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.

[Frwy]

I believe we enter this world as children of God. As a matter of fact, He knew us before the womb. Satan didn't. He is the only One who can breathe life into us at conception. We are His children. We are given the free will to choose Him and eternal life or the father of this world and eternal death. If we are not born again, we have chosen the second death and are condemned to hell.

[Theo]

You wrote, “As it happens, my own religious denomination has found no conflict with evolution for over 100 years.”

My point is that evolution is just not consistent with how Scripture describes “all this” coming into existence. If you and your church preach something extra-biblical, something that is clearly different and incompatible with Scripture as it’s plainly written, then you’re in a frightening place, as you’re either implying or outright saying that the God of creation is so impotent that He’s unable to assure that Scripture is accurate, or that He lied when He communicated His truth with humanity. We’re told in Revelation not to alter any of it, are we not?

Again, it may sound harsh, but a church that preaches something contrary to Scripture is preaching a God different from Scripture, a God who is impotent and aloof from the creation process, and perhaps a liar as well.

As for me, I’ll believe Scripture, which is consistent with the evidence about how “all this” came into being.

[Theo]

Your doctrine here sounds good. It’s just the notion that “we’re all children of God” that’s off. Jesus told some of the religious leaders that they were “children of Satan,” which tells me that the weren’t “children of God” at the time....

[Frwy]

I agree, we are close in doctrine. I maintain that as long as there is this life in us, before the death of the body, we have the opportunity to choose for God for our salvation. If we do not, it's the fires of hell and then we belong to Satan. Satan attempts to attract all of us, especially those who love God. He even tried to tempt Jesus. The fool. He poses as an angel of light. People who have not met Jesus Christ and accept what He has done for us can be said to belong to satan. I get that but they can still be saved if they come to Christ.

I don't think it is so much doctrine between us as it may be semantics. I know Jesus carried me when there was only one pair of footprints in the sand until I came to know and trust only Him. From that day on, I belong to Him but I'm not perfect and can be enticed by satan. The Holy Spirit lives in me and always pulls me back and keeps me from trouble of the satan kind. Maybe I don't say it as clearly as you but I've invested a lot in my relationship with Him and my life means something for Him and to His glory. That is my purpose.

If we are separated on this one point, we'll have eternity to discuss it. Thanks for the dialog.

[Stultis]

My point is that evolution is just not consistent with how Scripture describes “all this” coming into existence. If you and your church preach something extra-biblical

The problem here is that all antievolutionary elaborations of creationism also contain huge swaths of extra-biblical emendations, many of which also contradict the plainest sense of scripture.

For example the Bible gives zero indication that Noah's flood had any geological (as opposed to geographical) significance. There's nothing in there, not a single word, claiming, or entailing the claim, that vast quantities of sedimentary strata, and the fossils they contain, were deposited by Noah's flood.

In fact there's some evidence to the contrary, such as a few geographical place names (e.g. the Euphrates River, IIRC) being used both before and after the flood. This suggests a tranquil flood, that wouldn't wipe out and utterly remake such features as rivers, mountains and the like. But you'll find very, very few if any tranquil flood theorists among self-professed "Bible Believers".

Young earth creationists to a man propose a Noachian deluge that, unbeknownst to the Bible, did massive amounts of geological work. Creationists who accept an ancient earth tend to accept a regional flood, or some other scheme.

Nor is this the only example. The Biblical language strongly suggests, for instance, that the "firmament" or "expanse" (Hebrew "raqia") that divides the "waters above" from the "waters below" -- the realm of earth from that of heaven -- was firm and solid, hard like a mirror of beaten metal. For instance birds brush their wings against it, etc. (I can gather up the verses for you if you require.)

But none of this Biblical language stops the majority of creationists from gratuitously and utterly unbiblically proposing that the raqia was something airy like water vapor in the atmosphere, or more commonly a specific layer of water or water vapor high in the atmosphere. Again this is mostly young earth creationists. (Others just ignore the raqia altogether.)

There are few (e.g. dinosaur tracks = "manprint" nutter Carl Baugh) who propose that the raqia was made of ice, and therefore solid. But even they, and other antievolutionary creationists, all join the vapor canopy theorists in a further absolutely unbiblical assumption: That the canopy was destroyed and afterward ceased to exist in conjunction with Noah's flood.

Oh, sure, the Bible doesn't explicitly deny that the raqia suddenly ceased to exist then (or at any other time). But again there's absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest that it did, and plenty to suggest otherwise. All the Bible says touching in any way on the firmament in relation to the flood is that "the windows of heaven were opened" (or words to that effect, I'm not looking up verses just now). That's it! At most this suggests the raqia was NOT destroyed, otherwise why suggest that "windows" were opened up in it to allow the "waters above" to pass through without destroying it? Or the windows of heaven could just be a poetic allusion to simple (if extraordinarily voluminous) rain.

I've studied the antievolution movement fairly extensively. Fact is there is not a single elaboration of antievolutionary creationism that doesn't extensively substitute the "opinions of men" for the actual Word of God (if the Bible is to be taken as such) and doesn't in the process extensively contradict the most simple and straightforward reading of scripture. It just isn't possible to make a fulsome elaboration (that anyone could pretend to believe) without doing so.

[metmom]

How about a definition of religion from another source besides the made up by FRevos and put in their List-O-Definitions? Something more authoritative and widely recognized?

