Well, yes, aside from the badly-worded question with absolutely no null hypothesis and upon which the whole purpose of the poll hinges, it's an OK poll. With question three worded the way it is, it's totally useless, in other words.
I can see why they worded it the way they did. They wanted to blame the atheists. So they gave believers a nice 'God and evolution are compatible' option (number 2), but didn't give atheists one. Conclusion: it's those obsessive atheists who insist on bringing God into evolution - we Christians are the sane, balanced ones. And if evolution is being rejected, it's because those same atheists insist that it's not compatible with God.
As a weak atheist/strong agnostic who calls Dawkins on this every time the annoying smug git pulls the same stunt, I'm not going to let Theos get away with it just because I agree with their (blatantly rigged) conclusions.
no subject
I can see why they worded it the way they did. They wanted to blame the atheists. So they gave believers a nice 'God and evolution are compatible' option (number 2), but didn't give atheists one. Conclusion: it's those obsessive atheists who insist on bringing God into evolution - we Christians are the sane, balanced ones. And if evolution is being rejected, it's because those same atheists insist that it's not compatible with God.
As a weak atheist/strong agnostic who calls Dawkins on this every time the annoying smug git pulls the same stunt, I'm not going to let Theos get away with it just because I agree with their (blatantly rigged) conclusions.
*and breathe...*