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.

[sirchtruth]

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.

This is a good point you've made, but let me interject a difference in our thought process.

I really think it comes down to what you "Beleive." There is a sense of faith required whether scientist like it or not. The Theory Of Gravity we see the effects of every day so that's not hard to believe, however the Theory Of Evolution as far as a whole species change has not only never been observed, it also makes no sense from what evidence we do find and is speciously void of many inner linking connections one would logically conclude should be availiable to research. Does this mean evolution does not exist? No, but science has yet to show a valid observable instance and makes leaps and bounds to try and justify it's conclusion which I, and most find unreliable.

If science and others with agendas were fully honest about evolution, it would simply admit, there is evidence, but not enough solid evidence to make evolution a fact.

[wideawake]

I hope party leaders have the foresight to realize that opposing modernity is a losing strategy.

When William F. Buckley founded the National Review - helping to lend coherence and power to the nascent conservative movement - he said that the goal of his new publication was to "stand athwart the gates of history crying 'Stop!'"

Conforming to modernist nostrums is a losing strategy: ask the Rockefeller Republicans.

[Steve_Seattle]

I was thinking of Behe and Dembski, whose academic credentials are impeccable.

[Badeye]

I’ve become very confident lately that most of the GOP elected officials are decendent from the jackass...but hey, thats just me.

[dragonblustar]

Evolution? Bah! It's Devolution!

[Alter Kaker]

Why would there be fossils on even some of the highest peaks (that are confirmed not to have been recent volcanoes) in the world?

Is that a serious question? Go look up a little scientific theory called plate tectonics.

As for evidence against a world wide flood, if one existed, we should expect to find a uniform layer of mud and silt all over the world. We don't.

[narby]

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.

Benjamin Franklin wasn't known for his preaching, but among other things, for his efforts to advance scientific fields. Jefferson, among many things, studied many sciences including horticulture, geography and more.

All the founders paid proper homage to God in their own ways, as everyone did in that day who expected to be any kind of leader. But none of them that I know of were theologians, while at least Franklin and Jefferson spent considerable time in the sciences.

Of todays leaders, only Newt Gingrich has any kind of science interest that I know of (zoology and paleontology), and his star will likely not rise again.

America's peak of scientific interest was probably right after Sputnik, when I grew up. Which explains why evolution was not controversial within the Southern Baptist church I attended back then, but it is today in that same church.

America is in decline, and the waning interest in science (if not the outright attack on science by many) is leading the way.

[Alter Kaker]

Since when wasn't it a core belief?

Are you kidding me? You really think Barry Goldwater, the father of the modern conservative movement, was a creationist? I think it's pretty clear that no Republican President, from at least as far back as 1870 to 1980 was a creationist. Reagan wasn't himself a creationist, but he said nice things about creationists around election time. And that's that -- the entire history of creationism in the mainstream Republican Party. Note the absence of support in any Republican organization for the State of Tennessee in the Scopes Monkey Trial. Note also the electoral disasters that have befallen Republicans, in Kansas and Pennsylvania notably, when they decide that the Republican Party is really the Creationist Party.

Creationism is a religious philosophy and it is completely appropriate within the confines of your Church. It is not a political idea and should have nothing to do with a political party.

[isaiah55version11_0]

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

Is it a “defect” in our genes that we can’t grow wings and fly or change color to match our environment? Or how about the “defective” armor on attack helicopters, it’s not nearly as effective as the armor on a M-1 tank. Or to put it into your world RFC, you can build more security into a network by reducing freedom. If your network is penetrated, is it because it is “defective”. When designing networks, don’t you duplicate the good designs of other networks into new ones? All designs have trade-offs, we don’t understand enough about the “source code” of life to know what the trade offs are for not producing our own vitamin C. Are scientists going to miss important things, based on the assumption that x is defective and we don’t need to look further into the matter?

(In my best Fred Thomson imitation). What does all this information mean in the grand design of things. Hmm…grand design… Hmmm design. Naaa…whats the point, its all settled science anyway, just ask Galileo.

