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?

[GarySpFc]

For those who do not see any conflict with a belief in God and Darwinism I offer the following written by those who support the theory:

William Provine, one of the leading biologists.
“Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judaeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless. [Such a God] has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and, indeed, all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.

“My observation is that the great majority of modern evolutionary biologists now are atheists or something very close to that. Yet prominent atheistic or agnostic scientists publicly deny that there is any conflict between science and religion. Rather than simple intellectual dishonesty, this position is pragmatic. In the United States, elected members of Congress all proclaim to be religious. Many scientists believe that funding for science might suffer if the atheistic implications of modern science were widely understood.”
Evolution, by Edward J. Larson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, 224 pp.), Academe, vol. 73 (January/February 1987), pp. 50-52. Provine was Professor of History of Biology, Cornell University. pp 51-2

“Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.” p 69

“The conflict is fundamental and goes much deeper than modern liberal theologians, religious leaders and scientists are willing to admit. Most contemporary scientists, the majority of them by far, are atheists or something very close to that. And among evolutionary biologists, I would challenge the reader to name the prominent scientists who are ‘devoutly religious.’ I am skeptical that one could get beyond the fingers of one hand. Indeed, I would be interested to learn of a single one.” p 70

“A widespread theological view now exists saying that God started off the world, props it up and works through laws of nature, very subtly, so subtly that its action is undetectable. But that kind of God is effectively no different to my mind than atheism. To anyone who adopts this view I say, ‘Great, we’re in the same camp; now where do we get our morals if the universe just goes grinding on as it does?’ This kind of God does nothing outside of the laws of nature, gives us no immortality, no foundation for morals, or any of the things that we want from a God and from religion.”Provine, William B., “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 49-74.p 65

“The implications of modern science, however, are clearly inconsistent with most religious traditions. No purposive principles exist in nature. Organic evolution has occurred by various combinations of random genetic drift, natural selection, Mendelian heredity, and many other purposeless mechanisms. Humans are complex organic machines that die completely with no survival of soul or psyche.” p 10

“No inherent moral or ethical laws exist, nor are there absolute guiding principles for human society. The universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life.”
Provine, William B., “Scientists, Face It! Science and Religion are Incompatible,” The Scientist (September 5, 1988), p. 10.

----- And from Michael Ruse

Ruse, Michael, “From Belief to Unbelief—and Halfway Back,” Zygon, vol. 29 (March 1994), pp. 25-35. p 31

“The problem of evil is the most troubling of all. Frankly the free-will defense seems to me just not to wash, logically. If God be all-powerful, why did He not simply make us to do good freely? Far worse than the logic, however, is the dreadful implication of the free-will defense. God, this all-loving father, is prepared to let small children suffer in agony to satisfy the freedom of monsters like Hitler. As one of the Brothers Karamazov says, I simply do not want salvation at that price. How can one enjoy eternity, if it be bought by the blood of innocents?

“Some of the problems of Christianity strike me as being so blatantly rational-belief-destroying that there is almost a sense of farce in seeing its devotees trying to wriggle from under them. Chief among these is the problem of explaining how somebody’s death two thousand years ago can wash away my sins. When you combine this with the doctrine of the Trinity and the implication that the sacrificial lamb is God Himself (or Itself) and that this therefore makes things all right with this self-same God, the rational mind boggles.” p 33

“And if this were not enough, I have a loathing of attempts to meld science and religion which entail the trimming of religion in such a way that it fits with science, but at the cost of gelding it of real content and mystery—attempts which include the traditional varieties of evolutionary humanism, based all too often on so-called ‘noble lies’ or just plain bad arguments.”

------- And everyone knows Richard Dawkins

Dawkins, Richard, “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, vol. 94 (April 15, 1982), pp. 130-132. p 130
“The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” p 130

“I know of only two alternatives to Darwinism that have been offered as explanations of the organized and apparently purposeful complexity of life. These are God and Lamarckism. I am afraid I shall give God rather short shrift. He may have many virtues: no doubt he is invaluable as a pricker of the conscience and a comfort to the dying and bereaved, but as an explanation of organized complexity he simply will not do. It is organized complexity we are trying to explain, so it is footling to invoke in explanation a being sufficiently organized and complex to create it.” -----

[protest1]

Where in the article was the question about being afraid of Darwin asked? You can think Darwin was wrong based on your understanding of the scientific evidence and the Word of God.

Although people historically have good reason to fear evolutionary theory. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao murdered over 100 million people in its name.

The blood-stained ‘century of evolution’

[bornacatholic]

It is all very clear.

