Home / Polls / This week's poll: What is more plausible, creationism, intelligent design, or evolution?
This week's poll:  What is more plausible, creationism, intelligent design, or evolution?

This week's poll: What is more plausible, creationism, intelligent design, or evolution?

evolution and christianity

Source: Turri Design

Last week, we reported on a Lifeway Research survey that revealed that the majority of evangelical pastors in America believe in creationism, as told in the bible, but that they were divided about how old the earth was.  Fundamentalists like Ken Ham and Bryan Fischer argued that these pastors should know better than to believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years.

What's your opinion?

The poll will remain open until 5 AM Pacific time on Sunday, January 29.  Your vote is completely anonymous, although our software records IPs to void double-voting.

Comments are always welcome, especially if you have a different answer from the ones given in the poll.  First time comments are held in the moderation queue that helps stop spam; after your first comment is published, future comments should publish immediately without moderation so long as they comply with our terms (briefly stated after the comment box).

Thanks in advance for voting — and if you haven't figured it out, this is not a scientific poll.

What is the most plausible explanation for life on earth -- creationism, intelligent design or evolution?

  • The theory of evolution. (79%, 81 Votes)
  • Intelligent design by a creator, not necessarily exactly as told in the bible and which might involve some evolution that was 'set in motion' by a supreme intelligence. (10%, 10 Votes)
  • The creation story told in the bible. (7%, 7 Votes)
  • I have no idea. (3%, 3 Votes)
  • Terraforming by extraterrestrials. (1%, 1 Votes)

Total Voters: 102

Loading ... Loading ...

About admin

  • Leah L Burton via Facebook

    Hmmmm…given the GOP goat show lately there is NO doubt that we are talking evolution! But – with these wingnuts the question is…are we sliding backwards?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1389990327 Leah L Burton

    Hmmmm…given the GOP goat show lately there is NO doubt that we are talking evolution! But – with these wingnuts the question is…are we sliding backwards?

  • http://www.almaq.com.br impressora brother

    Each one has a right to believe what you want. But societies, the government must be rational. We live in a secular country

  • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

    You know I said Evolution.

  • Ed-words

    plausible? (defin.) reasonable or probable

    Evolution is irrefutable scientific fact, a proven "theory".

    • http://www.goddiscussion.com admin

      How would you word the question, Ed-words? I thought about the plausible – probable – reasonable thing. Some people might say "believe,"; i.e., do you believe in evolution, but I have trouble calling the theory of evolution a "belief," which implies faith instead of science.

      Deborah

      • http://www.houseofbetazed.com Mriana

        I don't think it is a belief. It is a matter of fact. The sky is blue and we know it is blue. Some people may not know why it is blue, but they know it is. That is not a belief, but a statement of fact. Now saying "I believe in God" is not a statement of fact and neither is is "I know Jesus. I have a relationship with Him." Neither statement can be proven or shown without a doubt. Whereas Evolution can be shown and proven and has been proven, making it a scientific theory, which is a fact, in this definition of theory.

  • Judy Adler

    I replied "I have no idea" (meaning I don't know) because although the Theory of Evolution is the most rational and believable compared to the other choices, I think we really have little understanding of the broader concept of "reality" (let alone the origin of life on earth).

  • http://none James Barclay

    Mankind has this essential penchant which states that anything at the moment unexplainable, unfathomable or sufficiently mysterious must therefore be the work of some athropomorphic superbeing. Freeman Dyson said that any science sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. Therefore, to me, an "intelligent design" for creation would be causal to fit necessary advancement. It is said that Nature abhors a vacuum. I add that creation and advancement of a species, any species, abhors gaps. By this, I do not mean a missing example due to extinction, but a 'sine qua non'. Was human creation a necessary advancement for evolutionary nature? I really don't think so because there are creatures which have not advanced further because there was no need or purpose. I certainly didn't come from highly intellectually and physically advanced creatures from another part of the universe. The only thing I can see that makes mankind fit the necessary causal model would be something or someone who needed mankind to be and had the capability of creating him and her. This is an entirely plausible scientific model and does not try and escape logic or defy reason. Nor does it seek argument unless someone needs to make one based on a debatable factor, however small or discerning. the only thing really new that this model asserts is the same as mankind asserts for itself when it finds necessity demands an invention, discovery or solution. It could possibly pass peer review from other individuals who had no preconceived prejudices- on either side of the "Creation v Science' pugilistic ring. In conclusion, the idea of something we give the name "Yhwh" or "Elohim" to would suffice for this, if only for the simple factor of economy Conclusion: Intelligent Design.

  • Ed-words

    Maybe something like, "Do you accept evolution as a proven theory?"

    (Your turn)

    • http://trustreason.com nondescript

      Science doesn't do proofs. That is left to mathematicians, logisticians, and distillers.

  • Artiewhitefox

    It is intelligent design howbeit with death in it that man wanted thinking he would be better than the life around him being like a god. That is what Lucifer wanted. When humans have that without Jesus in their soul will oppress whoever for whatever presupposed reason calling it good. That is the sin of Sodom,and Goimorah read Isaiah 1 KJV.

  • Artiewhitefox

    It is intelligent design howbeit with death in it that man wanted thinking he would be better than the life around him being like a god. That is what Lucifer wanted. When humans have lucifer in their soul willingly without Jesus in their soul they will oppress whoever for whatever presupposed reason calling it good. That is the sin of Sodom,and Gomoroh read Isaiah 1 KJV.

  • Ed-words

    You "have no idea" but the world's most
    accomplished scientists do.

    It PROVES how life developed on our planet.

    That's all it attempts to do.

Scroll To Top