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.

[editor-surveyor]

"Why make Creation so big, of what use is it?"

Judging by the rubbish that you post, I doubt that you'll be around to find out the answer. (Recommendation: buy flame retardant garments)

[Coyoteman]

Evolution is religion, not science...

Prove it.

Here are some definitions of religion:

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

And science (including the theory of evolution) matches these definitions, how?

You have made the claim, now prove that evolution is religion.

[Stultis]

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!

I don't think Piltdown provides a basis for indicting the scientific community (or anthropologists, or evolutionists) generally, since it was an intentional fraud carried out -- most probably -- by a single individual (Charles Dawson).

Among the rest of the scientific community there was a broad range of reaction, from some who probably accepted it too readily (Woodward and G.E. Smith) to, a majority actually, who were highly skeptical.

Skeptical, that is, that the jaw and the skull belonged together as a single individual. No one guessed apparently at the possibility of intentional fraud. Anyway the many skeptics tended to focus on the correct solution, apart at least from recognizing the fraud: i.e. that the skull was human and the jaw belonged to an ape.

In fact, with the leading anthropologists of France and America in dissent, the hoax might even be said to have been failing. Piltdown II (a "find" the hoaxer Dawson engineered just before his death) was crucial to resuscitating Piltdown. One fortuitous association of ape and human materials might be attributed to chance, but not two.

Brief Chronology:
1908 -- Dawson (1908-1911) "discovers" first Piltdown fragments
1912 -- Dawson contacts Woodward in January about first skull fragments and later shows him the site which they begin digging together. In December Piltdown is officially presented.
1915 -- Piltdown II "found" by Dawson
1916 -- Dawson dies.
1917 -- Woodward announces discovery of Piltdown II.

Some of the skeptics were converted by Piltdown II, and others remained skeptical but tended to fall silent.

I've read a great deal of what is available regarding Piltdown, and I can only think of one blameworthy ethical fault apart from the actions of Dawson himself (or whoever the hoaxer was for those that may have a differing opinion): Woodward was intentionally coy about the location of the Piltdown II site. (Which pretty obviously never existed as a "site" in fact, although Woodward didn't know that having been completely taken in by Dawson.)

Anyway Dawson had only given Woodward the approximate location of the (supposed) Piltdown II site. But Woodward, not quite through outright deception, but through artful lack of clarity, allowed most of his colleagues to assume he knew the exact location. In truth he spent years looking for it.

Apart from that everyone so far as I know acted honestly.

[Stultis]

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

But I would guess, like most creationists, you want to specifically belabor the fact that evolution is "only" a theory, but don't want equal, or even comparable, emphasis placed on the fact that photosynthesis (just for instance, among the hundreds of theories invoked, but rarely actually specified as such, in the typical secondary school curricula) is also "only" a theory.

[Stultis]

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

So when the creationist movement spent a decade or two pushing the "equal time for 'creation science' with 'evolution science'" agenda; that was just an act of hypocrisy and cynicism? They knew all the time that neither were "science"?

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

I don’t know. I was willing to accept evolution as a theory that needed testing until I realized that the NY Times came down on the side of evolution. That’s when I realized that evolution had to be a crock!

Let’s do another study of how many Republicans believe in the NYT! Of course, this guy would say THAT disqualifies Republicans from government, too.

[Coyoteman]

Regarding Piltdown.

The British paleoanthropologists were in the lead at that time, so a few of them were able to carry the day.

But the paleoanthropologists in the rest of the world, though not as prominent, didn't buy Piltdown at all. It didn't fit!

Edmonds reported a a problem in Piltdown geology in 1925. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. They were correct. Around the world, Piltdown was increasingly discounted. It was finally disproved in the 1950s--long after it was discounted as a valid find.

Scientists figured out this deliberate, and really brilliant, fraud on their own.

Creationists were no help at all. Their contributions to paleoanthropology were then, and still are, negligible.

[Heartlander]

A theistic evolutionist might just hold a belief that ‘God created evolution’ which on the surface seems harmless enough - but unfortunately this would imply that evolution (the universe etc.) actually had/has an ultimate goal thus disqualifying the theistic evolutionist from playing within the confines of the ‘Current Consensus of Scientists Who Know Better Than You and Like to Call You Names for Not Believing as They Do’ a.k.a. the CCSWKBTYLCYNNBTD (a subset of scientists who are above using acronyms because they believe they are another man made cause of global warming).

