Poll: Most Americans Don't Believe Evolution
72Related Post
For more on controversial issues like this visit my other post: Christopher Hitchen's Atheist Challenge Answered
|
Kindle: Amazon's Wireless Reading Device
Price: $359.00
|
|
Apple iPod touch 16 GB (Old)
Price: $339.00
List Price: $399.00 |
|
The Settlers of Catan
Price: $28.11
List Price: $42.00 |
|
Monopoly Electronic Banking Edition
Price: $28.85
List Price: $39.99 |
According to a Newsweek poll done in march of 2007:
Only 13% of Americans believe in naturalistic evolution (that is that God had no part in evolution)
However, 48% of Americans believe that God created "humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"
30% of Americans took the middle ground responding that they believed "Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"
9% remained unsure.
And it seems that this poll is not a fluke as many other polls from different polling companies have reported very similar findings. Go to polling report and look around at some of the other polls if you'd like.
It seems, to me, that these results are good news for Mike Huckabee who has gotten some heat for saying that he doesn't believe in evolution. Those kinds of attacks seem quite strange in light of America's views on the origin of life on earth.
I mean why would you attack someones view when it lines up with about 78% of Americans?
But all that aside, Im not even sure why you would bring up this question in a presidential campaign as it has nothing to do with what it takes to be president.
Comment and Share
Thanks for reading my post! Please comment below and if you like what I wrote please click on the SHARE IT button and send it (or digg it or reddit or whatever) to someone else.
Share it! — Rate it: up down [flag this hub]
Comments
All people are stupid some of the time, and some people are stupid all of the time. Aparently 78% of the people are stupid this time.
No Ralph Im saying its politically stupid to attack someone for holding a postition that is hugely popular.
Oh and whose to say that naturalistic evolution is correct anyway?
My high school science teacher, Doc Harrison and my Sunday school teacher whose name I can't recall. He taught us that there was no conflict between science and the Bible. And 99 percent of other scientists (some of whom believe that evolution was the mechanism by which God created man and the rest of the creatures of the earth). However, the Baptists had other ideas, e.g., no sex standing up because it might lead to dancing. And, as the Presbyterian minister in "The River Runs Through It" said, "Methodists are Baptists who can read."
However, you may be correct to say that it may be counterproductive to attack Huckabee for expressing a view held by so many ignorant Americans.
Theistic evolution is different from naturalistic evolution. One says God guided it but where the other said it all happened by random chance...
Wow I am now mixed up altogether,
I am keeping my thoughts to myself.
It sounds safer
Good discussion , don't forget to turn the light out before you go to bed
I am a Christian, and I beieve that God created the world in six days, and on the seventh day he rested; just like the Bible states. But even if I wasn't a Christian, I could look at nature and life itself, and know that there must have been a Divine Creator. I made top grades in school, I have a high IQ, I was a teacher at one point, I consider myself an intelligent person. So intelligent in fact that I don't try to deny the obvious.
The problem with some people is that they don't want to admit there's a God, because they want to live their own corrupt ways. So, they try to find ways to disprove Him. But all the theories in the world will not change fact.
I don't know why someone would believe that God had a hand in evolution, but refuse to believe His book. Why would His book say that He created the world in six days, if he created it in many years? God could've created it immediately, but He set the time frame for us.
well, many people believe that genesis 1 and 2 were written in a poetic form and were meant more to reveal the character of the creator and less to explain the process of creation. So for them the theistic evolution and genesis don't conflict.
That's what I was taught. The Bible is full of contradictory passages and others which conflict with what we have learned through science and the humanities since it was written. It's called the advance of civilization.
Ralph I think you're absolutely and completely wrong about the bible but I hope you understand why I don't want to have that debate on this hub. Maybe when I have more time we can make competing hubs on the issue?
Okay, but in my experience debates on this and similar subjects never change anybody's mind. My views are in cement as I assume yours and blessedmommie's are. Despite my rhetoric, I respect your views and am not interested in trying to change them, except when they interfere with an objective which I feel strongly about such as embryonic stem cell research, birth control, gay rights,separation of church and state, women's reproductive rights, comprehensive sex education in public schools,etc. I recognize the contribution of our common western Judeo-Christian heritage to our civilizaztion. However, I think civilization's progress wasn't frozen in Biblical times.
