Third of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory

Gallup.com ^ | 11/19/04 | Gallup

[jcsmonogram]

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Some 145 years after the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, controversy about the validity and implications of his theory still rages. Darwin personally encountered much resistance after his book was published in 1859. Seventy-nine years ago, the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee brought the issue of exactly where human beings came from into sharp public focus in the United States. Indeed, as recently as this month, a court case in Cobb County, Ga., dealing with the treatment of evolution and creationism in school textbooks received nationwide publicity. November's National Geographic Magazine asked on its cover: "Was Darwin Wrong?" and then proceeded to devote 33 pages to answering that question.

Darwin might be surprised to find such debate still raging nearly a century and a half after he published his book. He might also be surprised to find that even today there is significantly less than majority agreement from the American public that his theory of evolution is supported by the evidence.

Gallup has asked Americans twice in the last three years to respond to the following question about Darwin's theory:

Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is –  [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don't you know enough about it to say?

[clyde asbury]

My belief is that both are partially right but both are incomplete explanations.

Ergo, neither side can "prove" they are right, and it comes down to a simply a matter of competing beliefs.

They are competing beliefs. The fact that they are both incomplete makes them equal only to someone who has no experience with gravity.

[DannyTN]

"The Dems are proof that some are still evolving out of primordial slime."

Wrong. The Dems are proof that man is devolving into primordial slime.

[microgood]

So, to prove to you that evolution is a valid theory, we need to show you a chimp giving birth to a human?

I would settle for a detailed explanation of how a single celled creature could, even over a period of billions of years, develop an eye, leg, nose, ear, brain, foot, leg, etc. If time and random mutations and some response to environmental stimuli are the only explanations for this, I am skeptical of the theory. Developing an eye, for example, would take millions of mutations all going in the right direction to happen.

[DameAutour]

I agree with some of the things in this post.

I fail to see how the belief that "God" just started a spark that eventually, randomly, indiscriminately, unpurposefully led to the existence of humanity is at all consistent with Christianity.

[GarySpFc]

I don't doubt for a second that God left out many details, but to think natural selection had anything to do with creation is atheism...period.

Around 1.3 billion of the world's Christians disagree with you, of course. I guess the Pope is an "atheist" in your book.

Nonsense! There are 1.3 million Christians, and polls have always shown the majority believe in Creationism. Aditionally, I would suggest you read again what the Pope has to say about evolution.

[clyde asbury]

Good point. Earth-centric would be a better idea than flat earth.

[narby]

I don't doubt for a second that God left out many details, but to think natural selection had anything to do with creation is atheism...period.

That's just another doctrinal fight like "saved by grace", or the virgin birth, or any other conflict between Methodists, Catholics, Jews, etc. You think the Bible says one thing, I think it says another.

The problem appears to be with your belief system, and not with young people believing in God. Polls show the majority of people believe in God and Creationism, not Darwin.

The problem is Creationists attempting to force their interpretation of Genesis on those of other denominations. Creationism fights usually descend into the discussion of "whether God exists". For Creationists to force government school districts to host this fight is particularly stupid. It guarantees that some of those children will decide then and there that God is just a fairy tale and you will never get the chance to change their mind later.

Far better to be humble enough to admit you don't know exactly what Genesis means, and perhaps Evolution really was God's first Creation. Those Creationism fights in government schools are then defused and those children are not lost.

I'll say it again. Religious people are double stupid to carry on this fight. They only harm themselves as well as non-believing political conservatives, who might decide to abandon religious issues like pro-life judges.

Believing in Creationism isn't what saves you.

Think about it.

[muleskinner]

How is natural selection connected to atheism? Please be brief.

[balrog666]

I would argue that 60 % of Americans are not adequately educated to know one way or the other. It may be higher than that.

Sturgeon's Law: 90%.

[narby]

The origin of the first living organism has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with life that already exists, it does not address how the first life came to exist.

It's just amazing that after all these crevo threads, that these Creationists just can't get it through their heads that Darwin or Evolution has nothing whatever to do with how life started, or the Big Bang, etc.

Other scientists might bring up those subjects, but Evolution doesn't.

[GarySpFc]

I fail to see how the belief that "God" just started a spark that eventually, randomly, indiscriminately, unpurposefully led to the existence of humanity is at all consistent with Christianity.

In 1995, the official Position Statement of the American National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) accurately states the general understanding of major science organizations and educators:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable, and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

Or in the words of the famous evolutionist, George Gaylord Simpson, "Man is the result of a purposeless, and natural process that did not have him in mind."

How do they know the process was unsupervised?

How do they know the process was mindless?

How do they know the process was purposeless?

