Only 40% of Americans believe in the Theory of Evolution

[Goofball]

and another 39% call it "absolutely false."

Yikes...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...y/Science/home

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In evolution, Americans are big non-believers


SCOTT ROBERTS
Globe and Mail Update

It's a statistic that would have Charles Darwin turning in his grave - more than one third of Americans don't believe in evolution, according to a new study.
After tabulating surveys that covered 34 countries, researchers at the University of Michigan have found that U.S. citizens are much less likely to accept Darwinism than Europeans and the Japanese.
The study, published in Friday's issue of the journal Science, found that in countries like Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and France, at least 80 per cent of adult believe that humans evolved from other species. In Japan, 78 per cent of adults believe in evolution.
But in the U.S. only 40 per cent of adults believe whole-heartedly in evolution, while 39 per cent called it “absolutely false” in the 2005 survey, which questioned 1,484 Americans and more than 33,000 people worldwide.
Related to this article

Latest Comments

• While raised Catholic, I am not religious in anyway. I believe...
• Sorry Ewan but your statement, "No one has ever observed evolution...
• #18 You are full of yourself and display a shocking level of...
• 29 reader comments | Join the conversation

The study's authors say that after decades of debate it seems the American public is more confused than ever on the issue of evolution. Over the past 20 years, the number of Americans unsure about their stand on evolution has tripled from 7 per cent in 1985 to 21 per cent in 2005.
Jon Miller, the professor who authored the study, said religious fundamentalism in the United States has fuelled skepticism in evolution.
“When you compare the U.S. to Europe, it's clear we're way out in right field by ourselves,” said Mr. Miller. “There is a different protestant movement in this country, one that often rejects science. It's different than that of Europe and certainly of Canada.”
Although Canada wasn't surveyed in the study, Mr. Miller speculated that support for evolution would be much stronger here than in the United States and would likely align with countries like Britain and France.
Mr. Miller said a major shift in the American political spectrum is another reason for the figures.
“The Republicans have been taken over by religious conservatives,” he said. “Partly because of the fundamentalism, we have a more ideological politics than ever before. Now more than ever we're seeing the politicization of this issue and others like stem cells, the morning after pill and global warming. Republicans do it because it works.”
Mr. Miller said the results of the study are concerning and paint a grim portrait of American science education.
“It doesn't say anything very good about education here,” he said. “The findings should be of substantial concern to science educators in the United States because we've spent billions of dollars, we have a high percentage of young people going to college and taking science courses and yet we have a very ambivalent attitude on a subject that's a closed book almost everywhere in the world.”

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is news?

I'm sorry but we in Blighty have long despaired of our relatives over the pond.

[scotchedpommes]

Well, let us all hold our heads in disbelief some more.

[Or rather, knowing disgust, I should have said.]

[Ice]

I could have guessed this.

[Kommodus]

I agree that the US is lagging behind in science education, but why the focus on evolution? When people bemoan the poor quality of scientific education here, it's usually because they're concerned about us losing our technological edge in the world. Well then, why not shine the spotlight on fields that are more relevant to human progress - physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology? (Yes, I know evolution is a major part of biology; hang on and let me explain myself.)

Evolution is a broad term for a huge collection of theories spanning genetics, ecology, origins, etc. That vast majority of these theories - such as natural selection and genetic principles - are ideas that even the oft-maligned creationists have no problem with. These theories are well-evidenced, clearly understood, relevant to the present, and vital for progress in certain fields. But it seems as though some are only concerned with cramming the slightly shakier and oft-changing theories about the distant past, such as how birds evolved from reptiles and humans evolved from pre-human primates, down our collective throats.

This is what I don't understand - why the least relevant stuff gets the greatest coverage. Why not talk about how poorly we are doing in physics, mathematics, and biology (including all the important parts of evolution)? And if we're concerned about science education, why not focus on teaching those? Knowing how fish grew legs and climbed up on land won't help you build a better computer. It won't help you improve spaceflight, or grow better vegetables, or cure any disease - all it will do is give you some extra trivia knowledge you can lord over your more ignorant peers.

Yes, our education system is failing, but this isn't the litmus test for that.

[scooter_the_shooter]

I don't think evolution is real either....you expect me to believe I'm monkey....I got news for ya' I'm not

[Strike For The South]

I also fear for an America which loses its moral compas. There needs to be a balance like a seperation of church and state that may work.

[Ice]

I also fear for an America which loses its moral compas. There needs to be a balance like a seperation of church and state that may work.

What moral compas?

[Ice]

I don't think evolution is real either....you expect me to believe I'm monkey....I got news for ya' I'm not

Damn, you sure debunked evolution. If you are really up for a challenge, meet me in the chat tonight.

[Lemur]

I think we all need to have a good listen to The Monkey Song ...

[Strike For The South]

What moral compas?

the one that helps us make moral decisons.

[Ice]

the one that helps us make moral decisons.

That never existed.

[Don Corleone]

Okay, speaking as a former predatory scavenging ape from the plains....

Criminy Goofball. You have Lebanon/Israel, Iran's nuclear bombs, North Korea's nuclear bombs, famines all across Africa, previously unheard of bad weather due to George Bush's dedication to increasing global warming [/sarcasm off], Prince Harry's new girlfriend, Brittney's home video that proves she's human after all and..... oh yeah, a plot to blow up 10 planes and kill thousands of people..... and THIS grabs your attention?

What the hell do you all care? Do a bunch of hicks in Missouri believing in 6 days and not a minute longer even remotely impact your life? Hey, if you think it does.. get a real one!!!

[Strike For The South]

oh it matters. There are plenty of resonable and unreasonable people on both sides of the spectrum. This really dosnet prove or disprove anything Its justaurvey. 1000 out of the 300,000,000 in the USA

[Xiahou]

Well, I call shenanigans on the author of this study. Clearly the guy is pushing an agenda and is nothing close to an unbiased researcher. Look at these gems:

“When you compare the U.S. to Europe, it's clear we're way out in right field by ourselves,”

“The Republicans have been taken over by religious conservatives,” he said. “Partly because of the fundamentalism, we have a more ideological politics than ever before. Now more than ever we're seeing the politicization of this issue and others like stem cells, the morning after pill and global warming. Republicans do it because it works.”

What a clown... US opinions on evolution have remained remarkably stable over the years and Bush has little to do with it.

[Joeokar]

Well, I call shenanigans on the author of this study. Clearly the guy is pushing an agenda and is nothing close to an unbiased researcher. Look at these gems:
What a clown... US opinions on evolution have remained remarkably stable over the years and Bush has little to do with it.

Theistic evolution here

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Apathetic here!

Science is about microchips, genetics, ballistics, and nuclear fusion. We don't need no stinkin' evolution.

[InsaneApache]

Beliefs elsewhere in the world:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

“When you compare the U.S. to Europe, it's clear we're way out in right field by ourselves,”

Seems he was right though.

[Navaros]

40% are silly enough to believe in the nonsense theory of evolution - that's shocking.

At least 60% are smart enough to know better, so there is some hope left for the intelligence of mankind.

[Navaros]

While we're debunking science with mere sarcastic remarks, I'd like to take this opportunity to lambast gravity: You suck, Gravity.

Evolution is far more "speculation, propaganda, and fundamental zealousness dedicated to sticking to a pre-conceived idea no matter what, even if evidence and conclusions must be fabricated to do so" rather than "science."

Just look the fundamental zealous tone throughout the article in the original post. In no way is that a balanced article that takes a neutral stance (as reporters are ethically obligated to do). Rather, it tries to push the writer's fundamental pro-evolution zeal down the readers' throats by implying that evolution is correct and something is "wrong" with people who don't believe in that crap.

[InsaneApache]

<<<<<< not again.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Evolution is far more "speculation, propaganda, and fundamental zealousness dedicated to sticking to a pre-conceived idea no matter what, even if evidence and conclusions must be fabricated to do so" rather than "science."

Just look the fundamental zealous tone throughout the article in the original post. In no way is that a balanced article that takes a neutral stance (as reporters are ethically obligated to do). Rather, it tries to push the writer's fundamental pro-evolution zeal down the readers' throats by implying that evolution is correct and something is "wrong" with people who don't believe in that crap.

Please prove that Adam and Eve existed. Also explain how, if Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, their children could take themselves wives from "somewhere else" when there were no other persons because all were supposedly stemming from Adam and Eve.

I wouldn't be nearly as amazed if the religious people would interpret Adam and Eve as not the first humans, but as the first humans who tasted the forbidden fruit (as the bible says - the bible never mentions them as the first humans but only as the first who sinned). But the fact that people believe in an illogical misinterpretation of the bible that suggests the human species was created by a massive incest program between someone called Adam and another called Eve, and their children, is just shocking.

You may also want to explain the existence of your caudal vertebra, and why whales have hands, among other things.

Also about the fruit flies - scientists have been able to alter the populations of fruit flies so that they change properties in many ways, according to which fruit flies reproduce and which aren't. That's a pretty good proof of evolution. Another good proof of evolution and genetics is how most children look so much like their parents. Try to explain all those things with creationism.

You might as well prod someone off a high rock and see him fall down to earth and die, and say "gravity doesn't exist".

[Xiahou]

40% are silly enough to believe in the nonsense theory of evolution - that's shocking.

At least 60% are smart enough to know better, so there is some hope left for the intelligence of mankind.

Well, I think we know what collumn he's under....

For myself, put me down under theistic evolution.

[Divinus Arma]

Theistic evolution 100%. Even the bible supports this: If man and woman were butt naked in the jungle and didn't know right from wrong, what the heck would they be? Animals.


