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.

[Retired Greyhound]

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

I don't know, which also happens to be the answer to most questions concerning our existence.

[MaxMax]

I believe that if Evolution exists, then God created it.
And for those who don't believe in God, you better be right.

Amen.

[fortheDeclaration]

Has Evolution figured out how 'something' evolved from nothing? I don't see why you expect it to, given that it doesn't even attempt to address this question. Or life from non-life? Same answer as above. The theory of evolution doesn't address the question of how life arrose. It only deals with the question of how life changes over time.

Well, for it to answer that question (single cell to human being), it needs to be at least possible.

If it isn't even possible, then it is mere conjecture and imagination.

What is nonsense is the fairy tale that a single cell (which no one knows how it could come about), has 'evolved' into a human being.

Why is it nonsense? All human beings start their existence as single cells. That's true of you too.

They start their existence as single cells with human DNA.

That is growth, not evolution.

I know evolutionists like to confuse the two, along with adaptation within an species and claim that is 'evolution'.

Evolution is the change from one species into another, higher one.

And you can add any amount of zero's to the millions of years you want, it is utter nonsense. Please go study some geology. It just doesn't work that way.

And what does geology show about a single cell 'evolving' into a human being?

There is nothing in science that proves Evolution and you guys well know it.

You just want to believe in it.

So, to paraphrase Doyle, when you rule out the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be true.

Okay, so what's your point?

One is impossible, God or Evolution.

Let the Evolutionist write out the story of Evolution-in the beginning there was nothing and then there was something.

After millions and millions of years, from this 'something' came some sought of 'life'.

Millions of more years pass and that 'life' begins to develop into more complex life.

And then-mankind!

There are more miracles in Evolution then there are in Creation!

Evolution is a fairy tale for adults who want to believe that they will not face their Creator at a Judgment seat (Rev.20)

It's only a fairy tale to those who willfully ignore the evidence.

There is no evidence for Evolution, there are theories for it.

BTW, you still haven't offered a single argument to back up your original statement: Either God is impossible or Evolution is. I'm waiting.

Waiting for what?

Either God created the Universe or 'nature' did.

Is it possible for something to come from nothing?

For Life to come from non-life?

If it is possible then Evolution is possible and it is God who is impossible.

If not, and all of this around us demands the work of an intelligent Creator, (Ps.19), then it is Evolution that is the myth, not God.

[fortheDeclaration]

>>So, to paraphrase Doyle, when you rule out the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be true.<<

It is an equal error to rule something out when one doesn’t understand it. Time after time science has advanced and explained things that were thought to be beyond human comprehension.

That is fine, but for Evolution to be true then it must at least be possible.

The Evolutionist must believe that 'nature' did indeed come from nothing.

That is beyond human comprehension.

[fortheDeclaration]

Some people (not me!) wish to think God created by evolution, that Genesis need not be taken literally (e.g. post #100), that macroevolution occurred with God’s guidance.

Yes, and 'Theistic Evolution' is simply a compromise solution that is rightly rejected by both sides.

27. Theistic Evolution--No Real Answers and a Barrel of Problems http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay27.htm

Either God created the Universe as written, or it it is simply the product of 'Nature'.

[Alter Kaker]

Are you an athest?

No.

[pipeorganman]

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.”

They are Scriptural references, taken from the first chapter of Genesis:

11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. 12 And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. 21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. 23 And the evening and morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

So, yes, the Bible does teach us that God commanded the earth and waters to bring forth and that the earth and waters brought forth as God commanded.

[Alter Kaker]

The authors of the creationist books are genarally highly intelligent and trained in the sciences and/or mathematics.

You mean like "Dr." Kent Hovind and "Dr." Ken Ham? The only subject most creationists seem to have down is educational embellishment. Oddly, these people, mostly two bit hucksters and miserable hypocrites, claim to be living the Word of the Almighty. You should view creationist claims of credentials with enormous skepticism.

Any idiot can believe in the theory of evolution; it's actually a very simplistic theory.

The basic concept of evolution is beautiful simplicity -- elegance so remarkable it seems nearly divine. But get into the details and evolutionary theory can be incredibly complicated.

[Alter Kaker]

And the more creationists win polls within the GOP, the smaller the GOP gets. Isn’t that interesting? Maybe a different tack would be better.

[Alter Kaker]

In fact, if man descended from earlier primates, Christianity is disproved.

You mean that if allele frequencies change over time, then Jesus didn't die on the Cross? I don't profess to be an expert in Christian theology (it's not my religion, first of all), but I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

[Alter Kaker]

In other words, you are suggesting that the party compromise what they believe is important in order to win races.

Since when has Creationism been a core belief of the Republican Party? This nonsense is new crap that has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with ignorance.

I would rather lose races than compromise my beliefs.

If one of those beliefs is support for the promotion of ignorance and the oppression of science, then you deserve to lose races and you will continue to, for you deserve no place near a position of power.

[Alter Kaker]

BTW, who is more educated, you or the Pope?

I'm not sure why you ask the question. Obviously it depends on the subject. I design satellites -- I wouldn't ask the Pope to do that. On the other hand I wouldn't presume to teach him Catechism.

In any event, I'm not sure why you bring the Pope up, since he is (for the most part) yet another supporter of science and evolution:

Pope Benedict 'believes in evolution'

[taxesareforever]

Since when has Creationism been a core belief of the Republican Party?

Since when wasn't it a core belief? Get out of the twilight zone. By the way, the GOP will not lose races because of a belief in creationism. That is the demorat party that you must be referring to.

[balch3]

and 3 in 10 are RINOS.

[csense]

So, yes, the Bible does teach us that God commanded the earth and waters to bring forth and that the earth and waters brought forth as God commanded.

The problem with interpreting Genesis as an allusion to evolution is that it creates a dilemna.

Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that the phrases you point out, are indicative of what you say they are. That would logically infer that "days" is a metaphor for epochs, or great lengths of time. I don't agree with this interpretation, but I can understand how reasonable people might entertain such a notion. The problem lies with the phrase "according to it's/their kind," which, if we continue logically with the principles of our interpretation, would indicate "stasis of form" over the very same long periods of time, and that would contradict our first assumption, common descent, which is an inferred premise derived from the phrases you cite.

I'm sure many people here would disagree with me, and you're free to interpret Genesis as you see fit, but it seems to me that there is no rhyme or reason as to the method of this particular interpretation. It just doesn't make sense, and you have to step in and out of your own logical principles to maintain it.

A literal interpretation however, poses no such contradictions.

[driftdiver]

“Please be very careful with this “simplicity”. Christianity was used to suppress and attack Jews (Catholicism) and Christianity was also used as a justification for slavery (Protestantism [my father is a Methodist preacher whom told me about the North and South break up of the Church over slavery]).”

WHAT? Not believing in evolution is the same as attacking jews and slavery?! Thats just plain nuts.

The bible says God created and not life formed out of pond scum. Seems pretty simple to me.

[sonic109]

I totally agree. I don’t understand why people insist that God and science are opposites and that evolution can’t be the method of God’s work .

[sonic109]

I disagree there my friend . The general population is quite brainwashed these days about global warming. Gore’s propaganda film is required watching in most grammar schools . Soon there will be a whole generation believing in the religion of man made global warming.

[sonic109]

Why is created and evolution mutually exclusive.

[itsahoot]

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.

Well, some might argue that the man that God created and endowed with a free will, is free to purse these challenges. Science would still exist whether man existed or not, but what a pity, if no one was here to marvel at all the things that God put into place.

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?