18.95 percent of OneNewsNow.com poll respondents are officially insane

Whereas most of the remainder probably consists of delusional people.
An annoying corollary of news sites that are actually propaganda outlets is that the polls they feature very rarely offer sensible set-ups. This can actually be a tricky thing to accomplish even when the poll source isn’t intent on driving respondents toward a single choice among answers, but when bias is built-in and obligatory, real problems ensue.
This OneNewsNow.com poll asks, “Can one believe the biblical account of creation and still believe in evolution?” Realistically this is a non-starter. Regardless of whether a respondent is a creationist, it is logically impossible to treat either of the Genesis accounts as factual while also accepting evolution. I should not have to explain why this is the case. “Theistic evolutionists” are a sketchy lot in any event, but not treating the Bible as literally true does allow for significant compromises, even if some of these involve risible transmogrifications of scripture en route to some semblance of reconciliation. So anyone who answers “yes” to this question is completely lost.
For what it’s worth, I don’t personally believe that any one religious account meshes with evolution. I can allow for the logical possibility of a creator-deity setting evolution in motion and standing back to watch the chaos unfold, but the failure of individual creation stories tends to give the lie to the idea of any of them being true.
Anyway, had I answered this poll, I would have answered “no,” but not for the reason the vast majority of OneNewsNow.com readers surely did. I would have set up the poll like this:
What are your beliefs about creation and evolution?
A) Creation is true, making evolution a lie
B) Creation is true and the best explanation, but evolution could still be true as well
C) Evolution is true and the best explanation, but creation could still be true as well
C) Evolution is true, making creation false
Even that is unsatisfactory, but beats what the OneNewsNow.com twists came up with,

Advertisements
  1. #1 by simba on February 28, 2009 - 7:20 pm

    My religion teacher attempted to convince us that the order in which animals were created in Genesis followed that of evolution extremely closely, therefore the bible is correct and scientifically proven. Of course, fruiting trees appeared long before sea creatures- why didn’t I see it before?

  2. #2 by Left_Wing_Fox on February 28, 2009 - 10:14 pm

    I could see how it’s possible to believe both, you just need to ignore _some_ of the evidence as opposed to all of it.
    One can accept that decent with modification and natural selection are valid methods of evolution, but that the clock started at 6000 years ago. =P You’d have to ignore all the overlapping and corroborating evidence from geology, cosmology, nuclear physics, and the whole concept of methodological naturalism that underlies the scientific methods.
    Of course, I could also believe the moon landings were real, but NASA is hiding the fact that the moon is made of Parmigiano-Reggiano. Human beings are unfortunately very good at compartmentalization and self-delusion.

  3. #3 by Left_Wing_Fox on February 28, 2009 - 10:14 pm

    I could see how it’s possible to believe both, you just need to ignore _some_ of the evidence as opposed to all of it.
    One can accept that decent with modification and natural selection are valid methods of evolution, but that the clock started at 6000 years ago. =P You’d have to ignore all the overlapping and corroborating evidence from geology, cosmology, nuclear physics, and the whole concept of methodological naturalism that underlies the scientific methods.
    Of course, I could also believe the moon landings were real, but NASA is hiding the fact that the moon is made of Parmigiano-Reggiano. Human beings are unfortunately very good at compartmentalization and self-delusion.

  4. #4 by Left_Wing_Fox on February 28, 2009 - 10:14 pm

    I could see how it’s possible to believe both, you just need to ignore _some_ of the evidence as opposed to all of it.
    One can accept that decent with modification and natural selection are valid methods of evolution, but that the clock started at 6000 years ago. =P You’d have to ignore all the overlapping and corroborating evidence from geology, cosmology, nuclear physics, and the whole concept of methodological naturalism that underlies the scientific methods.
    Of course, I could also believe the moon landings were real, but NASA is hiding the fact that the moon is made of Parmigiano-Reggiano. Human beings are unfortunately very good at compartmentalization and self-delusion.

  5. #5 by eddie on March 1, 2009 - 2:22 pm

    The biblical creation stories contradict each other but the fundiots see them as both literally, infallibly true. Cognitive dissonance I think it’s called.

  6. #6 by Tere Johnson on May 21, 2009 - 12:51 pm

    Oh, OneNewsNow is a propaganda outlet. I see. What does that make this website? Infallible 100% unadulturated news.
    Please!
    Any writer who posits people who believe God created the universe and everything in it are “delusional” has an agenda too. Grow up.

  7. #7 by Kevin Beck on May 21, 2009 - 1:03 pm

    “Grow up?” Gee, thanks for the sage advice.
    “Any writer who posits people who believe God created the universe and everything in it are ‘delusional’ has an agenda too.”
    The difference being that this assertion is correct. OneNewsNow.com consciously and systematically posts bullshit and lies. I don’t. And you did nothing to dissuade anyone from this reality–you merely bitched about my characterization of godders. If stating the truth is an “agenda,” so be it. (You should search this blog for the word “agenda”–not coincidentally, I posted that spoting this word is a near-sure sign that the writer is an idiot. At least you didn’t couple it to “gay” or “liberal.”)

  8. #8 by Kevin Beck on May 21, 2009 - 3:26 pm

    Tere, you aren’t too fucking bright, are you? Even leaving aside the act you are apparently a fan of One News Now. That site advertises itself as a NEWS site. This is a blog. Blogs by definition are mostly opinion and noise.
    Besides, what does this blog’s character have to do with whether One News Now creates propoganda or not? If the accusation of propagandism is made, the idea is to examine the claim and judge whether it is accurate. This blog could be a news site, a porn site, or a sports memorabilia page, but its character has nothing to do with whether One News Now is a propaganda machine. (In fact it’s something worse than that and caters to especially retarded god botherers.)
    You remind me of the wing nuts who respond to criticism of GW Bush by turning around and saying “Well Clinton spewed all over an intern’s dress.” So the fuck what? Criticizing one president doesn’t carry “his predecessor was perfect” as a rider.
    You suck, Tere. But most people who comment on three month old posts are drive by assholes so you probably won’t see anyway.

  9. #9 by Suzanne on March 10, 2010 - 8:57 pm

    God bless you. He loves you and he died for you so that you could be with him.

  10. #10 by jim on March 11, 2010 - 10:50 am

    “He loves you and he died for you so that you could be with him.”

    Eeeww. That sounds a little creepy to me.

%d bloggers like this: