This is an intentionally misleading question.   The Holy Bible describes a genealogy of human beings that may not span more than 3,000 years, so anyone familiar with the Holy Bible (like perhaps the 264 million Americans who proclaim, when asked, that they're Christians) can't answer any of these question honestly.  It's true that 3,000 years is "within the last 10,000 years", but the wording causes misleading responses even though someone may 100% accept creation by God as described in the Holy Bible.

It's disingenuous to ask a Christian whether or not God "guided" a process "over millions of years" when most Christians don't even accept a figure longer than 6,000 years.  Such wording enables "evolutionists" to proclaim that 49% of Americans "believe in evolution", which is an inaccurate assessment.  Even with this biased, anti-Christian phrasing of the questions, only 9% of Americans claimed that they believe that life was created by "evolution" rather than by God. 

How many Christians would answer such a question this way simply because it "comes closest" to their views, but still doesn't accurately represent their actual opinion?  From this single question, we just don't know, and no Gallup Poll ever answers that question definitively.  Their previous question gets us closer to the truth, but it still avoids that key question:

Next, I'm going to read you some areas of instruction the high schools might offer. Please say whether you think each one should be required instruction, could be offered as an elective but should not be required, or should not be taught at all. How about… The theory of creationism

The correct term is "creation", not "creationism", which makes any respondent who answers affirmatively to appear to be a member of a minority sect of some kind.  At least we get the impression from this answer that 25% want instruction in creation to be required, and another 56% want it to be offered but not required, for a total of 81% who want creation to be taught in public schools (and who didn't mind putting themselves in the category of a radical "creationist").  But it still leaves an unknown percentage who certainly responded negatively due just to the wording of the question.

Precisely how many of them actually "believe in creation" is still impossible to answer, requiring us to refer to yet another Gallup Poll which shows that 86% specify that they are members of a Christian church, and 9% specify "none" when asked which church they belong to.  This is equally misleading, because we don't know what portion of the 9% are Christians like Thomas Jefferson who definitely were or are Christians but don't belong to organized churches.

We do know that a minimum of 86% and up to 95% of Americans are Christians, and that it's Christians who learn about creation from the Holy Bible, but we still don't know exactly what percentage "believe in creation".

The expertise with which Gallup avoided answering this simple question suggests that nine out of ten Americans "believe in creation" [read: are Christians], and thus are being denied one of the most fundamental rights of religious freedom.

SEX DIFFERENCES

So why do Gallup's polls on "gender differences" show the same blatant bias?   Why would Gallup make the following blatantly false statement:

Neither sex is most likely to be described by the terms "intelligent," "easy-going," and "ambitious."

Gallup's very own data shows that men are 1.4 times more likely than women to believe that men are more ambitious, 1.2 times more likely to believe that men are more easy-going, and twice as likely to believe that men are more intelligent, but women are 1.1 times more likely to believe that women are more easy-going, 1.3 times more likely that women are more ambitious, and 1.5 times more likely to believe that women are more intelligent.

iow, this statement is a LIE.   Gallup itself misrepresented it's own data!  These are not minute differences--these are the differences which God established, for a purpose.

ANTI-REPUBLICAN BIAS

In the last fifty years, their "polls" have consistently underestimated public support for Republicans and overestimated public support for Democrats--a fact of life which should be anathema to putative statisticians.   They estimated that Clinton would get 49% of the 1992 vote, but he got only 43.2%, an over-representation of 5.8%.  They estimated that Reagan would get only 47% of the 1980 vote, but he got 59.1%, an under-representation of 3.8%.  Overall in the last fifty years this consistent media bias has added up to underestimating Republicans by 4.6% and overestimating Democrats by 7.3%, which is an 11.9% difference.  Yet Gallup proclaims that their polls are accurate to within plus or minus 2%--a claim which constitutes nothing less than consumer fraud.

Why bother to pretend to be "unbiased"? Why pretend that they take a lot of pride in the "objectivity" of their polls?   Christians in this country know if not sense that they STINK to High Heaven. They have yet to conduct an "objective" sodomy poll, instead asking softball questions like "do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights", to which they get an 83% positive response. Even Christians who are obligated by the Holy Bible to uphold sodomy laws would answer "yes" to such a softball question.