Simply put, a theistic evolutionist, or someone who observes a telic explanation, believes at some point “God (or some prime-mover) Did It” (with a purpose) and is now ridiculed for not believing the party line mantra that the CCSWKBTYLCYNNBTD believes which is “Sh!t Happens!”. The line in the sandbox comes down to; ‘Intelligence Caused Intelligence‘ or ‘Sh!t Happens‘. So we are basically left with either atheism or ridicule for having any kind of theistic or some basic telic belief within the current paradigm of science (Methodological Naturalism).

Considering this ’line in the sandbox’, why would any conservative who might base his or her beliefs on any kind of theistic (or some basic telic belief) have a problem stating the following familiar words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…

I don’t think many conservatives would have a problem with the statement above. Now, let us look at how ‘current science’ might rewrite these words if they were to appear in a classroom or textbook setting:

We hold no truths to be self-evident except as discovered via Methodological Naturalism, that all (men) are ultimately evolved based on chance, that they are endowed by a mindless chemical process from a mindless universal algorithm with uncertain unalienable illusions, that among these are a delusion of life, and the pursuit of happenstance. That to secure these illusions, governments are instituted among the chemical processes (called men), deriving their just powers from the happenstance of the governed…

Of course I state this in jest, but we all have seen the recent New York Times Bestsellers; The God Delusion - Dick Dawkins, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Christopher Hitchens, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason - Sam Harris, and other not so popular books such as Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence , - Alan Dershowitz .

One should wonder where the ‘foundation’ of this belief system comes from, and if these books would be considered pro-conservatism by any of the current presidential candidates?

[caffe]

Do you believe in the “science” supporting Al Gore’s version of Global Warming?

[AndrewC]

Fantastic red herring.

Spot On!. And I daresay, George Washington was a creationist.

[tricky_k_1972]

Judging by the rubbish that you post, I doubt that you'll be around to find out the answer. (Recommendation: buy flame retardant garments)

Ahh as they say one mans rubbish, err trash is another mans treasure.

Or to give your comment all the respect it deserves na nani bo bo.

[taxesareforever]

or it will refuse to modernize and continue to lose

In other words, you are suggesting that the party compromise what they believe is important in order to win races. I would rather lose races than compromise my beliefs. Those that want to compromise can be demorats, the party of flip flops.

[Frwy]

Your post and your tag line are right on.

[Frwy]

All people are God’s children. There are those who have repented and come to God and there are those who have not. God loves all of His creation. It’s not God Who changes. It is an individual decision to repent and accept Him as our Savior. He doesn’t want anyone to not be saved but it is something He won’t force on anyone. We each have a free will.

[Frwy]

Man makes those things with the material God has provided and with the science of manipulating those materials with the intellect He has given. Everything originates with God.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Theo]

You’re in a dangerous place. You write, “Let the land produce..and the land produced..and the Earth brought forth” as though those were Scriptural references. I’m not finding anything in Scripture along those lines. I *am* finding where Scripture says that something reproduced “each according to its kind.”

Again, be careful. Misquoting and/or twisting sacred Scripture is a very dangerous place to be.

If you’re an evolutionist, and believe God is irrelevant, fine. But if you are a Christian, please don’t abuse Scripture so.

Oh, and the evidence is not in support of humans evolving from crap, as evolution posits.

[Theo]

Only those who are “born again” are adopted into God’s family. Not all humans are “God’s children,” at least according to Scripture. Some are “children of Satan,” according to Jesus.

But it’s nicer and less offensive to say that everyone is a child of God....

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “Who decided that the two were mutually exclusive?
When you think about it, Christianity itself evolved.”

Wrong. The Theory of Evolution, to the extent it includes belief that humans evolved from earlier forms of primates, is absolutely contrary to Christianity. In fact, if man descended from earlier primates, Christianity is disproved.

[BuckeyeForever]

You wrote: “Evolution is religion, not science, and government funding of it is a violation of the first ammendment.”

Yes, and blue is fishnets, and football is serendipity, and ice is a weasel. Look up the definition of “religion” if you don’t know what the word means.