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.
Byron,
“Yes and some people dont understand there are more than parables in the Bible. The Bible is full of history and insight as well as parables and morality stories.”
More parables that what?
So you say, given the rest.
Byron,
“So how do entities evolve then? DNA and RNA are maleable [sic].”
Everything is malleable. This is the point.
Byron,
“Yes and some people dont understand there are more than parables in the Bible. The Bible is full of history and insight as well as parables and morality stories.”
So does popular music, verse, and prose. What is your point?
Chuck:
So how do entities evolve then? DNA and RNA are maleable.
Byron,
“Has anyone gotten a fruit fly to evolve into something else?”
See the above, and read about Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, if you can stomach it.
Chuck Stanley:
“In the same vein, an amazing number of people cannot see the abstract nature of ancient parables and morality stories.”
Yes and some people dont understand there are more than parables in the Bible. The Bible is full of history and insight as well as parables and morality stories.
The story of Joshua and the walls of Jericho is one such story. The walls were undermined by sappers which was determined by archeological investigation according to forensic engineer Dov Kamenetsky.
So there may be quite rational explanations for apparently miraculous occurrences. If some event in the bible seems otherworldly, maybe it isnt some ancient story but a misunderstood natural phenomenon.
Byron,
“That is very interesting. Fruit flies dont live very long so you could have many generations in a relatively short time. Has anyone gotten a fruit fly to evolve into something else? It only takes a few thousand generations for evolution to take place.”
You have a typical Lamarckism and confused understanding of evolution.
Chuck:
“Seen any fruit flies lately? Damn, they show genetic permutations in just a few days.”
That is very interesting. Fruit flies dont live very long so you could have many generations in a relatively short time. Has anyone gotten a fruit fly to evolve into something else? It only takes a few thousand generations for evolution to take place.
Byron, Chuck is throwing you a curve ball. It would be more profitable to consider Dobzhansky rather than Lamarck if your interest is Drosophila. There have been experiments demonstrating artificial selection in Drosophila by William Rice and G.W. Salt where after many generations the flies choose not to mate with isolated populations. However, they do not demonstrate an inability to reproduce with each other.
I think speciation has happened in the past. The fossil record is convincing, especially with mollusks and some lake fish. Extrapolating that to Darwin’s theory, however, is a whole different matter. Ironically, Darwin’s biggest success was causing the fall of the concept that species were immutable. They are not. However, his theory on the origin of species by means of Natural Selection remains a huge extrapolation for which there is a paucity of data.
It would make sense for many people who use the Internet to allow that evolution happens.
My first dial-up modem ran at 300 baud, then I was able to by a fast modem that ran at 1200 baud, later came 14,400 baud, and, when I need a dial-up Internet connection, I can use a 56k modem which usually runs somewhat below its top rated speed.
Not only did modems evolve, but human understanding of how to make modems faster evolved. If human understanding is an aspect of human biology, and if human understanding evolves, that is, for me, adequate proof of human evolution at work, in these days.
What if the word, “God” is a simple name for that aspect of existence which allows human understanding to have evolved from the days of the Macintosh 128k, 68000 processor, 8 megaHertz clock speed first Apple Mcintosh to the 2.5 gigaHertz quad Power PC processor version and, more recently, to have evolved to use Intel processors.
So, the evolution of the Apple Macintosh processor from a Motorola 68000 to a PowerPC, to an Intel processor is absolute proof of the existence of God, as “God” is here defined.
Ye of what faith, or lack thereof?
Oy veh!
I am constantly bemused by the literal interpretation of old biblical stories. In the culture of the day, parables and allegories were the norm. One has to understand the bible is not a literal account, but a book of analogies and stories to illustrate various points. For example, determining the age of the earth based on the Garden of Eden story and an oral genealogy. Seven days? What kind of days? Whose days? An earth day is determined by the rotation of a single planet. How were days determined before the earth was created, back when the solar system was a cloud of dust and gas?