See http://www.gallup.com/poll/trends/ptaccuracy.asp  

By chronically misrepresenting American mainstream opinion by this much, and by putting their own opinions on a higher priority than the facts, Gallup has become a pawn if not a leader in the destruction of American politics. Their polls are cited by many American publications, which misleads entire segments of American voters.

Why do they do this?  Votescam might have the answer:

*****************************************************************

Prejudice -- To decide beforehand; to lean in one favor of one side of a cause for some reason or other than it's justice. Reference: Bouvier's 8th -- 1859

****************************************************************

Do The Math: Election Returns Don't Add Up By James Collier http://www.votescam.com/frame.html  

The seeds for the rigging of 1996 primaries were planted in 1964 when, within months of the JFK assassination, a power frenzy was unleashed in Washington. The CIA, FBI and the nation's most powerful media heads met in secret. The media agreed not to challenge the Warren Commission's preposterous conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. In return, the media gained the right to be the official vote-counting apparatus for presidential elections. This incident was doc- documented in reports from the Air Force Staff College and American University. The deal was struck and News Election Services (NES) was founded. Today, that network pool of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, AP, the New York Times, Washington Post and others has a tote-board at 225 W. 34th St. in New York City. When Brokaw, Jennings, Rather and CNN tell the public on election night, at 7:01 pm EST, "We are the first with the most," they all lie. Just like Pravda, they get the same numbers from the NES board. The networks also own the exit-polling unit, Voter Research and Survey (VRS). That allows them to announce who won the presidency at 7:01 p.m., before a single vote is counted. The numbers do not change, and are always 100 percent correct. NES merged with VRS and is now known as Voter News Service (VNS). The networks want us to believe that people vote in the same percentages in every precinct across the country. Thus, an exit poll in Maine is representative of us all. Once that one magic precinct in Maine votes, the remainder of the country may just as well have stayed home, because the numbers will not change from coast to coast. Against this backdrop, we now examine a few curious events that took place during this primary season. Iowa -The media told us at 6:55 p.m. on the evening of the Iowa caucuses that it knew the final vote totals based on "entrance polls' " Not a single vote had been cast (unlike a regular primary, voting starts not in the morning but at 7 p.m.)

People were still parking their cars, and witnesses reported that nobody filled out entrance polls. The paper ballot vote started sometime after 7 p.m. Sen. Bob Dole won. The next day the Iowa papers ran the VNS totals. Observers noticed that Pat Buchanan's vote was shaved by 100 to 150 votes per county from what they knew he received the night before, and they called county election supervisors to ask: "When is the election going to be certified?" The answer: "We don't know, maybe in April... the media hasn't told us yet." Election supervisors had told precinct captains to "throw away your totals, we aren't officially recording them this year.. the media will tell us what the totals are" And that's how you rig a paper-ballot election. Arizona- VNS projected Buchanan the winner, but Steve Forbes won. The next day the networks apologized for the first time since the consortium was formed. They said their exit poll must have been wrong. Here's what our investigation has thus far uncovered: Sometime during the after- noon in Maricopa County (Phoenix), ballot boxes were removed by people claiming to be from the Election Supervisor's Office. "We need to get a jump on the vote count," the precinct workers were told. New boxes were already in place. No questions were asked. Also, roughly 219,000 voters (out of 1.2 million registered) were issued plastic laminated vote cards that were punched when they voted, so that nobody could vote twice on the same card. However, it seems that 60,000 additional cards were issued to "special" voters who were heard bragging in vote lines that they could vote twice without being caught. The election supervisor's office in Maricopa County issued a report stating that only two of the 60,000 extra ballots were voted. According to Yvonne Reed, assistant county recorder, 10 people were hired after the election to hand record 219,000 seven- digit voter ID numbers into a computer. Reed said the computer showed that only two voters had their numbers entered twice, and those votes were dropped from the total. The 10 employees worked three 12- hour days, with two half-hour breaks, Reed said. Do the math: Roughly 220,000 cards divided by 10 workers equals about 22,000 cards. Multiply 22,000 cards by 7 digits in each card and you get 154,000 digits. That means each worker entered about 50,000 digits a day. There are 60 minutes in an hour. To accomplish the task, one would have to enter more than 4,000 digits an hour non- stop for 12 hours a day, or more than one keyboard strike per second. Unlikely, to say the least. Reed refused to give the name of the 10 people. She said it was not public information. "Yes it is," I said. "They were paid with taxpayers' dollars." A citizen's investigation is pending.

