Gallup has released a new poll that shows that Americans still reject the concept of evolution of humans in high numbers. Indeed, twice the number of Americans believe that humans were created by God in their current image than there are those who believe in natural evolution. Indeed, those 42 percent believe that man was created by God in the last 10,000 years. That is a considerable difference even if you focus only on anatomically modern humans which appeared in the Middle Paleolithic period about 200,000 years ago. For those who believe in the science behind evolution, the news is not all bad. Nineteen percent believe in evolution without divine involvement while another 31 percent believe that there was evolution from “less advanced forms of life” but that God directed that process. That is fifty percent. Of course, that does appear to leave eight percent that is still . . . well . . . evolving.
Creationism remains remarkably stable in our society despite the continuing discoveries of ancient bones and archeological sites. In 1982, the first such poll showed 44% believed in the theory.
Conversely, those people who believe in evolution has been growing but at a rate only Darwin would appreciate. Those accepting evolution has risen only ten percent from late 1999. When you look at church-attending Americans, the number believing in Darwinian evolution falls to only one out every 100 church goers.
However, the poll still shows that “the percentage of Americans who adhere to a strict secularist viewpoint — that humans evolved over time, with God having no part in this process — has doubled since 1999.”
What is striking is the situation with people with less than high school education– 57% believe in a creationist version of human origin while only 10% believe in an evolution without any divine intervention. The biggest change in numbers appears to come with higher education. Once at the college level, only 27% believe that God created humans in their current image while 41% accept Darwin’s theory of evolution of humans.
As we head into another presidential campaign, it will be interesting to see if this again becomes part of the debate as it did when three out of ten Republican candidates proclaimed their faith in creationism. It would seem that evolution remains a bright line division in our society.
As an academic, I find the rigidity of the faith in creationism remarkable given the continuing finds of modern human bones going back over a million years. However, it is the impact of higher education that is particularly fascinating. It is not surprising, given the views of their parents, that high schoolers would continue to hold firm on creationism. It is the extreme shift after exposure to college that seems to bring out the greatest change. Yet, that figure could be skewed in a type of self-selection (as opposed to natural selection) since the percentage of students who believe in evolution going to college may be higher. According to the government, “In October 2013, 65.9 percent of 2013 high school graduates were enrolled in colleges or universities.” That leaves roughly 33 percent who would not be included in the poll sample from the high school pool. Thus, it is not clear what percentage of students actually shift from creationist to secular views of human evolution.
Thanks, Darren. Hasta luego!
samantha:
You don’t have to disprove god not to believe in him or at least regard his existence as highly suspect. You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. It’s incumbent on he who asserts to prove. You want to assert it; then prove it.
mespo wrote: “You’ve got the burden of proof backwards. It’s incumbent on he who asserts to prove. You want to assert it; then prove it.”
If a person is going to denigrate believers, then the burden of proof falls upon that person first to falsify the existence of God. I prefer Einstein’s perspective, that a humble approach is much better when a disproof cannot be offered.
There often is a paradigm difference between the positivist like yourself and the theist. Your basis of proof is empirical, but the basis of proof for a theist might be entirely subjective. His argument is that if you do x, y, and z, then you will experience something internal that proves God’s existence. It doesn’t prove it to anyone but yourself. However, others like you might have had the same experience and can relate to you based upon your witness.
Jill:
“I live in an extremely religious area with many fundamentalist christians who believe the earth is 4000 to 6000 year old. They are my friends and neighbours. What I do know from this experience is that these are people who have not had access to good educations. By this I mean, their educations have been limited not just in science and math but in every subject.”
*********************
Add a whacked out religious zealot that these people think has some divine insight and you have the Taliban. That’s why fundamentalism is so insidious. You check your reasoning at the door. It’s the same for the know-nothing, don’t-want-to-know-nothing crowd regardless of ethnic or racial makeup.Karl Marx said religion of his day was the “opium of the people.” I say, in the wrong hands, it’s the PCP of the people now.
Gilbert, you did indeed say: In order to “know” a god exists or does not exist, one would have to be god in actuality.
Translation: In order to know that God does not exist, one has to be God.
