Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

Gallup News Service ^ | 11 June 2007 | Frank Newport

[Alter Kaker]

PRINCETON, NJ -- The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.

The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend. That Republicans tend to be frequent churchgoers helps explain their doubts about evolution.

The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago.

Broad Patterns of Belief in Evolution

The theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life has been controversial for centuries, and, in particular, since the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's famous The Origin of Species. Although many scientists accept evolution as the best theoretical explanation for diversity in forms of life on Earth, the issue of its validity has risen again as an important issue in the current 2008 presidential campaign. Two recent Republican debates have included questions to the candidates about evolution. Three candidates -- Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo -- indicated in response to a question during the May 3 debate that they did not believe in the theory of evolution, although they have attempted to clarify their positions in the weeks since.

Several recent Gallup Polls conducted in May and June indicate that a significant number of Americans have doubts about the theory of evolution.  

One such question was included in a May Gallup Panel survey:

Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?

	Yes, believe in evolution	No, do not	No opinion
2007 May 21-24		49	48	2

It is important to note that this question included a specific reference to "thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth . . ." that oriented the respondents toward an explicit consideration of the implication of evolution for man's origin. Results may have been different without this introductory phrase.

With that said, Americans' responses to this question are essentially split down the middle. About half say they do believe in evolution and about half say they do not.

A second question included in a June 1-3 USA Today/Gallup poll asked about evolution side by side with a similar question about creationism:

Next, we'd like to ask about your views on two different explanations for the origin and development of life on earth. Do you think -- [ITEMS ROTATED] -- is -- [ROTATED: definitely true, probably true, probably false, (or) definitely false]?

A. Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life

	Definite- ly true	Probably true	Probably false	Definite- ly false	No opinion		Total true	Total false
2007 Jun 1-3		18%	35	16	28	3	53	44

B. Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years

	Definite- ly true	Probably true	Probably false	Definite- ly false	No opinion		Total true	Total false
2007 Jun 1-3		39%	27	16	15	3	66	31

These results are similar to those from the question asked in May. A little more than half of Americans say evolution -- as defined in this question wording -- is definitely or probably true. Forty-four percent say that it is probably or definitely false.  

In contrast, even more Americans, two-thirds, say the theory of creationism is definitely or probably true.

A separate Gallup Poll trend question -- also asked in May -- gave Americans three choices about human beings' origins. Responses to this question found that 43% of Americans choose the alternative closest to the creationist perspective, that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." A substantial 38% say human beings evolved, but with God guiding the process. Another 14% favored an interpretation of evolution arguing that God had no part in the process, leaving a total of 52% who say humans evolved with or without God's direction.

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

	Man developed, with God guiding	Man developed, but God had no part in process	God created man in present form	Other/ No opinion
	%	%	%	%
2007 May 10-13	38	14		43	4
2006 May 8-11	36	13		46	5
2004 Nov 7-10	38	13	45	4
2001 Feb 19-21		37	12	45	5
1999 Aug 24-26	40	9	47		4
1997 Nov 6-9	39	10	44	7
1993 Jun 23-26	35		11	47	7
1982 Jan	38	9	44	9

To summarize the results of these three questions about evolution and human origins:

• Across the three question wordings, the data show consistently that about half of Americans agree with the theory of evolution, believe that the theory of evolution is probably or definitely true, or believe that humans developed over million of years with or without God's guidance.

• Belief in the idea that humans were created pretty much as is 10,000 years ago is somewhat more dependent on the way in which this concept is measured. A little more than 4 out of 10 Americans -- when presented with three alternatives -- say they believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago. At the same time, two-thirds of Americans in a stand-alone question say they believe in the theory of "creationism" -- defined as the idea that humans were created in their present form 10,000 years ago.

It might seem contradictory to believe that humans were created in their present form at one time within the past 10,000 years and at the same time believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. But, based on an analysis of the two side-by-side questions asked this month about evolution and creationism, it appears that a substantial number of Americans hold these conflicting views.

