If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.

Gallop Poll: 35% Believe Darwinism Is Supported By Evidence  

Evolution is merely a story.  It is a story that was made up by Atheists, like Charles Darwin, to compete with what God says.  This story very closely parallels Satan's story to Eve, "You will not certainly die, for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."  It's not that the lie is the same, but the parallel is that God said one thing and Satan said something else.  On the surface, Satan's story sounded pretty good.  Look at all the trouble in the world that has been caused ignorantly believing Satan rather than God.

Numerous polls show only somewhere between 5% and 13% believing Darwinism, but is there a Gallup poll that shows 35% believe Darwinism? No. One recent poll stated that 35% believe that Darwinism is supported by evidence. That's a different question and is not contradictory to Gallup's other polls. It's possible to believe that both Darwinism and Creation Science are supported by evidence, then weigh the evidence and decide that Darwinism isn't correct. Here is a funny thing, a very high percentage of people who say that Darwinism is supported by the evidence, also believe in special miraculous creation.  

I'm not surprised that 35% feel that Darwinism is supported by evidence. I had also thought that Darwinism was supported by evidence. The way I learned that it was not supported by evidence was by patiently listening to dogmatic evolutionists and asking them, "How do you know?" They have facts, but those facts don't constitute evidence. They use the same facts that creation scientists use. The facts must be mixed with stories, assumptions, suppositions, and presuppositions before they begin to give the illusion of evidence for evolution. It is an illusion, though. If you have the patience to wade through the muck, you find out that there is no substance to Darwinism. Then, listen to the top evolutionists video taped in debates on DrDino.com. You will have heard the very best that they can deliver and you will see that their arguments are flawed.  

The ultra-liberal, anti-creation, People for the American Way's 1999 poll found that 5% believe Darwinism. Numerous Gallup polls (1982, 1991, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2004) show from 9% to 13% believing Darwinism, but there is no Gallup poll that shows 35% believe Darwinism. Based on the Gallup Polls, it could be said that there is a trend toward believing in Darwinism of about 1% per three years. That shows that billions in education tax dollars, liberal corporate dollars, news media and entertainment media support and extreme message control does have an effect.  

There is another related issue, and that is the issue of God-guided theistic evolution. This could also be called slow creation. This is the idea that God guided the process of evolution or that evolution is God's method of creation--it is not the same as the concept of Darwinism that is taught in the schools. It is old-earth creation rather than young-earth creation and not really evolution at all. Old-earth creation seems, on the surface, to be a bit more plausible than Darwinism. It at least seems as though it might be possible since the Almighty could do anything He wants to do. Godless creation fails right away because nothing is able to poof itself into existence. Old earth creation seems to be accepted by almost as many as believe in a creation that took place less than 10,000 years ago. It should be noted that theistic evolution is not good science and also requires adding to and taking away from the Bible. For those who need references, see DrDino.com, icr.org, and answersingenesis.org.  

Of course, God isn't any more interested in polls than a dogmatic evolutionist is interested in researching both sides of the issue. God doesn't care about public opinion. He doesn't care about my opinion or anyone else's. He has His own opinion, and, if you believe the Bible, you will see that God seldom worked through the majority.  

I have been disappointed with the actual arguments of those who believe in evolution. On the creation side of the argument, one would expect to find a lot of ignorance, and there is a lot of ignorance. That ignorance is based on an "I don't care" attitude toward the subject. Because those on the creation side of the argument may be more concerned with other issues such as the way to joy and fulfillment, they may not spend a lot of time studying subjects like evolution. Dogmatic evolutionists, however, are usually claiming to be open-minded. One would expect a more intelligent response to questions. Evolutionists tend to respond with anger if their ideas are challenged. Often, they respond with summary dismissal, immature mocking and scoffing, name-calling, insults, and personal attacks rather than an open-minded weighing of the facts. Often they will resort to arguments based on faulty reasoning or arguments that lack depth, defending evolution as if it were their religion. Again, one would expect this more from the creation side of the argument. Evolutionists are claiming to be open-minded, but they seem to be incapable of hearing both sides of the argument without becoming emotional. There is no objectivity. One would think that evolutionists would be certain to look at sites like the ones listed in the previous paragraph, since they are claiming to be open-minded. One would think that they would examine their motives for their beliefs and know whether they are motivated by peer pressure, fear of ridicule, desire to fit in with their perception of consensus, an anti-God predisposition, or some other motive. It is perfectly logical for a Christian to say, "The Bible says it; I believe it, and that settles it." It makes no sense for an evolutionist to say, "My text book says it; I believe it, and that settles it--especially given the frequency with which text books must be revised. The Bible stands without revision and has never conflicted with a single actual scientific observation.