63% Reject Darwin's Theory of Evolution

[Elphaba]

ding ding ding ding ding!!!

it's pretty clear that the numbers are so skewed against evolution because so many people are uneducated.

I have to disagree with you Squeaky... I am around professionals all of the time that are highly-educated, and some have their own reasoning for not believing in Darwin's theory of evolution. I may not agree with them, but I respect that they have the right to believe what they want. Besides, the "uneducated" argument is not a valid excuse/reason... it's just a nasty and very unfair insult.

 

[twinkiesmom]

So you end up with people who first of all don't understand what the are arguing against and they are arguing that point with a complete lack of reason and critical thinking because it is so clouded by their religious beliefs they are blind to anything that they otherwise might actually consider.

And the vast majority of my professors were so overeducated and completely blind that they would stake their lives and reputations on life as we know it originating from a thunderbolt in a primordial soup of organic chemicals. Their furvor was nothing short of religious belief. And their students are evangelized no differently than one would be at a Billy Graham convention except it was daily and relentlous.

The truth is that natural selection does occur, species do evolve, etc., but no one really knows how life began. No scientist anywhere has managed to create life from nonlife.

 

[Cypros]

The poll results are no surprise. Science is poorly taught in the American school system and Americans are far behind the rest of the industrialized world in the basics of both science and history.

Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution. It was already recognized and debated by fellow scientists of the 19th century. Darwin (and Hutton independently) simply identified one of the processes though which evolution works, natural selection. Since Darwin, scientists have discovered the additional mechanisms in the laws of inheritance and genetics that were not understood by Darwin but further substantiated his observations and the reality of evolution.

Nothing has disproved evolution and nothing has proved the presence of any supernatural spirit(s) that played a role in the amazing story of this universe.

 

[Julessleuther]

Please do not presume to know the intelligence of every American who may have taken this survey. Just because intelligent design does not fit in with your theories does not make it incorrect. Has any scientist DISPROVED the existence of a higher being? Has a scientist been able to DISPROVE intelligent design? They all seem to get to that point of the first second of big bang, but have not been able to determine what created that first molecule, that first semblance of life. Scientists are not sure about alot of things, some things that they truly thought were correct at one time. If they are ever able to disprove intelligent design, I will eat every physics and religion book I own.

Oh, please. Ariel7 is a gem, but nobody was owned and the debate certainly didn't end quickly. (And you, sir, were hardly an unbiased observer.)

The arguments against evolution are based largely in misunderstandings of Darwin and misunderstandings of the relevant terms (not to mention any number of straw-man arguments). But because denial is based in blind faith rather than reason, debates here invariably end in evolution opponents shrilly restating their original positions, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. The fact is that Darwin's theory has stood the test of time and is reconfirmed everyday by scientists around the world.

As for the 63% figure, I'm tempted to quote H.L. Mencken ("Never overestimate the intelligence of the American people."), but in fact, the problem may lie in the nature of the question. Since most Americans are theists in one sense or another, it isn't surprising that many question a theory that attributes all biological change to random events.

Personally, I believe that consciousness is purposefullly creative in a spiritual sense, but I recognize that belief is an article of faith. I don't expect science to confirm or deny it.

 

[Julessleuther]

Actually, to be more exact, Charles Darwin was a religious man until he started his research. In fact, before he married his wife Emma, they had a debate whether they were suitable, as she was religious and he no longer was. He later referred to himself as an agnostic. I wholeheartenedly believe in evolution, but also believe in the intelligent design aspect of it all.

Well said Nova. I guess I am in the less than 20% of the American population. A lot of people simply do not understand Darwin's theory and a big part of why is because many of them have not taken the time to actually read Origins of the Species or even read about it and actually try to understand what exactly he was saying. Darwin himself was a religious man, as most were when he was alive, even after his discoveries he still believed that there was a supreme creator and struggled greatly in the beginning with what the implications of his theories were.
So you end up with people who first of all don't understand what the are arguing against and they are arguing that point with a complete lack of reason and critical thinking because it is so clouded by their religious beliefs they are blind to anything that they otherwise might actually consider. You can't pit science and religion against eachother because they are completely different. One deals in absolutes, facts and theories that are backed up by years of research which has produced evidence to support that theory beyond a reasonable doubt another deals in faith. The definition of faith is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

America is an exception as far as western countries. Most European countries like England, Denmark, France, Sweden, Norway over 80% of the population supports the theory of evolution and a lot of those people still have religious beliefs at the same time because evolution and adaptation is not viewed as a threat to religious beliefs.