View of Evolution and View of Creationism Numbers Represent % of Total Sample
		View of Creationism
		Definitely true	Probably true	Probably false	Definitely false
			%	%	%	%
View of Evolution	Definitely true	3	1		2	11
	Probably true	5	14	12	3
		Probably false	6	8	1	1
	Definitely false	24		3	*	1
* Less than 0.5%

These results show that:

• 24% of Americans believe that both the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism are probably or definitely true
• 41% believe that creationism is true, and that evolution is false
• 28% believe that evolution is true, but that creationism is false

• 3% either believe that both are false or have no opinion about at least one of the theories

Without further research, it's not possible to determine the exact thinking process of those who agreed that both the theory of evolution and creationism are true. It may be, however, that some respondents were seeking a way to express their views that evolution may have been initiated by or guided by God, and told the interviewer that they agreed with both evolution and creationism in an effort to express this more complex attitude.

Importance of Religion

It is important to remember that all three questions in this analysis included wording that explicitly focused the respondents on the origin of human beings.

This wording may have made Americans think about the implications of the theory of evolution in terms of humans being special creatures as reflected in religious teachings and in particular in the Judeo-Christian story of human origins as related in the book of Genesis. USA Today recently quoted Christian conservative and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer as saying: "Most of us don't think that we're just apes with trousers."

Thus, it is not surprising to find that many of those who do not believe in the theory of evolution justify that belief with explicitly religious explanations: 

(Asked of those who do not believe in evolution) What is the most important reason why you would say you do not believe in evolution? [OPEN-ENDED]      

	2007 May 21-24
	%
I believe in Jesus Christ	19
I believe in the almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth		16
Due to my religion and faith	16
Not enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise	14
I believe in what I read in the Bible	12
I'm a Christian	9
I don't believe humans come from beasts/monkeys	3
Other	5
No reason in particular	2
No opinion	3

The majority of these responses are clearly religious in nature. It is fascinating to note that some Americans simply justified their objection to evolution by statements of general faith and belief. Although the New Testament does not include many explicit references to the origin of humans in the words of Jesus, 19% of Americans state that they do not believe in evolution because they believe in Jesus Christ. Other religious justifications focus on statements of belief in God, general faith concerns, references to the Bible, and the statement that "I'm a Christian." A relatively small number of this group justify their disbelief of evolution by saying more specifically that they do not believe that there is enough scientific evidence to prove the theory and/or that they simply do not believe that humans come from beasts or monkeys.

The graph shows the relationship between church attendance and response to the straightforward question of belief in evolution.

The group of Americans who attend church weekly -- about 40% in this sample -- are strongly likely to reject the theory of evolution. The group of Americans who attend church seldom or never -- also about 40% -- have the mirror image opinion and are strongly likely to accept the theory of evolution.

Republicans Most Likely to Reject Evolution

As noted previously, belief in evolution has been injected into the political debate already this year, with much attention given to the fact three Republican presidential candidates answered a debate question by saying that they did not believe in evolution.

It appears that these candidates are, in some ways, "preaching to the choir" in terms of addressing their own party's constituents -- the group that matters when it comes to the GOP primaries. Republicans are much more likely to be religious and attend church than independents or Democrats in general. Therefore, it comes as no great surprise to find that Republicans are also significantly more likely not to believe in evolution than are independents and Democrats. 

Bottom Line

The data in this analysis were measured in the context of questions about the origin and development of human beings. It is apparent that many Americans simply do not like the idea that humans evolved from lower forms of life. This appears to be substantially based on a belief in the story of creation as outlined in the Bible -- that God created humans in a process that, taking the Bible literally, occurred about 10,000 years ago.

Americans who say they do not believe in the theory of evolution are highly likely to justify this belief by reference to religion, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between high levels of personal religiosity and doubts about evolution.

Being religious in America today is strongly related to partisanship, with more religious Americans in general much more likely to be Republicans than to be independents or Democrats. This relationship helps explain the finding that Republicans are significantly more likely than independents or Democrats to say they do not believe in evolution. When three Republican presidential candidates said in a May debate that they did not believe in evolution, the current analysis suggests that many Republicans across the country no doubt agreed.