I live in an extremely religious area with many fundamentalist christians who believe the earth is 4000 to 6000 year old. They are my friends and neighbours. What I do know from this experience is that these are people who have not had access to good educations. By this I mean, their educations have been limited not just in science and math but in every subject.
Therefore, bible study means to open up the bible and read a passage, taking from this daily guidance in all matters. Bible study does not mean understanding the origins of the bible or biblical scholarship of any kind. That knowledge and discussion would be considered blasphemy.
This is the part of fundamentalism that really worries me. When religions successfully clamp down on people’s ability to study certain subjects, to think certain ideas, to examine ideas from multiple perspectives, then that is a real problem. People’s intellect should not be stunted. Yet in fact, that is what is happening.
We should be free to understand, think about, talk about and examine ideas. Yet religious fundamentalists shut down human curiosity and access to knowledge. That is something no religion has a right to require of followers.
davidm:
“You miss angryman’s point. ”
**********************
I quoted angryman’s point. He said there were “none.” I said they existed and gave a source for examples.
mespo wrote: “I said they existed and gave a source for examples.”
No you didn’t. That was his point.
samantha:
“You do realize that science has gotten most things wrong at first try, and that much of science that is passed along as truth remains theory? And if we subscribe to theory, don’t we have to first have faith in such theory? The electronic theory of electricity, for example, is what it is — theory, but it doesn’t stop us from believing that the light comes on when we flip the switch on the wall. And in this vein, do we really know much of anything at all?”
*************************
Not sure if science got “most” things wrong at first or that merely it got bamboozled or intimidated by the prevailing “religion of peace” of the day (i.e. Galileo) but assuming that’s right, how does one explain that religions, after being proven dreadfully wrong, wrong-headed, and/or preposterous still adheres to those tenets with a fervor? Science, on the other hand, rewards its subscribers for proving something wrong and accepts new information. Religion asks you to accept everything it believes on blind faith and to disregard new information in deference to some cosmic truth it never defines. If you think that’s a preferable way to live so be it, but I suspect in no other aspect of your life do you accept things this way simply because your mamma told you so at age 5 or 6 or some guy in a black suit says a First Century book says it’s so.
As to your “theory” argument you have to understand how science regards theory. Scientific Theory (as opposed to the typical lay person’s version of “theory as being something merely conjectural) is something that is accepted as true because it’s results are reproducible based on observation and testing. Gravity is a theory but try defying it without technology. You’ll soon see the truth coming at you at about 122 mph. Try producing and then reproducing the transubstantiation of the Eucharist or human parthenogenesis and you’ll see the difference.
Samantha, you have come to an erroneous conclusion regarding my comment. To say that “it makes more sense to me to believe that Man created God in his own image rather than the other way around,” is a statement of belief, not a claim of knowledge. It makes no inference that I am a god of any sort. And just because a majority of society believes something, that does not necessarily make them right and the minority wrong. In the Land of the Blind, the sighted person would probably be considered insane. To me, what really matters is how people treat each other, regardless of their religious or political beliefs, and it is tragic that some of these beliefs have caused the tyranny and wars that have hurt and killed so many over all of history. That is the Insanity of Humanity.
Peer pressure is a powerful force. Most people will do anything if it means belonging to the tribe, even if it means going against judgement, conscience, or even against the rights of others. A prosecutor will abuse the system if it means winning and belonging to the establishment. A jury member will vote to convict because, well, everyone else on the jury is. A liberal will censor himself and join the evolution crowd because, well, anything less could mean as much as, god forbid, labeled a conservative or worse, ostracized. A Republican may be pro-life because, well, that’s what his constituents want him to be. Shouldn’t we all just have the freedom to believe in what we want to believe, without the burden of the tribe and, by extension, the consequences when we reuse to sell out our individuality and sovereignty?
Here’s another one:
Three in Four in U.S. Still See the Bible as Word of God
http://www.gallup.com/poll/170834/three-four-bible-word-god.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics
Noah or evolution……. Noah would win, since evolution is not stated in any biblical storyline.
After being labeled as a racist by angrymanspeaks for my beliefs I find it amazing that I one, read his post and two, agree with him. I don’t know the truth on this one either.
