Edit: I must say though, your most annoying catch phrase got to be "consensus science". Which seems to disagree with a scientific model simply because of the fact that the evidence is so thorough and uncontroversial, that every human being who studies the evidence agrees with the conclusion. In short, you're mocking those who have knowledge for not sharing your ignorance based opinion. You can't see how ridiculous that FoxNews catch phrase is?
Even the most fanatic Darwiniac only invokes consensus for their crazy *** story not 100% agreement, so you had to have been at the pinnacle of your faith at the moment you typed that.
Your crazy *** story only seems unimpeachable because scientists who challenge it get sued and/or lose their jobs for daring to go up against the dogma disguised as "scientific theory." Darwiniacs treat any questioning of their supposed "scientific theory" like heresy which is a sure sign of its scientific veracity.
How could a kid possibly question a biology teacher or some claim written in a government textbook if they can't even pray or chew pop-tarts into the shape of guns without a liberal busybody butting in and punishing them for not being little Obamabots.
There is no way to know what adults believe about Darwin's theory when everyone has been manipulated into going along with it through claims of scientific consensus.
My guess is:
*most government school graduates go along with it because they were indoctrinated with it
*a lot of God-believers who don't really believe it may go along with it because it is easier to acquiesce to loud mouthed liberals who lord their stories over God-believers like apes with a club.
*some critical thinkers might question it, but most really won't care enough to understand what Darwiniacs are really claiming
*Then there is a buttload of people who got all confused about what "evolution" really is when the Darwiniac purveyors of consensus science started calling small differences in populations "micro-evolution."
*Also, Darwiniacs pick off more uncritical people by describing evolution as "change over time" in the same way they describe killing a baby as "reproductive choice."
I'm guessing with the percentage of people in America who claim to believe in God, that the real consensus on the origin of life would be intelligent design if people were allowed to hear about it.
I will conclude with my memorized fox news catch phrase (otherwise known as the description of consensus science by the late Michael Crichton):
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
[Crichton gave a number of examples where the scientific consensus was completely wrong for many years.]
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
