The “Darwinists” of which you speak are microbiologists, paleontologists, biochemists, etc.

Evolution is the “theory of everything” for biology, that unites and explains all these sciences. There is not separate “Darwinist.”

This is on the face inaccurate considering that not all scientists are Darwinists and not all Darwinists are scientists.

A microbiologist does not use Darwinism to research a chemical pathway in a cell. He may use it to choose what to research, but this is not the same as the research itself. And he may explain his findings based on Darwinism afterward, but the research did not need that explanation.

This is especially true considering how often Darwinism fails to predict the findings.

Therefore, Darwinism does little more than what you just agreed to. It provides explanation, not evidence.

It’s the combination of wording and interpretation. “unguided” and “guided” are hot-button words, and they don’t define them. They claim that they’re using “a standard definition of Darwinism,” but my quick search doesn’t show one with the word “unguided” in it.

What’s it there for, if not to influence people’s responses?

And then they lowercase “intelligent design” and don’t define that, either.

Do they mean the specific version of “intelligent design,” in which the designer creates structures and systems from scratch that could not develop naturally; or do they mean some vague version of “intelligent design” in which there’s an intelligence behind it all somewhere–a version that pretty much incorporates any concept of God the responder might have?

Not to mention that they ask about “development of life” without defining that. Do they mean the development of life from non-life, or the development of life after that?

So they’ve asked vague, ill-defined questions containing hot-button terms that set up a false dichotomy and then trumpet the results as showing that “the American public overwhelmingly rejects Darwinian theory.” What if you’re a classic believer in theistic evolution–if you believe that God created a universe that, in accord with His intentions, produced mankind through entirely natural processes?

Which answer should you choose? If you choose the second because you don’t like the term “unguided” and because you don’t realize the hidden meaning of “intelligent design,” the DI will lump you in with those who “reject Darwinism,” even though that’s a total distortion of your point of view.

It seems like the DI “intelligently designed” this poll to get a certain result, got it, and overstate its significance.

But I’m willing to be corrected if you disagree.

The theory of evolution cannot even muster a testable hypothesis.

And a recent peer-reviewed paper that tried to refute Dr Behe pretty much squashed the theory.

That no one even seemed to notice tells me that the ToE is more dogmatic than Catholicism.

I like your question. IOW, begging the question does not a science make.

“They propose that individuals can change random events. Very interesting, dont knock it until you read the experiments they have done/doing.”

I took a look at their website. Looks kindof religious to me.

I’ve seen several polls of “likely voters.” I don’t believe it is necessarily intended to predict political events; rather, it’s assumed that people who vote look into issues more than people who don’t vote – so they have a greater chance of knowing what they’re being asked than would a random person off the street. I don’t know if I agree with that assessment, but it seems to be a common practice among pollsters.

“Design” was not the loser in the USSR’s 70 years – the loser was Mendelian genetics and Darwinian biology, many of whose practitioners were executed or sent to labor camps. The “winner” in most of the USSR’s 70 years was another antiestablishmentarian pseudoscience, Lysenkoism.

Trofim Lysenko was a rabid anti-Darwinism pro-Lamarckist who rejected evolution because it didn’t fit with “Marxism-Leninism”. He coined a term, “creative Darwinism,” which meant whatever he or Stalin needed it to mean at the moment. But like “Social Darwinism,” it had little relationship to evolution.

Of course evolution is on the ballot, in every election, local, state or national. The electorate elects somebody who represents them (more or less). Look at Representative Sally Kern of Oklahoma, or Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.

Federal funding for science has to go through Congress, and some senators and representatives are opposed to research and science, including evolution.

Darwinists have been gathering explanations (not evidence) for 150 years. They (like ID) use the gathered evidence of other fields such as microbiology and paleontology for their explanations.

The “Darwinists” of which you speak are microbiologists, paleontologists, biochemists, etc.

Evolution is the “theory of everything” for biology, that unites and explains all these sciences. There is not separate “Darwinist.”