As a young geologist right out of college I worked for an environmental consulting company. My first supervisor (Also a geologist) was a literal interpreter of the Bible. I remember being floored by this since how could you get through that degree and believe the world was less than 10,000 years old? I had many fascinating conversation with this man and I can tell you this, he was no dummy and taught me many things. He could recite every hole in every theory. The thing that most don’t realize who believe in science is that behind any theory or hypothesis there is some core faith (Axioms). E=MC^2 only works if the speed of light is constant. Do you have faith in that? How can you prove it to me? And, as we are finding out, the speed of light might not be so constant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/speed-of-light-constant-physicists_n_3175487.html
Do any of you who believe in evolution know how radiocarbon dating even works and how many assumptions are made in an effort to make it work?
It doesn’t surprise me at all that “educated” people take whatever is being taught hook line and sinker. Critical thinking is nowhere to be found in our schools. Hell, kids don’t even know how to take notes anymore.
That said, I do not believe creationism should be taught in science class since it is not based on the scientific method. Could it be taught in a social class? Sure. Evolution is based on scientific study so even if it is wrong or needs to be tweaked, it should be taught as well as the assumptions being made. And since some brought up global warming, there is probably no better example of junk science than it.
Jim22 wrote: “That said, I do not believe creationism should be taught in science class since it is not based on the scientific method.”
Not so fast. There are different forms of creation research. Some forms are religious, being based upon texts considered inspired by the Creator. Other forms are based upon the scientific method (e.g., Gentry’s work with polonium halos). We should not lump all forms of creationism together. Doing so has caused a lot of the trouble between science and religion because scientists today are not trained in theology and do not understand the methods and procedures theologians take to arrive at their conclusions. Likewise, the theologians for the most part are ignorant of the scientific methods used to arrive at conclusions. Basically, the two fields speak different languages and understand each other about as well as the average American understands someone speaking Swahili.
Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that even religious forms of creationism are subject to the scientific method if they make predictions of empirical data that can falsify the theory. For example, a religious theory of creationism that says the earth was created 10,000 years ago would be testable by science if science simply presents empirical evidence that the earth is older than 10,000 years. Indeed, in this very article, Professor Turley discounts the young earth creationist viewpoint because he is aware that scientists have dated human remains to be millions of years old. He has basically used empirical evidence (the scientific method) to falsify a religious belief. That basically puts the religious theory in the realm of science, at least in so far as it can be tested by science.
Moreover, if a religious theory of origins says that animals were all created after their kind and did not arise from other kinds of animals, scientists only need to present evidence such as fossils showing transitions between these kinds to falsify the theory. The Bible, for example, plainly states that birds were created the day before terrestrial animals were created. If science demonstrates that birds did not exist until after terrestrial animals, they will have falsified this religious theory of creation.
I also have a reply stuck in limbo. I’m wondering if it makes a difference to reply to a comment or to reply to the post?
mespo, what mechanism, specifically, gives YOUR insight into the ethereal truth of the cosmos? And why is yours more valid? You do realize that science has gotten most things wrong at first try, and that much of science that is passed along as truth remains theory? And if we subscribe to theory, don’t we have to first have faith in such theory? The electronic theory of electricity, for example, is what it is — theory, but it doesn’t stop us from believing that the light comes on when we flip the switch on the wall. And in this vein, do we really know much of anything at all?
Chuck:
“He was so proud of himself, and the gloating could be heard in his voice. He thought he had put the matter of fossils away for good.”
******************************
Great story. Ignorance is bliss — or so it seems until the volcano erupts despite the human sacrifice.
mespo,
I was in the car listening to talk radio. It was a call-in show and the topic was evolution. Some guy called in, saying, “If they keep finding fossils of things they say lived a long time ago, so how come they ain’t making no fossils no more?
He was so proud of himself, and the gloating could be heard in his voice. He thought he had put the matter of fossils away for good.
All I could do was shake my head.
I recall a case where a guy had killed his wife and another person, then buried them in his basement. At the time, the basement had a dirt floor, but he had poured a concrete slab to make a permanent floor. Years later, after he passed away, the house was being razed. When the diggers pulled up that slab, they found the bodies in an advanced stage of fossilization. Forensic experts were able to make a positive ID on the remains. He had claimed she ran off with another man, which accounted for her being missing all those years.