Out of the primordial muck an atom or what not formed itself and collided with another which had formed itself and a few million years later, after many other similar collisions, a fish was formed and he grew so bored with swiming that he grew him some legs and crawled out of the water and became an alligator and that ol gator just lay about in the sun and the wind so racked his hide that they became feathers and the gator flew up into the trees where he, sorta slowly,became an eagle which laid an egg and out of that egg popped a monkey who grew bored of life in the trees so he climbed down to the ground and became a man who hunted and picked berries until he got so bored he invented schools and made folks read Darwin.

Amen

And just because Darwin hated his Christian Daddy and repudiated Christianity is no reason not to believe Darwin

[RightWingAtheist]

This is just like those polls where they ask people if they're "conservative" "liberal" or "moderate", and 2/3 the people who say they're moderate are really just liberals. Those who said that evolution is "just a theory" unsupported by evidence really belong in the column of those who don't know enough to comment.

[traviskicks]

Why are people of faith so afraid of Darwin? I fail to see how it is incompatible with belief in God.
---

I agree.

[GarySpFc]

From a theological point of view natural selection is atheism.

[GarySpFc]

From a theological point of view natural selection is atheism.

[RightWingAtheist]

Ready the troops.

[orionblamblam]

> Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao murdered over 100 million people in its name.

No, they didn't. They killed in the name of faith-based religions called "Communism" and "National Socialism." They had their little books full fo the Good News That IS Not To Be Questioned... very much unlike evolutionary theory, which is constantly being tinkered with as new evidence comes in.

[Stratman]

It's not in conflict with a belief in God.

One interpretation of Genesis is it demonstrates that while God may not be he actual reason behind creation, he is an inherent part of life.

[protest1]

No they were not wrong.

Have you never heard of Einstein? It just depends on you frame of reference. Both points of view are equally correct. If you take Earth as your central reference, which is a perfectly reasonable point of view considering it is where we all live, then the Sun revolves about the Earth.

[RightWingAtheist]

And we all know how much "respect" Stalin had for Darwin, don't we?

[orionblamblam]

> if Darwin is correct then Jesus lied What did Jesus say that is incompatible with the notion that God created the diversity of life on Earth via natural selection? > then Jesus lied, which is impossible as he is God and knows everything. Unless he was just yanking your chain. Omniscience does not automatically imply honesty.

[Southack]

"the Sun revolves about the Earth."

No. Perception is *not* reality. You may percieve that the Sun revolves around the Earth, but it does not actually do so.

[Socrates1]

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

Cosmologists explain the force that created the Big Bang as "a God-like force".

With the developments & discoveries in quantum mechanics and chaos theory (and other "complex systems") in the last 25 years, science isn't quite so smug and confident anymore.

The current thinking is that there was likely was some "guiding force", and are at a lost to explain what is was.

Maybe the "polls" are assuming some overly simplified, incomplete "choices", where the real answer is "None of the above."

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.

That's why is is still a "theory". Newton's Law isn't controversial. It is just "wrong" at the subatomic level. Journalist's love to (incorrectly)use the two interchangeably. Empirical evidence doesn't prove a scientific theory

It might be interesting (and about maybe more useful) to see what the public thinks about Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I don't think Einstein would be surprised that there is still "controversy".

[dmz]

Well, in the same way that some Christians would say, "many of those who kill in the name of Christ aren't really Christians", I say, "many of those who kill in the name of Darwin aren't really Darwinists".

[protest1]

"No, they didn't. They killed in the name of faith-based religions called "Communism" and "National Socialism."

Both of which sprang forth from Darwin and evolutionary theory.

"Mao’s reign of terror and lies resulted in the deaths of tens of millions. It is no coincidence that his two favorite books were by the evolutionists Darwin and Huxley. With millions dying from his forced famine, his physician records that Mao said, ‘We have so many people we can afford to lose a few.’5 His successors have since persecuted and killed hundreds of thousands more."

Nazism openly proclaimed its dependence on Darwin.2 It was right and moral for the strongest race to survive; to have pity for the weak was to defy nature’s laws. It is doubtful whether this brutal ideology would have so captivated the nation that gave us Bach and Luther if not for the ‘scientific’ underpinning of evolution.

The blood-stained ‘century of evolution’

[montag813]

Although people historically have good reason to fear evolutionary theory. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao murdered over 100 million people in its name.

They did? I thought they murdered millions in their own names, as a replacement for God. People go astray and woship Golden Calves again and again. In Europe today that "calf" is Secular Humanism, and it is threatening to lead to their own destruction by Islam.

A moral people with strong religious beliefs and a just government which does infringe on those beliefs can withstand a scientific theory.

[Luke21]

Takes more faith to believe that than the Bible if you ask me.

[js1138]

It certainly is a tragic flaw in science that it can't explain everything. And medicine is useless because it can't cure everything, and police are useless because they can't prevent every crime.

Amazingly enough, science has never proved anything.

It must be useless.