I understand what you're saying Ralph. Perhaps we can debate those issues you spoke of through hubs? I could even give you naturalistic reasons for my beliefs on each of those issues if you'd prefer...
I'll be happy to engage with you as they come up in our Hubs. I'm not sure what you mean by "naturalistic reasons." I find "utilitarian" and "libertarian" reasons more persuasive. I don't like to see religious views imposed on everyone legislatively without a compelling social interest and strong consensus for doing so. People who are opposed to abortion should not have abortions. Some of the believers in the "sanctity of life" support capital punishment. I worry more about the sanctity of the lives of adult humans than of microscopic zygotes.
by naturalist I mean non-religious.
P.s. do you think that only people who oppose murder should not murder?
The really weird thing is how out of step America is from the rest of English speaking Western world - it that % is correct then I suspect the only other countries which would poll a similar % are muslim states - odd, or ironic or something?
The problem is partly in the notion of 'belief'. Science is the body of falsifiable knowledge that has not yet been proven false. There's no place for belief in this. A scientific theory has a predicted set of consequences. A single contrary instance logically proves a theory false, while no finite number of positive instances can prove a theory true. Science must always be our best 'guess' yet, which might be true. That is simultaneously its beauty and its power.
Belief is an important (for some people) psychological need. Its natural environment is religion (and politics) where dogma takes the place of logically falsifiable theories.
I'm not sure what murder has to do with our discussion. I hope you're not equating early abortion with murder. If you are, that's an incorrect use of the English language. Every month or so, there's an anti-abortion demonstration in front of the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak, Michigan with banners and picket signs saying "STOP MURDERING CHILDREN" and other similarly inflammatory and innacurate slogans. These kinds of statements should not be allowed by the Priests and Bishops because they tend to wind up a certain number of fanatics who are shooting doctors who perform abortions. The Shrine of the Little Flower has a long history of extremism. It was built by the "Radio Priest," Father Coughlin who was a virulent anti-semite supporter of Adolf Hitler during the 1930s until he was ordered off the air by the Bishop of Detroit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin
As long as we're citing public opinion polls, do you agree that the fact that most Americans think Bush is a lousy president makes it true?
Anyone who believes in the supernatural is by definition being irrational. Does anybody find it interesting that higher I.Q. means less statistical likeliness to believe in god? So many Americans trust their educated elite with pretty much everything, except for when it comes to a tale of magic and miracles that has been forced into minds at a young age and simply demands more explanation about the world than it really explains, this fairy tale they "know" is true. Nobody can actually come up with a logically convincing argument in favor of the existence of God (they would be horribly rich, famous, and then likely assasinated if they could) so religious people are left with having 'Faith', which means belief in something without any actual evidence. For most educated people this just does not make sense and does more harm to our society than good. Anyone sitting on the fence about the issue (or even if you're a hardcore irrationalist) should read/watch some of the work done by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. If you have a genuinely scientific proof of 'God' or anything supernatural, or really any logical reason to believe a supernatural theory over Darwinian Evolution then I urge you to submit it to Mr. Dawkins, or even James Randi, who offers "a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event".
I draw my own conclusions from these results: 78% of Americans are afraid of being consigned to Hell after death, so they'll believe anything their preachers tell them to believe. It's called Pascal's Wager and it's basically a cop-out.
I am always amazed at how this subject stirs such debate. The very intensity of it suggest that very few of us are truly comfortable in our beliefs. Thumbs up politico for stirring.
I don't beleive this poll is accurate at all. Is it one of those polls where people can vote numerous times? I think most sensable and more importantly educated people realize that evolution is logical based on the overwhelming evidence.
No, This poll was a scientific poll. Plus the results have been found by numerous other polls. Just because you don't like the results doesn't mean its wrong...
P.s. Naturalistic Macro-Evolution is not supported by overwhelming evidence...
I find that yes, in the Bible God created the world in 6 days, but what is not recorded is time frame. Every day we loose miliseconds on the day. Over time that could acount for a very long day. So it is possible that God created the world in 6 days, but that 6 days could have been years millions of years ago... Just a thought... I am religious, but I also have a science based brain. I find that many of the things in the Bible can be factually accurate on a scientific scale...