The murderer? He got away with murder. Died without his crime ever being discovered. But….but….but, they ain’t makin’ fossils no more! Indeed.
davidm wrote: “…so the censorship in education and the propaganda machinery to promote only the secular viewpoint is working.”
So, that censorship is working so well means that those of us indoctrinated have no idea we’ve been indoctrinated? I was so inebriated from the punch bowl one time, I swore, kicked, and flailed my arms to everyone that I was not drunk.
davidm:
“a candle that guides us when it is dark, but faith is like the morning daylight which more fully gives us insight. ”
***********************
There is not one answer to questions about the natural world that faith answers better than science. Not one. You may think “faith” gives you insight into the ethereal truth of the cosmos. If so, how can there be many faiths with directly conflicting tenets each claiming exclusive rights to such insight? The “truth” is that believing in things without good reason or without any reason at all places you more on the intellectual plane with the amoeba not the presumed (and unproven) Creator of All. You can believe whatever you want to believe — just don’t ask me to subscribe to your delusion.
” Indeed, those 42 percent believe that man was created by God in the last 10,000 years.”
**********************
Less than five years ago, 54 percent of Republicans and nearly two-thirds of Democrats said the human species evolved over time. Today, however, the share of Republicans adhering to modern theories of human evolution has dropped significantly – to 43 percent – while the number of Democrats has climbed to 67 percent, though within the sampling error range ….
~Christian Science Monitor (2013)
Leading the charge to stupid? None other than the party thereof.( Kudos to Bobby Jindal.)
Still researching the number of Republicans subscribing to the scientific “Stork-Human Birth Theory”…. Will advise.
angryman:
“We have fossils of Fish and we have fossils of salamanders but we have no(read that ZERO) fossils of any of the imagined species of transformation in between the two.”
*********************
We do have many transitional fossils.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Mespo wrote: “We do have many transitional fossils.”
You miss angryman’s point. This list of transitionals is not much better than what you can construct from listing currently living organisms as being transitional to other organisms still living. It is better only by virtue of the fact that there are more extinct species of organisms than living species. The Coelacanth is a good example of what scientists called a “transitional fossil” in the literature until it was found still living in 1938 in pretty much the same form as found in the fossil record. In the transition from reptiles to birds we get the famous Archaeopteryx, except more modern discoveries show fossils of birds to have already existed in strata considered older than Archaeopteryx. While some of this data is still contested because of incomplete fossils, it is clear that most scientists do not consider Archaeopteryx to be in the transitional lineage to modern birds. Rather, Archaeopteryx is similar to what is expected to be found based upon the theory. Even within your list of transitional fossils, did you notice the comment for Eusthenopteron? It says, “Though not on the evolutionary path to tetrapods, Eusthenopteron is of fairly general build and is very well known, serving as an iconic model organism in tetrapod evolution.” There are numerous examples like this, and most people just gloss over it not realizing that there is no data behind the theory. Scientists know that the general public who are neither biologists nor paleontologists will not investigate further into the details of the facts, but simply will trust that if the scientists are convinced of it, then that is enough for them. The public basically gives the scientists the same misguided trust that many gave the church five hundred years ago. It is knowledge based upon a reliance upon authority rather than an understanding based upon being convinced by the data.
David, for some reason the spam filter caught those series of replies to Mark Esposito. I have restored the initial one having the most content.
Folks, David’s comment is above at 2:29.
Thanks, Darren. I kept trying to break the message up into smaller chunks, because sometimes that’s how I get past the filter. Thank you for freeing only the first one with the most content.
I can’t reply to Mespo. WordPress just doesn’t pass my post along. I’ve cut the post shorter and shorter, but even a one sentence answer will not post. Strange.
George wrote: “The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason. Benjamin Franklin”
George, this is a partial quote which really misleads people into mistakenly thinking that Ben Franklin was against faith, or that faith is contrary to reason.
The full quote from Franklin is:
“The Way to see by Faith, is to shut the Eye of Reason: The Morning Daylight appears plainer when you put out your Candle.”
The comparison is that reason is like a candle that guides us when it is dark, but faith is like the morning daylight which more fully gives us insight. The meaning clearly depicts both faith and reason as lights which illuminate the mind.