Cheers

[RFC_Gal]

So now scurvy is a good thing?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

If science and others with agendas were fully honest about evolution, it would simply admit, there is evidence, but not enough solid evidence to make evolution a fact.

Evolution is fact. There is no controversy in science as to whether it not it happens.

Microevolution has been observed (moths) and tested (antibiotic resistance).

Macroevolution has been observed (finches, plants) and tested (bacteria).

There's, quite honestly, a ridiculous amount of evidence.

[isaiah55version11_0]

So now scurvy is a good thing?

Oooo.. extrapolating it so much fun. My turn now.

So now attack helicopters getting shot down by RPGs is a good thing.

So now network security breaches are a good thing.

Your reply tells me you missed the whole point about trade offs, or you simply don’t understand them. (here you go RE: trade-offs) Perhaps some day you will get to design something large and complex from the ground up, and the reality of trade offs in design will make more sense to you.

Cheers

[Theo]

In your first reference to “the land producing” stuff, you seemed to be using these verses to support the theory of evolution. These verses actually directly refute that theory, though, as each passage includes the phrase “each one according to its kind.” That specifically says that man had man as offspring, for example, not that man came from some lesser developed species.

Recall how humanity was created: “tThe Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.” He didn’t evolve humanity from proto-humans, but from dust *from the ground*. And we reproduced **after our kind**.

I commend you for valuing and referencing Scripture. Please take a close look at the portions you quoted, to confirm whether they support evolution or creation. I contend that biblical and extrabiblical evidence supports creation, not evolution from slime.

[Theo]

Ah, the moths and finches. Don’t forget the pig’s tooth. You haven’t done much research, have you?

[Theo]

One says that humanity arrived on the scene by random mutation through millions of years of death. The other says that God intentially created humanity “from the dust,” and that death entered into the world through sin.

They are mutually exclusive. Believe atheistic evolution, or believe biblical creationism. I believe the evidence supports the latter.

[MEGoody]

Isn’t it interesting how evolutionists like to use the term ‘extremist’ to try to marginalize those with whom they do not agree. Actually, that’s one of the nicer adjectives I’ve seen them use. LOL

[editor-surveyor]

And angry and empty is your head.

[editor-surveyor]

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"?

To a great extent, probably so. Some of what they have pushed is real scientific endeavor, but more was philosophical.

[Stultis]

really think it comes down to what you "Beleive."

That is indeed a "difference in our thought process[es]."

Although belief certainly affects individual scientists in various ways, I think that the content of science can be determined reasonably objectively (by consulting it's professional literature) independently of what scientists "believe".

Indeed I insist on the actual independence of "what scientists believe" from what should be taken to be the content of science.

The content of science is comprised of those theories, principles, etc, that working scientists actually utilize or implicate on the conduct of ongoing, original research. IOW if scientists actually use an idea, then that idea is part of science regardless of whether those scientists "believe in" the idea. This is not just an academic point. For instance Einstein famously disbelieved quantum dynamics, but he used the mathematical formalisms of the theory nevertheless.

If every single scientist on the face of the earth woke up tomorrow and declared their disbelief in evolution, but continued to use evolutionary theories in their research, then the status of evolution as a part of science would be unchanged by their mere affirmations of belief or disbelief.

OTOH if some radically different theory managed to displace evolution in the actual practice of science, then evolution would cease to be part of science, even if scientists continued to declare their belief in it.

To put all that more briefly: What scientists believe is irrelevant (for the purpose of determining the content of science, and therefore what should be taught as science in introductory curricula). What is relevant is what scientists do (what ideas they actually use).

[JohnnyZ]

although I'm sure most Catholics would argue that Christ did not have to die at the last supper in order for the Transmutation to have taken place, after all he turned water into wine which was a clearly observable fact from all witnesses to the event, why could he have not actually Transmutated the Sacrament

First off, it's called Transubstantiation. It's not alchemy.

Secondly, changing one substance to another was not salvific; dying on the cross and resurrecting was. ANY Christian would agree that Christ can change a substance into another.