Joined: May 2006
| They affected the law and future actions but how many of the lay public knew or changed their opinions based upon those cases. |
just repeating what you said the first time, while what you seem to be best at, does nothing to support your argument.
you don't actually have any idea how to support your contention, do you?
of course not.
I, on the other hand, pointed out those three case as VERY clear examples of ones that DID INDEED change public attitudes about the issues those cases covered.
you can ignore the facts all you want, as you almost always do, but it simply doesn't do much for your argument when you do.
|As Wesley said, less than 50% reject evolution outright, but 48% is terribly close.|
that's called "moving the goalposts", in case you missed why the term was applied to you.
here's some simple math for you:
x<.50 is NOT a majority.
even considering the form of the questions asked, this is as high as it has ever gotten, you can check the gallup poll data for the last 20 years yourself; it was examined directly in the Nat Geo article on evolution that came out in Nov. 2004, which might be an easier read for you.
and you also ignored Wes' post detailing how the Kitzmiller case did indeed affect public attitudes.
|Now wait a minute, I supply evidence and the actual evidence is dismissed because it contradicts the opposing point.|
that's NOT evidence in support of your contentions, but I doubt you even realize it.
what's more, you compelely failed to address why the media has such interest in covering high profile trials.
you're simply wrong, as usual.
I bet you also thought GW's last election victory was a "mandate", too, right?
when you get back, you should try to track down the paper discussed on PT in this thread:
note the following generalized statement from Matzke in that thread:
|Historians and creationism watchers have long noted several strong and quite reliable psychological generalizations that can be made about creationists – e.g., how creationists jump to conclusions based on what naively seems like “common sense” to them, an almost instinctual dualism- and design-based thinking, a place of pride for “childlike faith”, an old-fashioned Baconian attitude to science (Facts good! Theories bad!!), a severe difficulty with probabilities and other abstract topics, a severe case of typological thinking and an inability to even correctly conceptualize a particular proposed “transitional” organism, an amazingly uncritical acceptance and blind repetition of anything their own authorities say, etc…|
and see how many of these observations apply to your own posts over the last year.
I sure see a lot of them that apply. If you fail to, I'd be happy to point them out for you one at a time, starting with:
| a severe difficulty with probabilities and other abstract topics|
It's occassionally amusing that you are mentally incapable of seeing your own patterns in this regard, but more often it's simply irritating.
| We're talking about hearts and minds |
perhaps you should try to define that for the rest of us, who most likely think it translates to attitudes and opinions.
I, for the life of me, can't possibly think of any other way of defining that, and if that's the definition, then you're simply dead wrong about high profile court cases not affecting public attitudes and opinions.
It qualifies as one of the most ridiculous positions you've taken on this board, and that covers a lot of ground mr. "no transitional fossil support" man.
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."