For example, the splitting of the Red Sea... Is actually a mistype (so to speak). The original text it's the Reed See, and once every so often it truly does split, depending on the time of year, gravity, and where hte moon it.
A lot of the text in the current Bible is typo from mistranslations throughout the years...
I'd definately be in the 30% that God guided the process.
"For example, the splitting of the Red Sea... Is actually a mistype (so to speak). The original text it's the Reed See, and once every so often it truly does split, depending on the time of year, gravity, and where hte moon it."
Now isnt this a prime example of the mistranslation of the Bible? Over the last sixteen hundred years of so the Bible has been translated into many different languages and versions in order to make is readable for people of the time. Through those translations meanings and ideas are lost and created by those who are doing the translations. The versions of today are even translated in many different ways so I think it is not correct or sensable to take any part of the Bible as literal truth. The bible did not devinely appear. A group of religious leaders had a conference and selected out of many gosspils the ones that are in the Bible. They could have assembled it to any agenda they wanted to fufill. So to say that the earth must have been created by God in six days just because the Bible says so is not rational. Also, as stated above Genisis is written is a poetic form and is not supposed to be taken literally. So to argue about how long six years actually was is a waste of time.
Also the thought that naturalistic evolution happened by chance is quite maddening to me. There was no chance involved at all. A trait is carried on if the creature surives, survival of the fittest. It is hard for me to see that as chance. The key factor in naturalistic evolution is this survival of the fittest and to dissmiss is as chance is not a close look a lack of looking closer at the theory.
And to Politico, would you say there is more evidence to support evolution with divine help that there is to support naturalistic macro evolution? Thats seems to be the concensus of the poll but what evidence is there for it outside of faith? Can it be seen in fossil record?
I'm sorry dew fan but Naturalistic Evolution is completely dependent on random chance. Naturalistic Evolution says that there is nothing to guide the system, all mutations are due to random and spontaneous mutations.
Also I'm glad you brought up the fossil record... ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?
oh and while you're trying to explain that one... where are all the transitionary fossils?
The system is not guided it is reactionary. There are actions and reactions and the most fit survive. Perhaps we see the definition of chance differently.
Chance-the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled. -So could it not be predicted that the most fit will survive? is that not the driving force behind naturalistic evolution? It seems that the result is constant that the most fit survive. It seems to be a typical result so to me that seems little like chance. The result is typical and constant.
On to the Cambrian explosion and transitionary fossils... visit http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianE if you would. here are some selected passages:
The theory of the Cambrian Explosion holds that, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms.
The Cambrian Explosion is the outcome of changes in environmental factors leading to changes in selective pressures in turn leading to adaptive diversification on a vast scale. By the start of the Cambrian, the large supercontinent Gondwana, comprising all land on Earth, was breaking up into smaller land masses. This increased the area of continental shelf, produced shallow seas, and expanded diversity of environmental niches in which animals could specialize and speciate.
The debate persists today about whether the evolutionary "explosion" of the Cambrian was as sudden and spontaneous as it appears in the fossil record. The discovery of new pre-Cambrian and Cambrian fossils help, as these transitional forms support the hypothesis that diversification was well underway before the Cambrian began. More recently, the sequencing of the genomes of thousands of life forms is revealing just how many and what genes and the proteins they encode have been conserved from the Precambrian. The explosion of external form in the fossil record is what we see, but more gradual adaptation was taking place at the molecular level.
A facinating aspect of the Cambrian Explosion is its apparent speed over some 10 million years. From this it is reasonable to infer that expanded genomic complexity occured much earlier, perhaps over a billion years, prior to the morphological (phenotype) diversity that appeared in the Lower Cambrian. In recent years, research has shown that genomic complexity "happens" in many ways, including duplication and deletion of genes, cascades of genes, and, in complex organisms, entire chromosomes can be affected. Interesting also, is that such geneomic scrambling is an important mechanism in the etiology of cancers in animals.
It is important to remember that geological history contains numerous periods of slow evolution punctuated by periods of rapid evolution, which Steven J. Gould called Punctuated Equilibrium. The rates of evolution generally depend on rates of selection, which in turn depend on rates of environmental change. It also depends upon the existing genomic diversity on which selection acts. Mutation rates tend to be slow and steady, and in the absence of environmental change, slowly accumulate in a population. It is selective pressure that weeds out the mutations that are detrimental or neutral to survival, and retains and multiplies the mutations that are beneficial within a population. For a population isolated in a new environment, rapid selection can lead to speciation, and in the Lower Cambrian, to radically new forms that we now group in the Phyla of modern times.
