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.

[Coyoteman]

You keep bringing up the year the number 4350 years ago which I dont HAVE any idea what it has to do with the world-wide flood:

My sources for the date of the global flood:

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com

2500 BC -- http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html

2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel

2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html

3300 BC -- http://www.biblediscoveries.com/flood1.html

3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)

There is mucho evidence such as the “rock layers”: Fossils have everything to do with a world-wide flood (and I believe it was more along the lines of around 6000years ago).

The dating of fossil-bearing rock layers spans hundred of millions of years. This precludes a single event. Also, none of the dates are anyhere near 4350 (or 6000) years ago.

once again fossils are the fossils of animals drown and rapidly burried under layers of mud, just as when you put mud in cup it stratifies, so did these layers.

The fossils show a clear progression from young to old, with some dying out and new species taking their place. This spans hundreds of millions of years. The fact that many have the same mode of burial (mud) is incidental. Many also were buried beneath volcanic ash.

all the cultures you talk about are decendents of 1 man’s family, that’s the continuity. Nothing says that todays genetic variation of the middle eastern cultures would be the exact same as say their variant brothers in Europe, Asia, Aust or the Americas.

You really need to study this a bit. The genetic diversity could not have come from eight individuals 4350 years ago. On the other hand, there is clear evidence of the migrations of mankind spanning over 150,000 years. See the Journey of Mankind. Heck, my own research has produced mtDNA older than 4350 years--and there was continuity in that mtDNA type all the way to living individuals. And the haplogroup did not match any of the Near Eastern haplogroups.

Didn’t they do a study a couple years ago that found that modern humans midocondrial DNA (that from the mother) all seems to point to a “common ancestor”- aka “Midocrondrial Eve”- Really Noah’s wife.

There was such a study. But to understand its meaning, you need to understand how mtDNA is transmitted from generation to generation. It is passed from a mother to her children, but male children do not pass it on--only daughters pass their mtDNA on. Thus, the mtDNA of any mother who has only male children is lost to future generations. In tracing back to the “Mitocrondrial Eve” that is what you get--not the "first woman" but the one whose mtDNA survived the process the longest. There easily could have been hundreds or thousands of other, and older, mtDNA lineages which did not survive.

Further, the dating does no good for your argument. Rather than 4350 years ago, the “Mitocrondrial Eve” dates to about 140,000 years ago. Interestingly, and for similar reasons of descent, the “Y-chromosomal Adam” dates to only about 60,000 years ago. (By the way, I think these dates will be refined as more information comes in. Check back in about ten years and see what the information suggests then.)

If you choose to study man's history you will find that it is fascinating! We still have much to learn, but it goes way beyond 6000 years.

[metmom]

You should know that the owner of this site is an outspoken creationist, something that has occasionally frustrated those us who believe in Science.

Good to see you admit that belief in science is really that; a belief. That does put it, after all, in the realm of religion.

[RFC_Gal]

What is real science?

[Secret Agent Man]

Independents are just Democrats who use their ‘neutral’ or ‘undecided’ position to try to get conservatives to compromise on their positions.

[metmom]

I suppose it's another demonstration that all civilizations eventually fall to the hands of unthinking superstitious mobs. America truly is in decline.

Which, I'm sure, explains how and why this country was so great when so many of its citizens were much more religious and believed those mindless, superstitions taught in the Bible than now.

Of course, America is in decline now, but I can't help but wonder why, if science and education and belief in the ToE is supposed to be so enlightening and leading to the betterment of the country and mankind, it seems that the more *educated* we are, the worse this country is becoming. The very thing you think should be preventing the downward spiral of Western civilization, isn't working. Why is that?

[RFC_Gal]

It isn’t name calling to ask for supporting evidence.

[Oztrich Boy]

The only reliable conclusion is the c.20% who thought humans developed over millions of years after being created less than 10,000 years ago were really, really confised.

[RFC_Gal]

Then why do Humans and great apes share the same defective gene that causes us to be unable to produce our own vitamin C?

[metmom]

He might make sense, but what I want to know is does he also make microwave ovens, new antibiotics and missile defense shields? Science does.

And the brains man has to make those things came from where? Oh, yeah. They evolved from a puddle of slime.

[muleskinner]

FR has been overrun by Galloping Neanderthals, and you are to be commended in your efforts in dealing with them. Must be more one room school houses around here than I thought.

[Coyoteman]

Of course, America is in decline now, but I can't help but wonder why, if science and education and belief in the ToE is supposed to be so enlightening and leading to the betterment of the country and mankind, it seems that the more *educated* we are, the worse this country is becoming. The very thing you think should be preventing the downward spiral of Western civilization, isn't working. Why is that?

The answer is simple. Its a matter of national will, not religion.

Various things can focus the national will: effective propaganda, a disaster (e.g., Pearl Harbor or 911), a dictator, or a charismatic leader (e.g., Nehemiah Scudder). A unified and regimenting religion is one of those factors.

