Evolution and creationism

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

Look at the question, third from the bottom:

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is -- [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don't you know enough about it to say?

	Supported by evidence	Not supported by evidence	Don't know enough to say	No opinion
2004 Nov 7-10	35%	35	29	1
2001 Feb 19-21	35%	39	25	1

In my view it says about 35% of people are educated, 30% are uninformed, and 35% are ignorant. No wonder we get some funny polling results sometimes.

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?

A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

	Definitely true	Probably true	Probably false	Definitely false	No opinion
2007 Jun 1-3	18%	35	16	28	3

B. Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years

	Definitely true	Probably true	Probably alse	Definitely false	No opinion
2007 Jun 1-3	39%	27	16	15	3

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? How about -- [ITEMS ROTATED]?

A. Evolution

	Very familiar	Somewhat familiar	Not too familiar	Not at all familiar	No opinion
2007 Jun 1-3	41%	41	12	5	1

B. Creationism

	Very familiar	Somewhat familiar	Not too familiar	Not at all familiar	No opinion
2007 Jun 1-3	50%	36	9	4	1

If a presidential candidate stated that he or she DID not believe in the theory of evolution, would that make you -- [ROTATED: much more likely to vote for that candidate, a little more likely, not make a difference either way, would it make you a little less likely, (or) much less likely to vote for that candidate]?

	Much more likely	A little more likely	Not make a difference	A little less likely	Much less likely	No opinion
Registered voters
2007 Jun 1-3	8%	7	53	14	15	3
National adults
2007 Jun 1-3	8%	7	54	13	15	3

Which comes closer to your view -- [ROTATED: a presidential candidate's views on evolution are a legitimate indicator of whether he or she is qualified to be president, (or) a presidential candidate's views on evolution are not really relevant and therefore should not be discussed as part of the campaign]?

	Legitimate indicator	Not really relevant	No opinion
2007 Jun 1-3	25%	70	5

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATED: human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life and God guided this process, human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, but God had no part in this process, or God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it]?

	Evolved, God guided	Evolved, God had no part	God created man exactly how Bible describes it	Other (vol.)	No opinion
2005 Sep 8-11	31%	12	53	1	3
(vol.) = Volunteered response

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?

	Great deal	Moderate amount	Not much	Not at all	No opinion
2005 Sep 8-11	41%	35	17	6	1

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?

	Great deal	Moderate amount	Not much	Not at all	No opinion
2005 Sep 8-11	40%	26	19	14	1

Which comes closer to your view about the relationship between science and religion -- they generally agree with each other, they generally conflict with each other, or they are not related to each other in any meaningful way?

	Agree with each other	Conflict with each other	Not related in a meaningful way	No opinion
2005 Sep 8-11	24%	35	36	5

On a different subject, do you think each of the following explanations about the origin and development of life on earth should or should not be taught in public school science classes, or are you unsure? How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?

2005 Aug 8-11	Yes, should	No, should not	Unsure	No answer
Evolution	61%	20	19	*
Creationism	54%	22	23	1
Intelligent design	43%	21	35	1
* Less than 0.5%

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? How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?

2005 Aug 5-7	Very familiar	Somewhat familiar	Not too familiar	Not at all familiar	No opinion
Evolution	45%	37	10	7	1
Creationism	45%	29	15	9	2
Intelligent design	17%	28	27	25	3

For each of the following, please say whether you believe it is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false] as an explanation for the origin and development of life on earth? How about -- [RANDOM ORDER]?

[COMBINED RESPONSES]

2005 Aug 5-7	Definitely true	Probably true	Probably false	Definitely false	Not familiar with	No opinion
Creationism	29%	29	18	8	11	5
Evolution	20%	35	14	20	8	3
Intelligent design	8%	23	22	10	28	9

[SUMMARY TABLE]

2005 Aug 5-7	Definitely/ Probably true	Definitely/ Probably false	Not familiar/ No opinion
Creationism	58%	26	16
Evolution	55%	34	11
Intelligent design	31%	32	37

Next, as you may know, there are two major competing ideas on how human beings came to exist on earth.

If the public schools in your community taught the theory of evolution, -- that is, the idea that human beings evolved from other species of animals -- would you be upset, or not?

	Yes, would	No, would not	No opinion
2005 Mar 21-23	34%	63	3

If the public schools in your community taught the theory of creationism -- that is, the idea that human beings were created by God in their present form and did not evolve from other species of animals -- would you be upset, or not?

	Yes, would	No, would not	No opinion
2005 Mar 21-23	22%	76	2

[COMBINED RESPONSES]

	2005 Mar 21-23
	%
Not upset if either taught	45
Upset if evolution taught, but not creationism	30
Upset if creationism taught, but not evolution	18
Upset if both taught	4
No opinion	3

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is -- [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don't you know enough about it to say?

	Supported by evidence	Not supported by evidence	Don't know enough to say	No opinion
2004 Nov 7-10	35%	35	29	1
2001 Feb 19-21	35%	39	25	1

How informed would you say you are about the theory of evolution? Do you feel that you are very informed about the theory of evolution, somewhat informed, only a little informed, or not informed at all?

	Very informed	Somewhat informed	Not too informed	Not informed at all	No opinion
2001 Feb 19-21	34%	47	11	6	2

How informed would you say you are about the theory of creationism? Do you feel that you are very informed about the theory of creationism, somewhat informed, only a little informed, or not informed at all?