Survey Methods

These results are based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,007 adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 1-3, 2007. For results based on this sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum error attributable to sampling and other random effects is ±3 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 203 Catholics, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±8 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 804 non-Catholics, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

[svcw]

Nice retort.
My uncle who was an atheist became a (gasp here) a born again Christian after he received his geology BS and started research into his PhD, by the time he was awarded his degree he was (gasp again) an anti-evolutionist scientist. He says the evidence for “The Flood” is overwhelming.
He has given lectures using geological records to preach the Word.

[tricky_k_1972]

And?

Macroevolution is not synonymous with science--something a lot of Macroevolutionists still don't seem to get. (An apple is a fruit, but it isn't synonymous with fruit).

In this case, Macroevolution is pseudoscience. (A rock isn't fruit).

Oh you are so right, Macroevolution is pseudoscience, all religion is faith, not science.

Belief in God by its very definition is not and can never be science, because it can not be tested.

God, if you will, is by his very nature, from now until the end, a great hypothesis.

Belief in the Almighty can not be tested scientifically, that is what faith is, the very definition of faith.

Does that mean we can not use the scientific method on his Creation, does that mean that man can not study and try to define his Creation in the best way that we can?

I think the ultimate sacrilege would be to ignore the evidence that he has provided us in his living work, to not study his living biography that we and our universe represent.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

No evidence? How about this and this?

The title of the first says it all - 29+ evidences of macroevolution. The second is informative for anyone who wants to see how Dr. Michael Behe was revealed to be a radical activist who redefined science so loosely that he admitted astrology is science.

I don't know about you, but if I supported a controversial ideological movement that has zero basis in the science classroom, I wouldn't want a guy like him to be the poster-boy.

[betty boop]

Great post, SirLinksalot. Thank you!

[sirchtruth]

In fact it's pretty clear to me that antievolutionists generally prefer that scientific theories other than evolution are taught dogmatically, as this will make evolution seem less valid by contrast.

All science must be taught with integrity and honestly, that's what I ask.

I am not against the teaching of evolution, I am against the teaching of evolution as fact, and not a belief or hypothesis. I'm am against the myriad of dishonest, deceiving scientific "discoveries" in the past century which are meant to coax one into believing a certain observation is scientific fact.

Piltdown Man!

[editor-surveyor]

You support a controversial ideological movement that has zero basis in reality, and spends billions of dollars of our taxes to support an illusion that is necessary to carry out a destruction of our culture, and advance global socialism. You should hang your head.

[RightWhale]

Go with the consensus. If it’s phlogiston, it’s phlogiston.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

That's the thing. Macroevolution has been shown to be inadequate, and yet it hasn't been thrown out yet. Spontaneous generation just was re-dubbed chemical generation. Macroevolution is every bit as dogmatic and religious as Creationism.

It hasn’t been thrown out yet because it is adequate.

A novel example of macroevolution can be found when a plant has an error in meiosis which leads to offspring with polyploidy. They’re phenotypically identical to the parent; neither you nor I could tell them apart just by looking at them. But, since they possess more sets of chromosomes than their parent, they cannot reproduce with other members of the parent’s species. If they are barred from reproducing, then they are a distinct species. Distinct species? Sounds like macroevolution – any change at or above the level of species.

I have never heard of chemical generation in a science context. The first result on a google search related to a literary movement. Can you provide a source corroborating your claim that spontaneous generation was simply remarketed (c.f. creationism to intelligent design)?

[Coyoteman]

look around you next time you go “fossil hunting”: the “layers of sediment” all over the world show evidence of a world-wide flood!

Why would there be fossils on even some of the highest peaks (that are confirmed not to have been recent volcanoes) in the world? Why has there been miles of supposedly (dated by evolutionists) ‘old rock’ on top of ‘younger rock’. See second post for more evidence!

Why would I want to go fossil hunting? Fossils have nothing to do with a global flood at about 4350 years ago!

For that age you deal with archaeologists (of which I am one) and sedimentologists.

There is continuity of culture and DNA in many areas of the world (for example, Egypt). If there had been a global flood at about 4350 years ago, those cultures would have been disrupted, and their DNA would have been replaced by that of the Near East.

There is likewise no worldwide sediment (soil) layer at 4350 years ago. Such a flood is sure to have left evidence. If you want to see evidence of a large flood, google "channeled scablands" and see what a series of late Ice Age floods to parts of Washington state.

