New Poll Reveals Evolution's Corrosive Impact on Beliefs about Human Uniqueness

Evolution News & Views April 6, 2016 2:59 PM | Permalink

From the earliest days of civilization, humans have considered themselves exceptional among living creatures. But a new survey by Discovery Institute of more than 3,400 American adults indicates that the theory of evolution is beginning to erode that belief in humanity's unique status and dignity. According to the survey, 43 percent of Americans now agree that "Evolution shows that no living thing is more important than any other," and 45 percent of Americans believe that "Evolution shows that human beings are not fundamentally different from other animals."

The highest levels of support for the idea that evolution shows that humans aren't fundamentally different from other animals are found among self-identified atheists (69 percent), agnostics (60 percent), and 18 to 29 year-olds (51 percent).

The theory of evolution is also reshaping how people think about morality. A majority of Americans (55 percent) now contend that "Evolution shows that moral beliefs evolve over time based on their survival value in various times and places."

"Since the rise of Darwin's theory, leading scientists and other thinkers have insisted that human beings are just another animal, and that morality evolves based on survival of the fittest," says historian Richard Weikart, author of the new book The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life (Regnery).

What this new survey shows is just how pervasive these ideas have become in our culture. Many people no doubt continue to believe that humans are unique, but most do not think that evolution supports that position. Many critics of my earlier scholarship will be disconcerted to see this data, which powerfully supports my arguments about the way that Darwinism devalues human life, a key point I explain further in my new book.

Weikart is a professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.

The data for this survey was collected from March 17-20, 2016, using SurveyMonkey Audience, a nationally representative panel of more than 6 million people recruited from the 30+ million people who take SurveyMonkey surveys each month.

The SurveyMonkey platform has been used for public opinion surveys by NBC News, the Los Angeles Times, and other media organizations. Survey respondents were randomly sampled from members of SurveyMonkey Audience in the United States who are 18 or older, and the survey included 3,427 completed responses.

The poll report is available as a free download here.

>> Evolution by contrast s a plausible scientific theory.<<

proven and buttressed in multiple contexts. Creationists think that playing the Abiogenesis card canard is some sort of win. If Abiogenesis must be explained vis a vis TTOE, it must also be explained in terms of physics, chemistry, astronomy and all the other natural sciences.

As such a demand is not made on them, it cannot be made on TTOE. TTOE explains what it explains and need explain no more.

It is always frustrating dealing with people who do not understand science on a very scientific topic. It is like explaining calculus to someone who does not understand arithmetic.

But don’t pursue it further here at FR — trust me.

Man, you got THAT right. Still, I'd like us Christians to be able to reconcile our intellect and faith with science. Not every scientist is a pagan/atheist/spawn of Satan. Some of us believe in the Risen Christ. God does not frown on us asking "why". In fact, I'm certain he wants us to.

Still, you're right; tough crowd here! I'm even told my screen name I've had for years is Satanic and I'm an evolutionist!

Mind you, I didn't say I was, but just asked some questions.

BTW, to all, my screen name is from a science fiction book written in 1961. About nuclear war and survival in rural America. A GREAT read--see my profile!

I love how some people here think they are tough Christian warriors and therefore have the right to insult people for Christ.

How did Jesus put it?

Matthew 7:16

Shameful.

My high school biology teacher taught us about evolution. It was in a Catholic HS and this particular teacher was a Marist Brother with a strong belief in God and of Jesus as Savior. My church separates science from religion. Faith need not have anything to do with science and vice versa.

The father of the big bang theory himself was a Jesuit Priest doing science in the Vatican. Geogres Lamaitre. The term "big bang" was to be applied later, he described it as a "primordial atom"

It may be of interest that the big bang was resisted because it implies a moment of creation, which is a rather difficult thing to reconcile with atheism. Lamaitre himself assured naturalistic colleagues that they could find a way to reconcile the theory with naturalism...although for myself I find such reconciliation very problematic.

It is silent on morality...

Hmmm...Darwin didn't this so - he discussed how his theory relates to human morality and ethics in Descent of Man. If morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective fixed morality as stated by Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson in The Evolution of Ethics:

Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will…. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.
Ethics is illusory inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place.