	Very informed	Somewhat informed	Not too informed	Not informed at all	No opinion
2001 Feb 19-21	40%	40	10	7	3

Would you say that you believe more in -- [ROTATED: the theory of evolution (or) the theory of creationism] to explain the theory of the origin of human beings, or are you unsure? Do you lean more towards -- [ROTATED: the theory of evolution (or) the theory of creationism]?

	Theory of evolution	Lean toward evolution	Lean toward creationism	Theory of creationism	No opinion
2001 Feb 19-21	28%	5	9	48	10

Romney debates Romney

It is not easy to debate a liar ...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_joe_conason/highly_debatable_the_big_liar_s_biggest_lies

Highly Debatable: The Big Liar's Biggest Lies

A Commentary By Joe Conason

in Political Commentary

Email thisShareThis

Tuesday, October 09, 2012

"It's not easy to debate a liar," complained an email from one observer of the first presidential debate -- and there was no question about which candidate he meant. Prevarication, falsification, fabrication are all familiar tactics that have been employed by Mitt Romney without much consequence to him ever since he entered public life, thanks to the inviolable taboo in the mainstream media against calling out a liar (unless, of course, he lies about sex).

Yes, President Obama ought to have been better prepared for Romney's barrage of blather and bull. The Republican's own chief advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, had glibly described the "Etch-a-Sketch" strategy they would deploy in the general election, to make swing voters forget the "severe conservative" of the primaries. Romney executed that pivot on Wednesday night, but he could do so only by spouting literally dozens of provably fraudulent assertions -- which various diligent fact-checkers proceeded to debunk.

Knowing that he is vulnerable on taxation and the budget for many reasons, including his own peculiar and secretive tax history, Romney made several contradictory claims regarding his economic plan. He has no plan to lavish $5 trillion in tax breaks on the wealthy. He won't cut taxes for the rich at all. He vowed to provide tax relief to the middle class and won't increase their tax burden. He swore that his tax cuts would not increase the deficit.

Finally, he said that with all of that, he would grow the economy enough to shrink and eventually eliminate the deficit -- without raising taxes on anyone. And he claimed that there are several studies proving he can fulfill all of these conflicting promises -- even though he refuses to provide any specific tax proposals beyond a broad tax cut.

There is no study proving that Romney can do what he promised, and among his lies is his description of editorials in the Wall Street Journal as "studies" of his plan. The most complete and unrefuted study of his claims remains the Tax Policy Center's bipartisan report on the Romney plan, which shows that there is simply no way to pay for his $5 trillion, across-the-board tax cut without raising taxes on the middle class. None of the alternative studies he has cited proves otherwise -- and some of them actually amass additional evidence that he is wrong.

Undoubtedly he knows all that. He knows that eliminating the estate tax, a mainstay of his plan, will benefit the rich enormously and almost nobody else.

He also knows that when he claims economic growth alone will erase the deficit, without raising taxes, he is inventing impossible numbers. As The National Memo's Howard Hill demonstrated yesterday, the assumptions behind his claims are ridiculous. For the numbers to work, he would have to create not 12 million jobs, as he promised to do by 2016, but 162 million -- more than the total current U.S. workforce. Or else the jobs created would have to pay more than $443,000 per year on average, which is even less likely than Rafalca winning the dressage medal at the next Summer Olympics.

At the same time, Romney accused the president of increasing the federal debt by an amount that is "almost as much … as all prior presidents combined." This charge, which he leveled before, is patently false and by now Romney must know it. The prior debt, mostly run up by George W. Bush and his Republican congressional cronies, stood above $10 trillion when Obama took office. The debt is now just over $16 trillion, mostly due to costs incurred by Bush and by Obama's successful effort to prevent a Depression.

Having essentially disavowed the health care reforms that were his sole significant achievement in his single term in elected office, the former Massachusetts governor suddenly claimed ownership of Romneycare. Presumably, this will make him more appealing to swing voters, too. But he still wants to do away with Obamacare, except for the parts that are popular.

For this maneuver, he must misrepresent his own proposed federal health care overhaul. He says there will be no change to Medicare for current beneficiaries, but repealing the Affordable Care Act will deprive them of free preventive care, increase their costs for prescription drugs and do irreparable harm to Medicaid, which provides assisted care for nine million destitute Medicare patients.

But Romney has been lying about the Affordable Care Act for years, according to his own former advisor Jonathan Gruber, the chief intellectual architect of Romneycare. Nearly a year ago, Gruber complained that Romney's attempt to draw a sharp distinction between the Massachusetts legislation and Obamacare was phony. He told Capital New York in November 2011 that "they're the same fucking bill. He just can't have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it's the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he's just lying."

Lying again? Indeed, the falsehoods flowed on every conceivable subject. Concerning energy, Romney claimed that "about half" of the renewable energy firms that received federal assistance under Obama administration programs went bankrupt -- a claim that cannot be justified by any measure. Of the 28 firms that got federal loans or loan guarantees, three went under, representing less than 11 percent -- and less than 5 percent of the funds committed. (This assertion was so blatantly untrue that the Romney campaign withdrew it the next day.)

The examples cited above hardly exhaust the deep well of dishonesty in the Republican campaign. What Romney has done presents a fundamental challenge to the American political media. Will news outlets hold him accountable for baldly misleading voters? Are they capable of confronting his continuous mendacity with basic facts? Some have made a beginning, while others have scarcely tried. If that isn't their responsibility, then they no longer have any purpose at all.

Joe Conason is the editor in chief of NationalMemo.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

See Other Political Commentary.

See Other Commentary by Joe Conason.

Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports. Comments about this content should be directed to the author or syndicate.