Their statements are problematic in that they are unscientific. It cannot be proven that evolutionary processes are "purposeless" or that humans were "not in mind." Science cannot demonstrate these assumptions either way ... and that's the problem with their position. They become proponents of a religion of atheism; I say religion because their conclusion is NOT science, it is faith ... just as much as OUR conclusion is faith. Clearly, their definition is diametrically opposed to any concept of a personal creator being involved in the evolutionary process.

To be fair, NABT removed the language after it was pointed out by the philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, and the theologian Huston Smith, that their guideline was really an implied atheism and went beyond what the scientific evidence for the theory could show. However, the concept of natural selection (absent a creator) remains the central tenant of evolution as taught in the classrooms. The definition of natural selection includes unsupervised, mindless and purposeless. Clearly, in defining evolution they have left the world of science and entered the world of philosophy and theology, and established atheism (a religion) in our classrooms.

A 1991 Gallup Poll found that 87% of the public believes in God. According to the poll, of the 87% who believe in God, 44% accept the Creation model, and 43% the theistic evolution model. This implies that only one in ten Americans accepts NABT’s purposeless, mindless atheism, which is being taught in our classrooms. Teaching intelligent design differs from literal Biblical creationism in that it is silent regarding who the designer might be, when the designing took place, how it was done or for what purpose. It simply purposes that life was designed.

We can only speculate as to why two young men at Columbine High School gave up all hope and went on a rampage. Do you think that maybe they were taught their world is mindless, purposeless and unsupervised?

[clyde asbury]

"Look how stupid these Christians are."

Like others here, I see no conflicts between science and religion. It seems there will always be plenty of room for God, regardless of how specific science becomes.

[Modernman]

Nonsense! There are 1.3 million Christians, and polls have always shown the majority believe in Creationism.

I am speaking of the official positions of both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches, which comprise about 1.3 billion of the world's 2 billion Christians. I am sure there are Protestant denominations that accept the TOE, too. Creationism is a fringe movement among Christians.

Now, the Muslim world is completely behind Creationism...

Aditionally, I would suggest you read again what the Pope has to say about evolution.

The Vatican accepts theistic evolution whereby evolution is the mechanism used by God to guide the development of life.

[DameAutour]

Yes, actually.

I want to see one species "re"produce and out pop a different species.

I'm serious. I want to see that. It's one of my biggest problems with this theory. I don't think it has ever happened, no one has ever seen it happen, no one has ever even claimed to see it happen, no one even knows HOW it could happen. So if people choose not to believe in miracles because they've never seen one and don't know how it would happen, macroevolution is a miracle.

I don't have a problem believing that species adapt over time. I don't have a problem with genetic change.

I have a problem with the giant leap from believing in small genetic changes over time to believing that members of one species get together, procreate, and produce something that is not also part of that species.

I'm genuinely curious. Have humans ever successfully mated with apes?

[gdani]

The Evolutionists hide behind the Big Bang theory, but can't explain what caused the Big Bang, or what preceded it.

Maybe because that falls outside the realm of evolution.

The current thinking is that there was likely was some "guiding force"

Where did you get that from? Cite please.

[GarySpFc]

The Vatican accepts theistic evolution whereby evolution is the mechanism used by God to guide the development of life.

WRONG! The Vatican accepts as one possible model the theory of evolution.

[Socrates1]

Extremely well put.

I couldn't agree more

Creationists resist Evolution, since it is the club used historically to discredit them. They don't deny Evolution but refuse to accept it as the "exclusive" answer

Evolutionists resist Creation, since it would presuppose God, so they will defend the sole (flawed) theory that uses "scientific method", to prove they are enlightened, rational and modern (implying the other side is unenlightened, irrational and un-modern).

Sounds like blue state methodology to me

Since each position is incomplete, neither side can EVER convince the other.

Based upon our current knowledge, "debating" which is "right" is a farce, where each side can use their belief, and condescension of the other belief to debate an undebatable point.

Like Bush vs Kerry - Winning the debate becmes a rhetorical game, and accomplishes nothing except an ego gratification

[Junior]

I want to see one species "re"produce and out pop a different species.

Evolution doesn't happen that way. It's a gradual process involving whole populations. Ring Species provide an excellent window on the process as it occurs.

[mdmathis6]

"The real question is how many people consider professional wrestling to be real but believe that the moon missions were faked."

I personally worry about the significance of the three sided
doritos corn chip...come'on triangle shaped corn chips...and flouride in the water wait...I got it it's a Bush CFR plot!

[Dimensio]

I'm serious. I want to see that. It's one of my biggest problems with this theory.

Actually, your biggest problem with the theory seems to be that you don't understand it.

Speciation is not when one species suddenly pops out another in a single generation. Speciation occurs over a series of generations. When it happens, it's something of a fuzzy distinction because while you have two decidedly different species, they can be traced back to a single common species.