As for the apple, who knows what real event actually occured. But something did occur, perhaps over time, which transformed us from "auto-pilot" to free-choice modern man with the ability to self-actualize. Theistic evolution would explain that it was God's intent to allow us this opportunity.


I believe the "apple" was God's intent to bring us to fullment as humanity. We should celebrate that day rather than curse it as "original sin". Original sin is nothing more than an instrument of control created by ancient religious establishment. It is impossible to do evil (disobediance to the Lord) when one has no awareness of the difference between evil and good. Animals cannot do evil.

[Navaros]

Evolution is a collection of theories, facts, and ongoing studies. It is subject to scientific method, peer review, and hundreds of years of a fundamental search for truth that has been a hallmark of the modern age.

Scientific method is not and cannot be applied to evolution because it does not meet the requirements of the scientific method. Ie: not testable, not repeatable, not observable etc. etc.

Those "peer reviews" you speak of don't mean much since all those peers are stuck in their fundamentalist zealot mindset. This is why the history of the theory of evolution is filled with many tangible examples of outright hoaxes and fraud committed by scientists themselves, and which were gleefully accepted by those "peer review" you mention.

[x-dANGEr]

Evolution = Nonsense.

[doc_bean]

In a country where you can take out 'rapture insurance', this doesn't really surprise me. Although the results are possibly skewed in they only asked people in a certain region (say, the Bible Belt).

[Rodion Romanovich]

Theistic evolution 100%. Even the bible supports this: If man and woman were butt naked in the jungle and didn't know right from wrong, what the heck would they be? Animals.


As for the apple, who knows what real event actually occured. But something did occur, perhaps over time, which transformed us from "auto-pilot" to free-choice modern man with the ability to self-actualize. Theistic evolution would explain that it was God's intent to allow us this opportunity.


I believe the "apple" was God's intent to bring us to fullment as humanity. We should celebrate that day rather than curse it as "original sin". Original sin is nothing more than an instrument of control created by ancient religious establishment. It is impossible to do evil (disobediance to the Lord) when one has no awareness of the difference between evil and good. Animals cannot do evil.

1. animals certainly do have morals, just like humans, the only difference is that they can't talk about morals and that their morals differ from ours, often on a per-species basis, but sometimes even on per-population basis. Usually herd animals are more "good" according to human values than lonely-living animals, with more signs of altruism. But it's probably because we're herd animals that we consider herd animals to be more "good", because their morals resemble our own.

2. no animal, not even humans, has free will if the world is deterministic. Many experiments imply that the world indeed is deterministic, and even if the world is non-deterministic, any random system can mathematically show characteristics of determinism, which means free will can be considered non-existing no matter what. The only transformation mankind has gone through is, when our reasoning thinking abilities grew, we questioned the natural instinctive moral values, resulting in an immorality called civilization, which has repeatedly led to counter-reactions, where the bad things of civilization has been utilized for good ends, especially when the questioning of the natural instinctive moral values has led to understanding of why they exist - enlightenment, and a motivation for why they should be followed even from a totally egoistic point of view, because high morality, acceptance and peace is benefitial.

3. the historical advent corresponding to "original sin" is not at all something to celebrate, but something to be horribly sad about. However, the gradual development where we've started to reach enlightening and thereby counter the problems caused by the original sin, the questioning of morality instincts, is something that should be celebrated. That has once again brought us up to the same level as other animals.

4. Awareness is a necessity before an act can be punished by law, but awareness is not a necessity before an act can be called evil, it's whether it hurts someone or not that matters. That's why widespread enlightenment through science and education is the path of good that God wants us to follow, because only by making people reach full insight of the consequences of their actions, will they lose both excuses and desires to do evil. "The truth shall set you free", as the bible says.

[Husar]

Hey, I want to throw this in:
http://www.tenthdimension.com.nyud.net:8080/flash2.php
Klick the rotating numbers to the right...

[Moros]

Scientific method is not and cannot be applied to evolution because it does not meet the requirements of the scientific method. Ie: not testable, not repeatable, not observable etc. etc.

Those "peer reviews" you speak of don't mean much since all those peers are stuck in their fundamentalist zealot mindset. This is why the history of the theory of evolution is filled with many tangible examples of outright hoaxes and fraud committed by scientists themselves, and which were gleefully accepted by those "peer review" you mention.

Have you read:

Also about the fruit flies - scientists have been able to alter the populations of fruit flies so that they change properties in many ways, according to which fruit flies reproduce and which aren't. That's a pretty good proof of evolution. Another good proof of evolution and genetics is how most children look so much like their parents. Try to explain all those things with creationism.

This might also be an intresting article for those that haven't read it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

So it is observable not only by modern signs of evolution but also with the use of fossils. Not repeatable? Wth? what part of the theory don't you understand? not testable? yes it is ook at what Legio posted. So there goes your argument.
And here comes mine. Scientific Method.