Part of the Mental Status Examination is to ask the subject several proverbs in order to determine their ability to think abstractly. For example they are asked to explain the meaning of, “Don’t judge a book by its cover,” which is an easy one. Most, but not all, get it. One might be surprised by the number of people, some of whom have college degrees, respond, “You have to read it first.”
They get harder. Strangely, one of the hardest is getting someone to explain, “Don’t cross the bridge until you get to it.”
In the same vein, an amazing number of people cannot see the abstract nature of ancient parables and morality stories.
davidm2575,
Seen any fruit flies lately? Damn, they show genetic permutations in just a few days.
How is your opus coming along?
Will your opus discuss the observed mutations of viruses, bacteria, and lower life forms like fruit flies yet claim that those adaptations are “micro” and do not inform the “macro” world?
You know, the macro world that you have continually helped poor helpless souls in? The one with the collection plates.
davidm2575,
Seriously, how is your opus coming along?
davidm2575,
“Why would you think that I denigrate non-believers? I have a healthy respect for the skeptical mind . . .”
There is a difference.
davidm2575,
“He said there was a lack of fossil evidence . . .”
He said there was none.
“This clearly is spoken by someone who has taken the time to look at the evidence.”
Yeah, sure; it’s very clear. I’m sure angryman has spent many decades, “looking at the evidence,” and understanding a vast realm of knowledge.
“It is your assertion that such evidence exists that is the height of ignorant hubris. Go ahead and prove me wrong.”
No one can prove you wrong, davidm2575, because you have a theological agenda for a theocratic goal.
“Translation: In order to know that God does not exist, one has to be God.”
Samantha, I see your point. That is a logical paradox. But I stand by the other half of the statement, that in order to KNOW a God exists, one would have to be God. The same would be true of any individual. One could use “I think, therefore I am,” as a philosophical proof of one’s own existence. And under certain circumstances, one could reach out and touch someone else to try to prove the other person exists physically. But the existence of one or more invisible gods cannot be proved or disproved logically or physically. My point is that this is something that cannot be known. It is merely a belief, either way.
(I believe you exist, because you reply to my statements. But that is just my “theory” for now. :-))
“thought process of creationists don’t allow for”
should be “doesn’t”
davidm2575,
“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.”
That’s a tall order that you suggest.
The first half of your first sentence claims denigration of believers (without any specific reference to a belief) — and this ignores your likewise denigration of non-believers.
Then you paraphrase Einstein.
How is your opus coming along?
Chuck wrote: “… this ignores your likewise denigration of non-believers.”
Why would you think that I denigrate non-believers? I have a healthy respect for the skeptical mind, but not much patience for religious people, which is why I am not religious. However, I also have a healthy disrespect toward atheists because I have come to the conclusion that they are presumptuous to assert that there was no creator.
davidm2575,
To mespo:
“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.”
———————————————————
angryman did state that there were no transitional fossils, yet there are many.
If angryman doesn’t want to study the physiology suggested by the fossil record, this is, of course, his ignorant right. Yet, to claim none exists is the height of ignorant hubris.
Of course the thought process of creationists don’t allow for evolutionary transitions of life-forms, so the perspective, and the argument is self-serving — is it not?
How is your opus coming along?
Chuck wrote: “… to claim none exists is the height of ignorant hubris.”
He said there was a lack of fossil evidence showing the transition from fish to salamander. This clearly is spoken by someone who has taken the time to look at the evidence. It is your assertion that such evidence exists that is the height of ignorant hubris. Go ahead and prove me wrong. All you have to do is identify the fish species along with all the transitional species that led to any salamander species that you like. When you try to do this exercise, you will suddenly realize the paucity of data makes the exercise impossible. At that point you will be forced to agree with angrymanspeaks on this subject.
Sorry, mespo, I didn’t mean “mwsp.”
Thanks for retrieving my comments. does this happen only when you reply by e-mail or also when you visit the site to comment?
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:28 PM, JONATHAN TURLEY wrote:
> samantha commented: “Sorry, mespo, I didn’t mean “mwsp.”” >
mwsp, I didn’t say that. Gilbert did.