This is why the early geologists (all creationists) gave up on trying to prove a global flood by about 1830. The evidence was simply not there.

[Wiseghy]

Yeah, but the way they put the question, made me, a devoted amateur scientist, wonder as well.

“do you think that humans evolved from slime mold, billions of years ago?” (paraphrased, but you get the idea).

I don’t believe that evolution weakens true faith, or what my heart knows to be true.
However, a question like that kinda makes ya think about just what is more fantastic to believe.

[mnehring]

BTW, Tflabo, thanks for a civil conversation on this... I’m catching up on the posts and I’m still surprised the kind of threads that will turn adults into screaming kids..

[ndt]

"An apple is a fruit, but it isn't synonymous with fruit"

But an apple is a fruit (a pome technically) and the TOE is science.

"In this case, Macroevolution is pseudoscience."

Your pronouncements do not make it so. An example of pseudoscience would be to ascribe an event to an unmeasurable agent.

[driftdiver]

“There is nothing to say God wasn’t behind evolution.. A lot of Genesis 1 indicates that God had creation come from ‘Earth’s processes’..”

Theres really nothing to say he did. And to say he did is to infer that he had to follow a set of rules.

Theres also the fact that evolution is widely used to attach religion and religious people.

[Dog Gone]

Where are all the descendants of the fossil species that no longer exist? Why don’t current species date back to the same time?

Where are the human remains embedded in the same rock strata as the dinosaurs?

None of that matters to the people who will not accept evolution as a reasonable explanation.

If you’re not a Noah’s Ark Republican, you’re just not welcome at the table.

[driftdiver]

“If you don’t understand how evolution occurred, you’re not very well educated. “

Don’t you mean ‘indoctrinated’ instead of educated?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Evolution, particularly macroevolution, is indeed controversial. Scientists argue on how best to explain it. There’s no debate on whether or not it exists.

Evolution is indeed ideological. As a science, it is for the ideology of progress as opposed to pre-Renaissance style limitations on research and inquiry.

Evolution is well-supported in reality, contrary to your claim. How do you explain why penicillin lost its effectiveness decades after its discovery? Did an “intelligent designer” will that because people have to die, its potency should be reduced?

For a guy who claims that evolution advances global socialism, I think you should see the irony there. Central planning = bad, don’t you agree?

But, yeah, the government is spending billions of dollars of our tax money to fund public science education in the classrooms, though. They’re doing the right thing.

[tricky_k_1972]

Theres also the fact that evolution is widely used to attach (attack ?) religion and religious people.

You are right, although I would clarify that Evolution has been used by "Atheists" to attack religion, Darwin certainly never considered what he wrote as an attack on religion (from what I have read) merely an attempt to understand the Almighty's work.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Answers to questions, as follows:

1. Introductory biology textbooks stress how difficult it is for a fossil to be created. Soft parts (e.g. tissues) typically don’t last the test of time. Conditions also play a key role. That’s why we have a lot of fossils of organisms that were hard-shelled. Carbon dating reveals the ages of these organisms, which are often in the millions of years as opposed to young-earth creationist’s thousands of years time span.
2. Natural selection.
3. The question is clearly worded from a young-earth perspective. Dinosaurs died out sixty-five million years ago. We haven’t been around for that long. There are no human remains embedded in the same rock strata as the dinosaurs because we didn’t live together. People who ask questions like this must have loved the Flintstones as kids.

None of that matters to the people who will not accept evolution as a reasonable explanation.

That’s unfortunate.

I’m libertarian anyway. I shouldn't be grouped with the “Noah’s Ark Republicans.” I thank my parents for never sending me to Sunday School. I’ve actually read the New Testament as a consequence.

[mnehring]

Darwin certainly never considered what he wrote as an attack on religion (from what I have read) merely an attempt to understand the Almighty's work.

And, to take it to the other side of the isle, per say, C.S.Lewis said that evolution was the how to creation, with the Bible being the why.
It seems some of the greatest of our thinkers didn't see Christianity and Evolution as being in conflict.

[Don Corleone]

Its a bloody "THEORY not a proven scientific principal like Global Warming. //sarc