Personally I don't understand how the theory that, for example, the Mockingbirds Darwin ccollected and studied and found that eventhough they were all Mockingbirds they were all from a different environment and over time they had physically evolved to fit into that specific environment is threatening. One mockingbird might have a long thin beak because their food source came from a long flower or deep thin hole whereas another mockingbird from a different island might have a thick stumpy beak because they had to be able to break open hard nuts and berries. Mockingbirds are one example - there are thousands and thousands of variations within species and you can look at it and see the adaptation that has taken place.
It is an amazing part of nature and it is sad that so many people refuse to concede it even happens when the proof of its happening is everywhere we look. Darwin's theory of evolution was based and focused largly on variations within species and why that happened and how. It has become simplified and grossly misconstrued to the point that when you say evolution people automatically think of some monkey squating down and crapping out a human which goes against everything that Darwin's theory supports.

That being said - there are a lot of moderate Christians in this country who are able to appreciate the science and at least acknowledge its validity and some of them believe in evolution. I can appreciate and respect people who are able to find balance between their religious beliefs and science.

 

[elfie]

Please do not presume to know the intelligence of every American who may have taken this survey. Just because intelligent design does not fit in with your theories does not make it incorrect. Has any scientist DISPROVED the existence of a higher being? Has a scientist been able to DISPROVE intelligent design? They all seem to get to that point of the first second of big bang, but have not been able to determine what created that first molecule, that first semblance of life. Scientists are not sure about alot of things, some things that they truly thought were correct at one time. If they are ever able to disprove intelligent design, I will eat every physics and religion book I own.

I think the prevailing wisdom is that the theory must be falsifiable in order to pass muster for scientific scrutiny. That being said science is more likely to demonstrate tendencies toward or against an outcome. My argument is usually that human consciousness would need to be investigated independent of the background in order to come to a conclusion. Not unfalsifiable, but not possible with our current technology and understanding of the universe.

 

[Dark Knight]

Actually, to be more exact, Charles Darwin was a religious man until he started his research. In fact, before he married his wife Emma, they had a debate whether they were suitable, as she was religious and he no longer was. He later referred to himself as an agnostic. I wholeheartenedly believe in evolution, but also believe in the intelligent design aspect of it all.

Darwin stopped being religious when his 9 year old daughter died. He reasoned that no loving God would have allowed that to happen, so he began his research to prove there was another way we were created.

If someone had reminded him that the same loving God loved us so much that He allowed His own Son to die an agonizing death, Darwin may never have even sought out to prove He didn't exist. God doesn't make us go through anything He hasn't or wouldn't experience Himself. If His own Son had to die, as innocent as He was, why should Darwin, or any of us, be so special as to be spared the same, when called upon to do so?

 

[elfie]

Darwin stopped being religious when his 9 year old daughter died. He reasoned that no loving God would have allowed that to happen, so he began his research to prove there was another way we were created.

If someone had reminded him that the same loving God loved us so much that He allowed His own Son to die an agonizing death, Darwin may never have even sought out to prove He didn't exist. God doesn't make us go through anything He hasn't or wouldn't experience Himself. If His own Son had to die, as innocent as He was, why should Darwin, or any of us, be so special as to be spared the same, when called upon to do so?

I don't think we can really understand but can hope to experience that God's love is transcendent, through one another.

 

[Nova]

Please do not presume to know the intelligence of every American who may have taken this survey. Just because intelligent design does not fit in with your theories does not make it incorrect. Has any scientist DISPROVED the existence of a higher being? Has a scientist been able to DISPROVE intelligent design? They all seem to get to that point of the first second of big bang, but have not been able to determine what created that first molecule, that first semblance of life. Scientists are not sure about alot of things, some things that they truly thought were correct at one time. If they are ever able to disprove intelligent design, I will eat every physics and religion book I own.

I don't know about intelligence, but I'm tempted to question reading comprehension skills.

What I said was that I, too, believe in something that might be called "intelligent design," but I recognize that my belief falls outside the realm of scientific investigation. (And therefore my beliefs shouldn't be taught in biology class.)

I did not question the integrity of the pollsters at Pew, but one may question their conclusions. The question they asked seems to be "Does Darwin's theory of evolution provide the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth?" (Emphasis added.)

"Best" is in the eye of the beholder. One may indeed argue that Darwin's theory provides the most accurate, rational explanation (i.e., "best") while simultaneously arguing that the Gilgamesh creation epic, though allegorical, provides the most useful moral account (another, somewhat different "best"). And still claim the notion that space aliens mated with chimps is "best" because it's the most amusing.

 

[Nova]

Darwin stopped being religious when his 9 year old daughter died. He reasoned that no loving God would have allowed that to happen, so he began his research to prove there was another way we were created.

