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.

>>Just to clarify - the fact that experts in the field and even Darwin himself disagree with you is irrelevant?<<

Appeal to authority. How quaint.

Show me where in TToE it states anything about these issues. I will not waver from this request.

Or just admit defeat, since from the get go all you have presented are logical fallacies.

>>Put another way, one cannot claim that Darwinism made our brains but has no bearing on the brain’s contents. This is what makes Darwin’s theory unique to science as most people familiar with his theory know.<<

That is a conclusion, not part of the theory. And you are clearly not familiar with the Theory at all, merely others’ thoughts on it. I can read E.F. Codd’s life story, including his thoughts on 3VL, and know nothing about the Relational Theory.

I can show where science has used its process to refute attempted fakes.

That sidesteps the true issue. Can you show where science has attempted to refute evolution, itself?

Evolution, insofar as the kind that would confute intelligent design, has never been demonstrated in an experimental environment.

But as for your question, here's one: why would Prigogine get a Nobel prize for his theories regarding self-organizing systems if there were not a prior philosophic commitment to finding a materialistic cause?

Furthermore, the invariable answer to the insolubles (my personal favorites are irreducible complexity and instinctive behavior) of evolutionary theory are ALWAYS a) you're religious, so you don't care about facts, b) we haven't figured that out yet, or c) offer up a scientific gnat as the basis for swallowing the theoretical camel.

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.

I think there are two proper times to "play the abiogenesis card" as you put it.

First, if someone argues that the evidence for the theory of evolution implies that the question of how life came about without a super natural agent has been fully explained. I have heard this kind of equivocation before. There are certainly no shortage of naturalists to whom the "theory of evolution" when being examined to see if it holds up does not include abiogenesis. But before you can blink they will use it to as if it explained how life came about when arguing for naturalism. I am not going to ask such people to explain everything, I just ask them that if you are going to try to say that science has shown that life can come without supernatural help, you must include the evidence for the actual hard part of the problem.

The problem for the naturalist is interesting on this score. In Darwin's time the idea of abiogenesis seemed very plausible. Modern science has shown it not to be plausible, at the same time common origin has been shown to be plausible. Naturalism needs both to be true to support itself.

The second way that the card is reasonably "played" is simply as a stand a reason to be dubious about naturalism. It would not be fair to call it a disproof of naturalism, only as a reason to be dubious.

In neither "play" should one try to demand the naturalist have a theory of everything. Nor to make out that this is completely fatal to naturalism. It just makes naturalism seem less likely.

Naturalism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one. Just as super naturalism is a philosophical theory. But scientific progress can be helpful or detrimental to philosophical theories sometimes. The theory of evolution has been helpful to Naturalism, but the discovery of the implausibility of abiogenesis and failure to replicate it in labs by people determined to do so is helpful to Super Naturalism.

>>That sidesteps the true issue. Can you show where science has attempted to refute evolution, itself?<<

TToE is indeed falsifiable. Where has science tried to refute it? The question is a non-sequiteur and betrays our ignorance. When has science attempted to refute physics? Biology? Mathematics? The question makes no sense,

>>Evolution, insofar as the kind that would confute intelligent design, has never been demonstrated in an experimental environment.<<

It has been shown many times — not quite sure what ID has to do with anything here. A simple example: flies which are denizens of the NY Subway system are unable to breed with flies in the upper world. They have evolved away from each other. Viruses are evolved all the time. Pests who become immune to pesticides evolve. ToE is a major tool in all these areas and more.

>>But as for your question, here’s one: why would Prigogine get a Nobel prize for his theories regarding self-organizing systems if there were not a prior philosophic commitment to finding a materialistic cause?<<

All science is in the material world. Science is a tool to explain the material world. If you want tools for other realms, use philosophy, theology, etc.

>>Furthermore, the invariable answer to the insolubles (my personal favorites are irreducible complexity and instinctive behavior) of evolutionary theory are ALWAYS a) you’re religious, so you don’t care about facts, b) we haven’t figured that out yet, or c) offer up a scientific gnat as the basis for swallowing the theoretical camel.<<

This is an argument absurdum. Start with the actual TToE as a basis for your argumentation. And before that start with an understanding of what a Scientific Theory is and the Scientific Method.

You need much knowledge, padwan.

I am not going to refight the crevo wars here so that is my last word on the subject.

>>n neither “play” should one try to demand the naturalist have a theory of everything. Nor to make out that this is completely fatal to naturalism. It just makes naturalism seem less likely.

Naturalism is a philosophical theory, not a scientific one.<<

Agree on all points. My arguments are always within TToE — Naturalism as a philosophy is neither my POV nor an area of my expertise.

To summarize: we live in a natural Universe that can be explained that runs by rules, but that Universe exists within something much, much larger and inexplicable. Inexplicable until you come to God through His Son.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.