settled on hard-core fundamentalist young-earth creationism right out of the days of the Scopes trial.

    Just one problem: ID’ers, like other modern professional creationists, need evolution–breakneck-speed evolution–to account for the explosion of species which would have to have occurred to turn the “kinds” supposedly saved from the Flood by Noah into the profusion of species now alive. (Grass-roots fundies couldn’t care less.) So they can’t really do away with “adaptation,” but to stay with their notion that evolution can occur only within “kinds,” they need to make that term so rubbery that it’s devoid of any real purpose other than as a rhetorical prop.

    But that means their whole enterprise reduces to blather and special pleading, which will come as no shock to followers of this blog.

  5. “What I wish they would ask is:”
    Ah, Klinkleclapper appeals to those believers who accept theistic evolution. That’s not that surprising, given that WL Craig is a semi-Discotute and Plantinga once has rejected Evolution Theory as well. The line is rather blurry.

    “[T]he modern intelligent design movement didn’t exist 35 years ago, so Gallup is stuck in 1982.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA!
    A couple of days I read Abraham Kuyper’s

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Kuyper

    speech about evolution from 1899. For those who can read Dutch:

    http://www.neocalvinisme.nl/ak/broch/akevol.html

    You can find all those “weaknesses” there. There is nothing new today.

    “the ideas are worlds apart”
    Yeah. IDiots never use Paley’s False Watchmaker’s Argument nor the God of the Gaps Fallacy.
    Never.
    Ever.
    Blaargh (the sound of MNb’s turning stomach).

  6. Klinghoffer:
    “That is evolution in a nutshell, and news of the day from most mainstream sources…”

    “The idea of allowing teachers to challenge students with a range of mainstream evidence about evolution, not ID…”

    Have you noticed how “mainstream” has become a derogatory term? It shouldn’t be. After all, at least with regard to evolution, it’s “mainstream” because it’s supported by the evidence. It deserves to be mainstream.

    One could argue that “mainstream media” is mainstream because for the most part it’s well-vetted, since journalistic reputations are on the line. Of course, some media outlets are more concerned about their reputations than others (i.e., New York Times vs. Fox News), but even Fox is a pillar of rectitude compared to RT.com.