If someone had reminded him that the same loving God loved us so much that He allowed His own Son to die an agonizing death, Darwin may never have even sought out to prove He didn't exist. God doesn't make us go through anything He hasn't or wouldn't experience Himself. If His own Son had to die, as innocent as He was, why should Darwin, or any of us, be so special as to be spared the same, when called upon to do so?

Twaddle. Darwin stopped going to church before his daughter's illness and death; his famous research trip on the Beagle was a decade and a half earlier. Reducing his work to an attempt to prove God doesn't exist is utter nonsense.

I'm sure it's hard for some to imagine, but to intellectually courageous individuals, religious faith may be a lifelong process of questioning and reexamination.

 

[CyberLaw]

Considering a day is put in place celebrating Charles Darwin's Birthday and celebrations are being held to celebrate Ii wonder exactly "who was interviewed" for this study.

As everyone knows the Galapagos Island are in threat of extinction. I hope that does not happen and efforts are made to protect this important island.

So Happy Charles Darwin Day, 200th anniversary of his brithday, 1809. Feb 12.

YOu knever know evolution and "other" methods worked hand in hand to create the world. Who knows........

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

Or they've been tainted by biased professors who won't let them think of any other possibilities. Certainly more than 63% of all Americans are college educated.

"
The Census data, based on estimates from the long form sent to one in six households, showed that among people 25 and older:

• 21% of Americans had taken some college courses but had not earned a degree in 2000, compared with 18.7% 10 years earlier.
• 15.5% had earned a bachelor's degree but no higher, compared with 13.1% in 1990.
• 8.9% earned graduate or professional degrees, compared with 7.2% earlier."

This is from the 2000 Census, the most recent available (next in 2010) as reported in US Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2002-06-05-education-census.htm#more


also of interest:
http://www.theolympian.com/columnists/story/227366.html This article, from 2007, states "In February 2005, USA Today reported that 64 percent of high school graduates go to college, but the number of Americans with bachelor degrees is only 29 percent"

 

[Linda7NJ]

You can throw me in with the 60 something percent, too. I don't believe in evolution at all, and have never taught that to my kids. I'm happy that the majority of people reject this idea.

Toss me into the minority then

 

[Cypros]

Considering a day is put in place celebrating Charles Darwin's Birthday and celebrations are being held to celebrate Ii wonder exactly "who was interviewed" for this study.

As everyone knows the Galapagos Island are in threat of extinction. I hope that does not happen and efforts are made to protect this important island.

So Happy Charles Darwin Day, 200th anniversary of his brithday, 1809. Feb 12.

YOu knever know evolution and "other" methods worked hand in hand to create the world. Who knows........

Darwin was British and it is the British/Europeans who are celebrating. Had Darwin been American would there be a greater acceptance of his wisdom or would he be long forgotten as an anomaly of scientific thought?

 

[CyberLaw]

I think if he was American, there would be moe "idscussion" and teaching of the theory of evolution in society.

But for some odd reason, you know that the USA is "religious" and other countries may not be "as religious" and embrace "science" over "religion".

I remember Bush "pandering" to the religious rights groups who "duly" supported him when he became president. I don't think you would see this in other countries.

It is just the difference between "fact" and science" and "theory" and religion.

 

[Jholi]

I think that's the reason for the inflated numbers.

Just because a person thinks God might have been there as a guide doesn't mean they disagree with evolution, at all. I would say I agree with Darwin, and I often debate those in the first group, yet these stats would lump me in with them, just because I think if there is a god, he's guiding everything in some ways.

Without those groups being distinguished, the numbers are worthless. IMHO.

Pew is one of the most, if not THE most, respected survey and research firms. If anyone can gets polls right, it's probably them. Although I agree the margin for error can be more than what pollsters often say it is. But as far as polling methodology goes, Pew is one of the top dogs and are famous for it their surveys.

I'm familiar with Pew, but just because they are great at gathering data does not mean their reporters are incapable of (intentionally or not) reporting the data in a way that implies something it does not. This is a prime example.

Reporting that those who do believe in evolution but do not believe it occurred solely through natural selection as "Reject[ing] Darwin's Theory of Evolution" may be technically true, but it is highly misleading, in that it makes it appear that they don't accept the theory of evolution itself. (The article itself commits this fallacy of definition even more.)

The fact is that, with the advances in science in the 100+ years since Darwin, even evolutionary biologists technically "disagree" with some of his hypotheses, including the idea that evolution is solely a result of natural selection. There are also thousands of Christians among them, who naturally believe God guides everything.

It is especially misleading when people who accept that we evolved are combined with people who believe we have always existed in our present form, to come up with the 63% figure.

