Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution and liberalism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Feebasfactor (talk | contribs) (a little confused about the stats) |
Feebasfactor (talk | contribs) (just read Dan's post) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::I don't quite understand the statistics of the article as it is currently phrased... does this mean that 64% (a majority) of Americans who believe the theory of evolution is valid are conservative, or at least independant? Or perhaps I misread it/misunderstood the point... Conservative? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT) | ::I don't quite understand the statistics of the article as it is currently phrased... does this mean that 64% (a majority) of Americans who believe the theory of evolution is valid are conservative, or at least independant? Or perhaps I misread it/misunderstood the point... Conservative? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::Wait, I just read Dan's post... perhaps there's just been some slight mistake with the numbers. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:18, 25 May 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 22:18, May 25, 2008
This should probably go on the evolution page, not given a new article of its own. It's not a topic unto itself, it's a statistic about an issue, and so it should be on that issue's page.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 16:33, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- This source says nothing about 36% of liberals believing in evolution. All it says is that 64% of conservatives do not believe in evolution. That would mean that 36% of conservatives believe in evolution, and would be contrary to what you are trying to imply. DanH 17:35, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- I don't quite understand the statistics of the article as it is currently phrased... does this mean that 64% (a majority) of Americans who believe the theory of evolution is valid are conservative, or at least independant? Or perhaps I misread it/misunderstood the point... Conservative? Feebasfactor 18:17, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
- Wait, I just read Dan's post... perhaps there's just been some slight mistake with the numbers. Feebasfactor 18:18, 25 May 2008 (EDT)