Other things can unfocus the national will: multiculturalism, lassitude and comfort, or lack of external challenge.

I think you are wrong in selecting just religion as the cause. It goes much deeper than that.

(It may be nice when everyone marches to the beat of a different drummer, but its really hard to hold a parade! -- not sure where I saw that; I can't find a reference.)

[Oztrich Boy]

You could be right, but what makes you say that? Did we do a freeper poll or something, and I missed it?

Yeah there was. The Creationists won it 60-40. Until it was discovered that jusr 2 Creationist Freepers had voted something like 1500 times between them.

Taking those votes out reversed the result to 45-55 the other way.

[Oztrich Boy]

Question for you. About 97% of all the water on the planet is salt water. If it rained enough to flood the entire surface of the planet to a depth of tens of thousands of feet then all that salt water mixed with the fresh water and polluted it. So what did Noah drink once all the water receded?

Wine

[metmom]

BUT... if that is the case, why would God create a system that deceives you to believing the Universe is millions of years old when it is less than ten thousand years old.

Perhaps usefulness. Adam was created as a full grown man; he had the appearance of age. It wasn't for the purpose of deceit but practicality.

On the day Adam was created, a believer would say he was not even one day old. A *scientist* would say that he was say... 30 (for example) years old. Who would be mocked and ridiculed for believing divine revelation over cold, hard scientific fact?

Who would be right?

[Youngblood]

14% point to a supposed lack of scientific evidence as their reason for rejecting evolution. Almost all of the rest point to religious motivations. Yes, this is all about the science all right!

[ndt]

"And the brains man has to make those things came from where? Oh, yeah. They evolved from a puddle of slime."

Brains man? Evolved from a puddle of slime? What evolved from a puddle of slime, the microwave?

What are you trying to say?

[COgamer]

“Of course, America is in decline now, but I can’t help but wonder why, if science and education and belief in the ToE is supposed to be so enlightening and leading to the betterment of the country and mankind, it seems that the more *educated* we are, the worse this country is becoming. The very thing you think should be preventing the downward spiral of Western civilization, isn’t working. Why is that?”

Because our society ignores the rules of evolution, and actively works to keep people alive who would normally die with little impact on our popultion.

Therein is exposed a problem of living in a great country. Part of descent with modification, an important part, was that the individuals best suited to an environment, best able to elude predators, were most clever, or who just had the most desireable characteristics to potential mates, were the ones who survived. Because they could live longer, or attract mates, they could have more children. Those children would have their traits, and in turn pass those traits on to their own children.

Those that couldn’t make it, who didn’t have the right traits or skill, or were just too lazy to do anything, died early or didn’t have the same mating opportunities. They had much less of an impact on the population than others.

Ah, but what about life in America over the last 50 years or so? To paint humans in cruel, impersonal strokes - we are actually enabling the “least fit” to survive. What is welfare, or free clinics, or anything of that nature except for to keep people alive and well who, on their own, would die? And these are the people, in turn, having the most children, often indiscriminately and with multiple partners. Some of these people actively seek out the WORST possible partner to have sex with! In other words - our gene pool is composed increasingly of, to be judgemental, random and undesireable traits...

Let’s be honest, but very general... If two people you consider to be idiots get married, and have a baby, what is their baby going to be like? You already know the answer, whether you choose to believe in a chain of inherited characteristics or not. That’s not evolution, but it shows how traits influence descent, and if their family tree consisted of nothing but idiots marrying idiots and their children doing the same, would there be more or less idiots in the world in a hundred years? I think you know the answer to that one too!

It’s just an example, but this “survival of the least fit” is something that socialism actually enables.

[Coyoteman]

On the day Adam was created, a believer would say he was not even one day old. A *scientist* would say that he was say... 30 (for example) years old. Who would be mocked and ridiculed for believing divine revelation over cold, hard scientific fact?

Who would be right?

If you are doing science, you would first have to demonstrate that there was indeed an "Adam."

As far as has been documented to date, the "Adam" concept is a religious belief without scientific evidence to support it. That does not constitute a persuasive scientific argument upon which to build.

[Coyoteman]

I have to disagree with your post, and I find some parts of it disturbing.

Survival of the fittest is not an accurate assessment of evolution; survival of those lineages which produce the most successful progeny would be closer. And we don't know in advance which lineages those are! Your lineage adapts to global warming, mine adapts to global cooling! Roll the dice. Which scenario comes up first?

That's it. Nothing in the theory of evolution suggests that the smartest reproduce more successfully, or the strongest either.

Those lineages you disparage:

these are the people, in turn, having the most children, often indiscriminately and with multiple partners. Some of these people actively seek out the WORST possible partner to have sex with! In other words - our gene pool is composed increasingly of, to be judgemental, random and undesireable traits...

Science doesn't know that those lineages, composed of "random and undesirable traits" are the losers in the next roll of the dice. And neither do you.

[editor-surveyor]

Evolution is religion, not science, and government funding of it is a violation of the first ammendment.