Attached is the raw data table they provide as their report being based on. Notice that 51% of people believe we evolved. Only 42% believe we have always existed in our present form.

The limits of the questions are also apparent, as most Christian biologists would have likely answered both "a" and "b - plus other mechanisms."

http://people-press.org/reports/images/287-16.gif

 

[Jholi]

I forgot to add, those who believe God or some other intelligent being guided creation would be believers of Intelligent Design, in a sense.

Only "in a sense" that is so weak it's irrelevant, and it does nothing to support the arguments of those who believe in intelligent design [ID] as a concept opposed to evolution.

People can and do believe God or some other intelligent being guided creation and still be strong supporters of the theory of evolution and opposed to the philosophy and beliefs of the IDers.

They are certainly diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory, which proposes natural selection is the cause for evolution.

No, they are not "diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory." If they were, then so would be modern evolutionary biologists, who have learned more about all the other factors, besides natural selection, that influence evolution than Darwin could know in the 1800s.

The theory of evolution [TOE] has and will ever evolve as more is learned. That is a credit to how science works, and to the credibility of the TOE.

So the groups don't really need to be distinguished.

So you argue that people who believe in evolution are "diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory," but you also argue that they do not need to be distinguished from those who think we have not evolved at all. :bang:

Honestly, this could only make sense to those who are trying desperately to squeeze square pegs into round holes to promote an agenda, and that is unfortunately rampant in the evolution vs creation/ID debate. I'm not sure if it's a matter of self-deception, slight-of-hand, or a combination of the two for any given person who practices it, but it's a sign that healthy and reasonable discussion won't be forthcoming.

You either believe it is random, or you don't, according to the question asked. If you believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection being the reason we exist, then you'd be in the 23%.

See my last post.

In addition, natural selection is not the same as random. With all due respect, between this red flag and in general, you appear to have a very superficial understanding of the subjects of ID and the TOE, which is common among those whose education comes from agenda-driven material.

I'm assuming you are a well-meaning person, and I don't intend to carry on a debate with you, because I don't want to create the hard feelings, which inevitably occur in these debates. (They also take a huge amount of time!)

But it is important to me that everyone understand the problem with the messages being sent here.

Basically, there is a misguided attempt to mis-define evolution as atheistic, and a belief in a God who guides all things as being diametrically opposed to the TOE. This is committing the grievous error of forcing a false dichotomy. It's not just illogical, but dangerously sets people (including our children) up for feeling as though they cannot believe in both God and science.

MOO, but Christians whose priority is winning souls would do their best to avoid such a dangerous trap, and they would also work to avoid being perceived as less than factual and straightforward in their logic and debate.

 

[Jholi]

And the vast majority of my professors were so overeducated and completely blind that they would stake their lives and reputations on life as we know it originating from a thunderbolt in a primordial soup of organic chemicals. Their furvor was nothing short of religious belief. And their students are evangelized no differently than one would be at a Billy Graham convention except it was daily and relentlous.

The truth is that natural selection does occur, species do evolve, etc., but no one really knows how life began. No scientist anywhere has managed to create life from nonlife.

Thank you for this. There is a common misconception that the possible origins of life are part of the Theory of Evolution, but they aren't.

The ToE is only meant to explain the diversity of species after life began. The study of how life itself could have arisen from natural causes is called abiogenensis.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

So people can believe God created life and still accept the TOE completely.

 

[Nova]

Thank you for this. There is a common misconception that the possible origins of life are part of the Theory of Evolution, but they aren't.

The ToE is only meant to explain the diversity of species after life began. The study of how life itself could have arisen from natural causes is called abiogenensis.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

So people can believe God created life and still accept the TOE completely.

Thanks, Jholi, for all the great posts and the clarification. I've been spent 2 days wondering how the ToE could explain the initial onset of life and couldn't figure it out.

And I loved your deconstruction of the poll question and results. It is indeed odd to find someone like myself--who is careful to distinguish between what I believe based on faith and what can be demonstrated by science--lumped in with those who insist their faith in a literal Genesis be equated with scientific knowledge.

 

[PattyCake]

Well, I am a Christian who loves science, and believes in the theory of evolution.


According to this study from Gallup - 39% overall believe, 74 % of college graduates believe, and 24% of regular church goin folks believe in the theory of evolution.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/02/12/1791814.aspx

Hand up high! Me too. I believe God created the earth and all his creation to evolve. Man, animal, plant, bugs, weather, you name it. There's so much intelligent proof out there to show evolution that we can no long deny it occurs and has from beginning of time. GOD+SCIENCE = OUR EARTH