It seems that 60,000 additional cards were issued to "special" voters who were heard bragging in vote lines that they could vote twice without being caught.

WHO COUNTS THE AMERICAN VOTE?

     Despite the wide-spread, and perfectly reasonable belief that the government counts the national vote on election night, the reality is entirely different: The vote is counted by a little-known private corporation named Voter News Services (VNS) located in New York City. VNS is a major media conglomerate comprised of all the major networks, including Fox and CNN, and also the wire services, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. All of the vote results tabulated in each county, mainly by computer, are transferred to VNS where they are tabulated in secret and disseminated to the public, who accepts them without question. The computer tabulated votes at the county level leave no paper trail. Only the corporations who program the software to count votes in each state know for sure if the results are fair, or if fraud has indeed been been committed. There are no checks and balances. The software is not open to public scrutiny. Neither is VNS.

      Created in 1970 as News Election Services (NES), VNS has existed in near total secrecy for thirty years and may well be the most powerful corporation in the world. Most people who know of their existence incorrectly believe they are little more than a polling organization. The fact is that they have co-opted the vote count in America, despite their claims that the results they disseminate are "unofficial." These results are accepted across the board on election night by Americans and election officials. VNS is very well aware of this uncontested power. They know that very few Americans have the time or inclination to challenge the vote count. They also know that when they are challenged, they have little to fear. Understandably, they have responded to accusations of vote fraud with the arrogance befitting the power of a private and unaccountable media corporation.

     On May 18th, E. Baylis, a reporter for the Asheville Global Report called VNS and requested information about their organization. Ms. Baylis spoke with Lee C. Shapiro, the press secretary for VNS. The simple conversation was quickly aborted when Baylis asked if a citizen watchdog group existed to oversee the function of VNS on election night. Shapiro replied that she was "not going to get into this with you," and insisted she had a meeting to attend.

      On May 20th, another Global Report writer, Victoria Collier, called VNS. She was told that Ms. Shapiro was in a meeting. Collier asked only one question: if there was any literature about VNS that could be sent through the mail, such as a brochure. The secretary had no answer, then put her on hold for nearly five minutes. The next person to appear on the other end of the line was the head of VNS himself, Bill Headline. He wanted to know why she was calling. The following is the transcript of the ensuing conversation.

      (Editors note- The stuttering and stammering on the part of Bill Headline offered Collier ample time for transcribing the conversation as it took place, but has been largely edited for the sake of the reader. What remains is necessary to give you a feeling for his extreme nervousness.)

Victoria Collier

Interview with Bill Headline--VNS Executive Director, New York City May 20, 2000

Collier- Yes, I was calling to ask if you had any information you could send to me. Any literature about your organization.

Headline- Ah, well. . . um. . . . . (laughs) . . I hesitate only because we don't really have anything in the way of literature. Uh. . . we have a fax sheet that we're in the process of putting together but it's not ready for distribution. Um. . .

Collier- Oh. And you don't have a Website?

Headline- Well, no, we don't have a Website.

Collier- But, people poll for you? I mean, you do poll?

Headline- We. . uh, we do exit polling.

Collier- Do you have volunteers who do that?

Headline- No, we hire people around the country to do that.

Collier- So, if somebody wanted to work for you, how would they get information on how to do it?

Headline- Well they would, uh. . . they would drop us a note and say that they were interested in. . uh. . in doing that. And I'd be happy to uh. . . to receive such a note. And uh. . . we have a . . uh. . . a group of people who recruit for exit polling on election night.

Collier- Well, it is strange that you don't have any written information that you could send out. I mean--

Headline- Why is it strange?

Collier- Well just because your organization has been around for such a long time, and it seems that in all this time there would be something written up. For the public?

Headline- We uh. . . we do a little, a little . . . as I say, we have a fax that's in uh, that's in development. And uh, we have a . . . a brochure that gets sent out to people who have been hired to work for us.

Collier- Oh, you do have a brochure.

Headline- A. . . well, brochure is kind of stretching it, it's a. . . it's one page.

Blood in the Streets?
Report By Hal Turner - Posted: 11.12.00
Source:  http://www.halturnershow.com/blood.htm      The Hal Turner Show