Most Americans Agree with Evolution [new poll]

Angus Reid Consultants ^ | 01 September 2006 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

More adults in the United States believe the theory of evolution is correct, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 51 per cent of respondents think that humans and other living things evolved over time, while 42 per cent say they existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

Charles Darwin’s "The Origin of Species" was first published in 1859. The book details the British naturalist’s theory that all organisms gradually evolve through the process of natural selection. Darwin’s views were antagonistic to creationism, the belief that a more powerful being or a deity created life.

In the United States, the debate on the topic accelerated after the 1925 Scopes trial, which tested a law that banned the teaching of evolution in Tennessee public schools. In 2004, Georgia’s Cobb County was at the centre of a controversy on whether science textbooks that explain evolutionary theory should include disclaimer stickers.

The theory of intelligent design suggests certain biological mechanisms are too complex to have developed without the involvement of a powerful force or intelligent being.

Last month, Austrian cardinal Christoph Schoenborn said the two views are not necessarily incompatible, declaring, "There is no conflict between science and religion, but a debate between a materialist interpretation of the results of science and a metaphysical philosophical interpretation. (...) The possibility that the Creator used evolution as a tool is completely acceptable for the Catholic faith."

Polling Data

Some people think that humans and other living things evolved over time. Others think that humans and other living things existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Which of these comes closest to your view?

	Jul. 2006	Jul. 2005
Evolved over time	51%	48%
Existed in their present form since the beginning of time	42%	42%
Don’t know / Refused	7%	10%

Source: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press Methodology: Telephone interviews with 2,003 American adults, conducted from Jul. 6 to Jul. 19, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

[ToryHeartland]

In the years preceding 1492, there was a time when, if a 'poll' could be taken on how many people thought the earth was flat, the majority would have agreed

Actually, that's not the case.

The ancient Greeks (starting at least with Pythagoras, 6 centuries before Christ) had worked out the earth had to be a sphere (using scientific principles), by the time of Pliny (1st century AD) the notion was generally accepted, including by most of the church fathers, such as Augustine, and many later clerics (such as the Venerable Bede).

The only real doubters were a minority of early Christian authors (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, Diodorus of Tarsus and a few others) arguing for a 'flat earth' on purely Scriptural grounds. The Church occasionally produced further proclamations in favour of a 'flat earth' (such as Bishop Vergilius), but by the 8th century AD, the matter was more or less settled, at least among the learned.--and probably the general populace as well. Our ancestors may have had less education than we boast, but they were surely far more observant of the changes of the seasons and the events of the night sky; and you can't make much sense out of even casual astronomy assuming a 'flat earth.'

It's a modern myth that prior to Columbus folks thought the earth was flat. That was a poetic myth created by Washington Irving, who wrote a popular book portraying Colombus in heroic light. Now, of course, we know that Colombus was pretty unsavoury, but that is beside the point.

Now, none of the above takes anything away from the intent (as I read it) of your first point in your posting: scientific 'truth' is not determined by opinion polls. It is determined by doing science.

[PatrickHenry]

The ancient Greeks (starting at least with Pythagoras, 6 centuries before Christ) had worked out the earth had to be a sphere (using scientific principles), by the time of Pliny (1st century AD) the notion was generally accepted, including by most of the church fathers, such as Augustine, and many later clerics (such as the Venerable Bede).

Credit for a convincing argument that the earth is a sphere is generally given to Aristotle. He used the usual arguments (observations of mariners, etc.) plus the fact that the earth's shadow on the moon during lunar eclipses is always circular, and only a sphere could always cast a circular shadow.

A generation later, Eratosthenes provided a strikingly accurate calculation for the earth's size, by measuring the shadow of two objects at noon, which were a known distance apart (the figure of 500 stadia is often given). The sun was directly overhead for one object (a well which was lit up right to the bottom) and about 7 degrees off-center for the other, so every 7 degrees was 500 stadia, and for 360 degrees ... he had the earth's circumference. (His writings are lost, and there's another way he might have done it, but this post is long enough.)

This was around 250BC, and all educated people from then on knew not only the shape but also the size of the earth. Columbus, however, used a different calculation, and didn't realize how far he had to sail to get to China. But he knew the earth was a sphere.

[ToryHeartland]

Columbus, however, used a different calculation, and didn't realize how far he had to sail to get to China. But he knew the earth was a sphere.

And he went to his grave still thinking he had sailed to the "Indies."

[PatrickHenry]

And he went to his grave still thinking he had sailed to the "Indies."

Can't blame him for that. The place is full of Indians!

[mlo]

In another news flash, most Americans also believe that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun. Stunning news.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

Satan tempted her with 'being like GOD'. That is sure NOT 'carnality'!

Being like God and without grace, is narcissism, greed, power, depravity, materialistic. Satan was thrown out of heaven for it, and this capability is always within man. Why are you fighting this?

[metmom]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1692356/posts

Posts 41 and 68 and it isn't the first time I've seen Dave do it.

(Courtesy ping, Dave)

[Jorge]

Considering the Bible predicts most of mankind would turn to false teachings and become delusional in the end times, I'm surprised more people haven't fallen for evolution.

[spinestein]

Yes. Margin of error is a number calculated to predict the range of probable outcomes of answers given in a survey or data derived from a scientific experiment. In a survey, it usually only includes sampling error, and reliability of the number assumes that non-sampling errors are negligent.


Here's an excellent summary of margin of error for the layman:

http://www.surveyusa.com/ASA.pdf#search=%22calculate%20%22margin%20of%20error%22%20scientific%22

[Phibes]

Another f#@king poll! Nobody asked me or anyone I know. I really doubt these polls are worth a fiddlers f#@k.