None of that sounds too extreme for there to "have to be" an outside designer pushing evolution along...
I dont see how the Cambrain explosion is devastating to Natural Evolution. Help me out if you would. I mean that sincerely not arrogantly.
Now I find it interesting that Creationists and people believing in guided evolution (though definitely not the same) grip so strongly onto the gaps in scientific understanding. These gaps seem to be eagerly saught after in present day knowledge and understanding. When one is found, ie Cambrian "explosion", it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it in. What about the rest of the fossil record that does play along with natural evolution? Are these few gaps so devastating? Do you really think that there is no other explenation other that God?
I find it illogical to demand the complete documentation of every step of any narrative, in evolution or any other science. You might as well demand, befor conveicting somebody of murder, a complete cinematic record of the murderer's every step leadng up to the crime, with no missing frames...
Also only a small fraction of fossils fossilize, we are lucky to have as many intermediate fossils as we do. We could easily have no fossils and the other sources for evolution, molecular genetics and geographic distribution would be overwhelmingly strong.
Evolution makes a strong prediction that if a single fossil were to be turn up in the wrong geoplogical stratum the theory would be blown out of the water. Which i assume you agree with? If a rabbit were to turn up in the precambrian it would destroy the theory.
I see there no need for and outside force in evolution. Where do you see it needed?
Dew fan... I don't really have time to respond to everything but in regards to the Cambrian explosion would you agree that mutation rates are extremely low? and in essence they are natures little screw ups? and that the vast majority of mutations are in fact degrading rather than beneficial?
So then it would seem that in the extremely rare case that mutations occur they are overwhelmingly negative mutations. So it is logical to assume that beneficial mutations are extremely extremely rare. Thus it must take extremely long periods of time for complex systems to develop advantages and complex systems not to mention developing into whole new species...
And yes I understand the explanation you gave... I've heard it before. Sure its logical but the big problem with it is that there really isn't any scientific evidence to support it.
That is really my main problem with the theory of evolution. There are many times where the evidence seems to contradict basic evolutionary premises but instead of admitting that there are problems most evolutionary supporters vigorously defend it. They create theories that stretch the imagination and say they are the only logical conclusion.
However you dont seem like one of those people as you appear to be open to a civil discussion. Thats refreshing.
Thats a pretty scary thought. I would think that more people would at least take the middle ground. Believing that the Earth is 10,000 yrs old is crazy.
Well just because you believe that evolution is false doesn't necessarily mean that you believe in a young earth...
I see what you are saying in regards to beneficial mutations and yes agree. But it doesnt seem to be absurd to think that under greater environmental presssures the rate at which the beneficial traits are passed would increase does it?
I dont see how you can say that there is "no scientific evidence to support" evolution... With a total lack of evidence evolution would have never been theorized... I thinks Dawrins Origin of Species has plenty of cases in which the theory of evolution makes good sense. What exactly do you mean no evidence?
I must say though that the theories and "stretches of imagination" are hardly a stretch of the imagination compared to the concept of a being outside of time guiding mutations and having mutations speed up or slow down at its will... Have you ever heard or the 747 example of evolution? Well i find that God is the ultimate 747 in contrary to the story...
ps sorry i havent been on i while...
"Only 13% of Americans believe in 'naturalistic' evolution." Popularity polls aren't a good way to resolve scientific issues. And, to put it politely, religious leaders have a rather spotty record on accuracy in their scientific pronouncements.
It's shocking that this is issue is dividing America. CP, I am a big fan of yours, and you definitely make me think about the entirety of most issues, but I think you are wrong on this one. But so what?
I have read every one of your Hubs and from what I can see, I think that you and I have much more in common than either one of us has with the current leadership in this country. I will respectfully agree to disagree with your evolution position, but I still think that, on the whole, once religion is taken out of the equation, we want the same things for our nation: peace, economic strength, hope for a better future and the right of every single American to believe what he or she chooses to believe.
