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.

[JohnnyZ]

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.

The questions were poorly worded. Those people were most likely trying to get through to the thick-headed pollsters that yes, humans developed over millions of years, but they were Created by God, not just arising out of nothing, or with God as just some guiding hand.

The respondents were never given the option of responding that God created Man and that Man evolved. The pollsters took the ignorant and idiotic position that evolution and creation are incompatible.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

No, you've obviously done more than I have. I've never used the pig's tooth as an example.

But, it looks like you're very familiar with the moths being an example of microevolution and the finches being an example of macroevolution.

Or, based on your tagline, do you contest both of these as evidence?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

You've frequently claimed that evolution is a religion. Please provide a definition and defend your claim.

Also, with the definition that you use, please show that intelligent design either is religious in nature or is not religious in nature.

[suffering_fools]

What a great post, is sure to bring the weevils clambering to the top of the barrel.

I'll have to bookmark it for future reference under "These are not worth responding to".

Otherwise, no comment, I know what I believe in.

[shuckmaster]

Particularly interesting is the graph equating evolution denial with church attendance. It shows that there are a lot of false prophets out there brainwashing their congregations with dismal ignorance about fundamental grade school biology. It’s a real shame that so many people who are intelligent enough to dismiss the disease of liberalism will blindly drink the kool-aid when being lied to by anti-science hucksters pretending to know the Lord.

[shuckmaster]

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

I presume you're just joking, right? Those two are about as academic as that crazy psychic palm-reader lady they ran off TV a while back.

[Theo]

Creationism is a religious philosophy and it is completely appropriate within the confines of your Church

It's either true or it's false. If it's false, it doesn't belong anywhere.

[Theo]

I did a quick google search and found the following:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/09nsel05.htm

Consider the evidence. Don’t just attack the source because it challenges what you’ve been told.

[Alter Kaker]

It's either true or it's false. If it's false, it doesn't belong anywhere.

That's true but irrelevant. I may disagree with you on many theological points, but I'm not going to enter your place of worship and tell you what you should believe, even if I think what you think is wrong. As it happens, my own religious denomination has found no conflict with evolution for over 100 years.

[Theo]

I’m not tracking what you’re saying. Are you saying that pastors who preach that the Lord brought about “all this” as Scripture says are “hucksters”? Or that pastors who say that Scripture isn’t really true and that frogs turned into princes over the course of a million, no a billion, no a trillion years are the hucksters?

I’m hoping you mean the latter, that it’s the anti-science hucksters who proclaim that bugs and monkeys and men all share the same rights and that God is either dead or impotent and that death didn’t *really* enter the world through sin, as Scripture says.

[Theo]

Sorry to hear you attend a church that preaches an impotent and aloof God, one who lies about how “all this” came about, one who “got it wrong” when he indicated that death came into the world through sin ... and life therefore through Jesus Christ.

But I agree — you’re free to believe that if you’d like.

[Stultis]

Consider the evidence.

How are we supposed to consider evidence that isn't there? So far I've only read the section on Darwin's Finches, but at least on that your link doesn't provide even the slightest shred of actual evidence, nor any reference thereto.

Darwin's Finches are still to this day considered to include at least 14 good species (13 in the Galapagos and 1 from Cocos Island), and even represent several genera, the next higher level of classification above species: the ground finches (Geospiza), the tree finches (Camarhynchus), the warbler finch (Certhidea) and the Cocos finch (Pinaroloxias). There's been no change on that front from taxonomists.

The only "evidence" provided in the link is a bald assertion from Walter Lammerts (an antievolutionist with no expertise in ornithology) that gee, these are really just subspecies of one "finch" species. No ornithologist or taxonomist accepts that position, and Lammerts gives no reason they should.

[Stultis]

that frogs turned into princes

Just for the record frogs would not be found anywhere in the lineage leading to humans. Sure, there would be some amphibians in the human lineage, but they would be of a far more generic type.

Frogs are obviously a specialized and divergent line of amphibians, and certainly represent a "side branch" wrt to whatever line of amphibians led on to reptiles and then mammals.

[shuckmaster]

death didn’t *really* enter the world through sin, as Scripture says.

When you mention "scripture", are you referring to some random ancient scrolls translated from the verbal campfire tales of various wandering tribes of bronze age goat herders? If so, is this the evidence you present to bolster your ridiculous counter argument against the status of 21st Century science?

[Theo]

So it’s not so much that you think pastors specifically are wrong for speaking about God’s creation, you ridicule anyone who believes in Jesus. Hm.

Your hatred is blinding you to the beauty and meaning of creation. I pray you find your heart warmed toward the Lord before your death.

[Continental Soldier]

Thank you for your reply. But my question remains: why have they repented? And why should they repent?

[Alter Kaker]

Sorry to hear you attend a church that preaches an impotent and aloof God

If you think that insulting me and mocking my God is the way to win me over, you've got another thing coming.

You could use a little more humility. Ultimately, you will receive some.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

Stultis's reply is better than what I could have written.

I add only that the website Theo mentioned once again demonstrates the difference between science and creationism.

Due to its religious background, creationism is based on authority as opposed to data. "X himself said so, therefore you're wrong" is a common response employed by many creationists.

They either forget or do not realize that dogma has no place in science. If an idea is not supported by data, it's discarded. Science changes. Creationism tries to change by redefining itself (e.g. intelligent design), but it in end, it's the same old arguments that don't hold up in the courtroom¹, much less a peer-reviewed journal.

¹ You know there's something wrong when Judge Jones, a Republican church-attending jurist nominated by our President and confirmed unanimously by the Senate, is labeled a "judicial activist" for adhering to numerous precedents in his Kitzmiller decision.

[narby]

[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 ....

You never did answer the question.

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.

The trade off is we get scurvy.

The source code for the vitamin C gene is very well known, and the copy in humans and apes is broken in an identical way. That fits evolution theory, because a critter that eats fruits doesn't need to manufacture vitamin C.

This common defect proves evolution in two ways. First, it demonstrates (along with several thousand other retro-virus genes that have been inserted into the common ape/human genome) that humans and apes are indeed related genetically. The technique is not unlike using DNA to test for parentage, except it requires a much deeper analysis of the sequences. Which has been done.

The second way this demonstrates evolution is what I mentioned above, that humans and apes don't require the gene, so individuals that inherit the defect don't die. Genes that are required for the survival of an individual don't have errors, because when they occur the individual doesn't survive to reproduce. But genes that aren't strictly required can accumulate errors, and so we find them.

I have thalessemia, an inherited blood disorder that won't kill me, but results in my inability to exercise for long time periods, such as distance running. It is known that this disorder occurs in people with a Mediterranean heritage, an area with relatively mild climate, and a history of civilization that could have supported individuals that had the gene. I can guess that it doesn't occur in more extreme climates because the likelihood of someone surviving in those places with this gene is much smaller. Again, in one more way out of millions, the evidence for evolution is in front of our faces.

As for theology, I think it's an insult to claim that God could not have designed evolution. As for a literal Bible, there are innumerable claims (the flood, for one) in the Bible that are not only physically impossible, but if they had happened would have left evidence that just cannot be found, even after Christian scientists spent careers looking for them.

The Bible is not a scientific text. Christians that insist that it is are what prevents me from accepting Jesus as my personal savior. Christians should leave science to scientists, and keep religion in their church, because it damages the faith in ways they will never know when they fail to do this.

[Frwy]

All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23