[spinestein]

[I really doubt these polls are worth a fiddlers f#@k.]



Are you kidding? Polls are very useful for giving journalists something to say when they're too lazy to get off their butts and go out and find some real news. Polls also have the added benefit of supporting the pet theories of the authors of the poll, provided they write the questions in such a way that elicits the expected responses.

Now that's worth something.
:^)

[spinestein]

[...the Bible predicts most of mankind would turn to false teachings and become delusional in the end times...]



Damn, we've been in the "end times" ever since we gained the knowledge of good and evil. When are the "end times" finally going to END?

[G Larry]

The tone of most articles citing polls, are such that they would have us believe that the majority view is how we are to discerne fact from fiction.

[Gaffer]

Okay, I take your explanation at face value. However, that point that I put forth simply could have been translated on a larger scale, Copernicus' theory vs. the majority of the collective church on the "center of the universe."

As you say, the true "science" of a matter isn't determined by opinion. Likewise, true "science" generally has a provable theorem, generally mathematic, that can be proven from start-to-finish in some way. "Sciences" like anthropology, palentology, sociology (thrown in for all of the "social scientists in this world"), et. al. are made from observations and selected findings. Selected findings can many times be just an available set of bones that have been found. DNA tracing has been the closest thing to science, in my opinion to date, but still involves some bit of probability and chance (you'll never hear an expert on the stand saying "there's a 100% surety that so-and-so's DNA IS the same as exhibit A").

In the end, they are still observations and the theories are mainly the result of the influence of human experience on the thought process working overtime to establish "how it must have been."

I don't know the truth, and I don't think the truth can be conclusively proved (unless somebody has a time machine we don't know about). Then, what remains is belief, and that is what sets the two groups apart. One content in the spiritual, and the other using the argument as a means to control.

[MHGinTN]

It is Sunday, so I'll take this opportunity to bring a Sunday message.

There will come a tipping point. To delve into when that would be, one must view the circumstance from a spiritual perspective related to what it is God is doing with humankind. Since we know (by means of Scriptures, your mileage may vary) that faith in Christ magnifies the illimitable Grace of God toward humankind, the tipping point will involve such a despising of the Gospel of Grace in Christ as to warrant terminating this phase of the process God has instituted to evolve humankind in a magnification of His Son on now our spiritual level.

Are we there yet? I'd say we're getting darn close, what with the preoccupation with degeneracy and self aggrandizements, and the prideful emulating of works in substitute for obedience, works which seek to make us 'like God' in our powers to transform the universe and our physical state to our liking (which obedience, BTW, is not as difficult as you may have been told, because God provides the earnest of your inheritance in your human spirit such that the still small presence of His Holy Spirit, His life, generates the character of God in humankind, at least in a small way since we still have resident a fallen nature inherited from Adam).

Have we reached the point when we may alter humankind along the lines we think best for our future? Almost ... God will not allow us to go too far before stopping this phase of the processes, though that stopping will appear to those alive then as if nature is attacking us and fellow humans are seeking to subjugate us to remove our freedoms for the good and survival of all mankind.

[Oztrich Boy]

I'd like to know why so many evolutionists think it's okay for their fellows to engage in bad behavior without admonishing...

Works two ways.

Actually, in practice, no.

I seen adnmonishment (and been admonished) by evolutionists.

Never seen a Craetionist admonish one of their own - their minor bad behaviour often elicits praise and encouragement. Extreme bad behaviour receives denial.

[MHGinTN]

See post #427 ...

[Van Jenerette]

While I continue to hit my students with my lecture "Bibles & Gunpowder and the American Revolution" I have another lecture...

"Darwin meets Jesus in America's Public Schools: Why The Atheist want our Children to learn Natural Selection but quietly Need them to behave like Good Tolerant Christians.

I also challenge my students; 'If evolution is correct and a species evolves and adapts to it's environment; someday can we expect(since equitorial Africa is the 'cradle' of man) to see Naked Eskimos living above the Artic Circle as they adapt to their surroundings according to evolution's premise?

Hmmmm.....

[betty boop]

The multiverse approach to this concept would declare that at every choice you make in life, a new pathway is branched off for temporal flow. I don't buy that, but it would probably make sense to you in order to maintain the illusion of freedom to choose at every instance since you prefer to believe time is flowing.

Marvelous essay/post, MHGinTN! Need some time to more fully "digest it," but hope to reply soon.

Thank you so much for posting such a fascinating piece!

[betty boop]

For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath [no] power in him but what he derives from the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.

Hi MHGinTN! It may have been naughty of me; but the only way I could make sense of the above quote was to insert the bracketed [no]. When I pray, I pray to the Father, in the name of the Son (Logos, the Word of the Father). From the two proceeds the Holy Spirit, which "moves" and is active in souls in this world. God is One; but still I believe that One is hierarchically trinitarian in form. If we can speak of God has having "form" or "movement" at all, and we really can't. :^). (Because such categories only have meaning within 4D spacetime constraints.)

'Tis a mystery that I prefer not to reduce to a "doctrinal statement." Any such doctrinal statement about the nature of God is practically guaranteed to be either wrong or completely unprovable. Plus the semantic quibbles sure to follow rarely get you anywhere. :^) For myself, I just like to KISS -- to "keep things simple [stupid]."

The only essential point to bear in mind is "God is love; and who lives in love lives in God and God in him."

Well, FWIW. Please people, don't jump all over me if you don't like my take on this: You're entitled to your own view of the matter, according to the way the Holy Spirit leads you -- which I honor and respect.

Thank you so much Marvin, for detailing Keynes' take on this for me (us).