My point is that we -- all of us on these Hubpages -- need to start working together to find common ground on issues like taxes, defense, budget deficits, our billion dollar a day trade deficit with China, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and on and on and on.
Sometimes I have given you a hard time, and you have returned the favor quite adeptly on occasion (well done!), but we are both Americans with (as far as I can tell) similar interests and similar goals. Let's all of us try to find common ground on the things we all share, and let's all of us agree to disagree on things that we don't share. That's what America is about, isn't it?
Sorry its been a while since I've checked up on this post and I don't have time to respond in detail to dew fan... I'll try to come back and do that later.
To JamesRay: Yes, you're correct. Thats what America is about.
Only 13% ???? is it real ...../??
Newsweek poll is always being atractive......
Only 13 % ?????
Regards
In politics you tell people what the majority want to hear even when you know very well it is wrong. The new generation of Americans want a change that will do away with that generation of politicians who instead of poviding guidance they just keep on telling people what the majority want to hear even when it's wrong.
This is very sad. It is not too surprising, though. There has always been a strong current of anti-intellectualism and anti-high culture sentiment (a cousin) in America. As far as your distinction between theistic selection and naturalistic selection--shrugs--what's God? In Indian philosophy it is a all-pervasive, highly abstract creative and destructive force. Though I, personally, don't need to believe in a guiding hand, if that idea helps others bring cohesion to their experience, I see no harm in it. I do see harm in destroying science teaching and research, however--an undeniable result of "Creationism" aka Unintelligent Design.
Not surprising at all. America it´s a very young country (if compared with others) so its understandable that evolution it is not something one can discover easily over there...
Boy.. you got beaten up here.. College politico... but that's OK. I for one would hate to have to think I came from an ape! As the poll shows.. you are far from alone.. irregardless of what the responses here have indicated. :)
wow
Science itself has told us recentally that we are not related to Neanderthals in any way shape or form. Quantum mechanics tells us that anything is possible so why attack religion. It gives a great message and hurts no one as long as it isn't taken to the extreme.
if god creatd the world on the 1st day...man on the sixth...weres the dinosaurs...man wasnt around till millions of years after...but then ud say dinosaurs were b4 that...but then there was no world for them to live on :|.....evolution obviously occured n were still evoluting now...sure doesnt the average height of a human being increase by each decade!!!!...there is proof ov evolution... the Australopithecus the found in ethiopia...named "lucy"
Before man was put on earth God gave the world to the angels. Lucifer was in charge during this time and this is when he gained his following. This is all in the parts of the Bible that they left out. The books that they decided were not good enough to be in the Holy Cannon.
according to the bible...we are all descendants ov Noah and his family...so that wud make us all related...n i thought incest was a sin!
Okay, every cultare has a great flood story. Plus you have to take in to account that back then the world was a lot smaller in the eyes of those that lived in it. They still believed that the world was flat. I'm not saying that Christianity is the one and only religion. I'm just saying that there are indeed answeres to almost every question if you look for them in any religious system.
so...wots the answer...is it a sin or wot...the bible contradicts itslf far too much and is very hypocritical... i wanna believe...but the more i read this bible the less i do...and im only on the genesis
That is the problem maybe God gave a diffrent story to diffrent people so that they could better understand his message. You just need to find the story that relates that message to you the best.
I'm linking u to my hub:
http://hubpages.com/hub/Evolutionary-Science-is-no
The Catholic Church let go of any literalist interpretation of the Bible ages ago, and it is still working as a religion. Having faith in God does not require one to put away reason.
college politico;Your hub is fantastic and your comments throughout this thread are as well. One thing I learned a long time ago, is the fact that people are far more convinced when statements contain obvious wisdom in them in contrast to those with sly and insulting remarks sprinkled throughout {a hint that they lack any real substance to contribute}. Smart-A--ness will get converts from among the moronic-thinkers but true wisdom is the bread of the intelligent.
BTW; I believe the Bible and so do all of the professors I've known in my life {I discussed it with them}. Surveys of the scientific community have shown a high percentage of belief in creationism.
working
Ralph Deeds says:
9 months ago
Why would you attack someone for saying he doesn't believe in evolution when 70% of Americans agree? Are you saying that science should be decided by majority vote. Denying evolution is a knuckle dragging view no matter how many people agree. Are you familiar with the phrase "tyranny of the majority?"