Like this from Merriam Webster Online (definition number 4 in particular):

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion

Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

***********************************************************

Or this one:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/6/R0140600.html

SYLLABICATION: re·li·gionSYLLABICATION:

re·li·gion

PRONUNCIATION: r-ljn

NOUN: 1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

**********************************************************

Or this:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861700316

re·li·gion (plural re·li·gions)

noun

Definition:

1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by

4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by

************************************************************

Scientists choose to believe science because they trust what other men do. Accepting what others tell you is called trust and demonstrates faith in their work and character. Scientists have just chosen their belief system based on something other than Scripture but is it a belief system and faith and trust are used. Christians just put their faith in something more dependable.

[metmom]

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.

Of course we don't. Even if the earth were perfectly flat, currents would cause some unevenness in the sediment deposit.

The sediment wouldn't have been deposited like someone frosting a cake. It would settle out and would be thicker in low and valley areas, or under the oceans, than on mountain tops. Be real.

You claim to be scientific and get something so basic wrong, and then wonder why people don't buy the ToE tripe that evolution happened when they can't get something so simple correct.

[Coyoteman]

Scientists choose to believe science because they trust what other men do. Accepting what others tell you is called trust and demonstrates faith in their work and character. Scientists have just chosen their belief system based on something other than Scripture but is it a belief system and faith and trust are used. Christians just put their faith in something more dependable.

With every post like this you demonstrate your disdain for science.

How about a definition of religion from another source besides the made up by FRevos and put in their List-O-Definitions? Something more authoritative and widely recognized?

Those definitions you continually carp on?

Try a google search for those terms. Google was my primary source. It was not "FRevos" who did that list. I did that list, with some advice from a wide range of folks. Changes can still be suggested to the thread.

But if you note, those definitions were chosen to be as close as possible to the way scientists use the terms. They do not include all definitions from Merriam Webster, but rather the definitions scientists use.

And I suspect they contradict your cherished assumptions, and that is why you hate them so.

[metmom]

John 1:12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

Being children of God is not inherent in being human. It only comes as a matter of will, receiving Christ.

John 8:42-47 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."

[metmom]

Making up your own definitions and claiming that they’re *as scientists use them* isn’t fooling anybody. It’s simply as Frevos use them. Everyone else I meet recognizes those other sources as authoritative.

[Coyoteman]

You claim to be scientific and get something so basic wrong, and then wonder why people don't buy the ToE tripe that evolution happened when they can't get something so simple correct.

The "global flood" is supposed to have been about 4350 years ago.

That is a time period that is easily studied by archaeologists and soil scientists.

There is no global silt layer at that time period. Rather, there is continuity of culture and DNA before, during, and after that date in most of the world.

You are following a religious belief, while denying overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. You should at least be able to admit that much, rather than trying to bend and distort science until the data "fits" your presuppositions. The latter is not science but apologetics.

[taxesareforever]

You really think Barry Goldwater, the father of the modern conservative movement, was a creationist?

The "father" of the modern conservative movement? No wonder he lost. He didn't carry the religious right. You can claim that religion has no business in politics but just try and keep it out of politics. Even the demorats invoke it when holding hearings on judges. You want a government without religion? Then go to Russia. You just may fit right in. And just think, you can be happy with it instead of being angry about it being in politics here.

[BuckeyeForever]

No, what I am meant was, if man descended from earlier primates, rather than was “made from scratch” in the Garden of Eden, Genesis is repudiated, and specifically the doctrine of “original sin” resulting from Adam’s fall from grace is repudiated. And if original sin is repudiated, Jesus’s death and resurrection were unnecessary. The Christian faith is based on the notion that God sent Jesus to earth as savior, i.e. to redeem man for his original sin (Adam’s), and as the exclusive pathway to redemption.
Therefore, one cannot believe in both evolution (macro, not micro) and Christianity. The creationists have a lot at stake in taking on evolution, for if they are wrong (as they surely are), their entire religion is nonsense.

[csense]

"...for if they are wrong, as they surely are..."

You have a right to believe what you want Buckeye, and it may not be my place to say this, but please, don't throw your life away. Read the Gospels, and read them with an open heart, and listen to what Christ has to say.

Set aside your reason, your logic, your science, your pride, and just listen, and you will know that there is only one truth, and that truth is in the word.

There is no other truth except the word.

[ahayes]

The sediment wouldn't have been deposited like someone frosting a cake. It would settle out and would be thicker in low and valley areas, or under the oceans, than on mountain tops. Be real.

You're right! Which is why you're conflicting with the evidence. There's a thicker layer of sediment on the continental plates than on the ocean floor. Oops.

[Stultis]

Good point! That never exactly occurred to me before, but on a "young earth, flood geology" model the sediments should be thickest where the flood waters drained to, in the ocean basins. But instead just the opposite is the case. What's more the deepest parts of the oceans should have some of the thickest sediments. But again just the opposite is the case.

Of course this all makes sense on the conventional model: The ocean crust carries less sediment because it's far younger than the continental crusts. And within the oceans the deep sea trenches, where new oceanic crust is being created, are the youngest of all.

[VOA]

But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant
minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans
came from.

Frank Newport (author of this Gallup press-release) must be a
J-School grad.

Because only a J-School grad would TOTALLY miss the headline in
this story.

How on Earth could about two-fifths of Democrats and a fair number
of independents still be Evolution-Deniers?

Most Republicans don't believe in evolution?
Heck, that's "dog bites man".

Democrats and independents not believing in evolution?
That's "man bites dog"!!!

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

But belief in evolution may be useful for policy as well. Suppose that there's an epidemic, and the President refuses to take certain preventative measures because he doesn't believe the pathogen can evolve.

Or he could be an evolutionist and decide to let all those unfit organisms (people) get killed off by natural selection.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

People don’t reject evolution because they are intellectually incapable of understanding it

Many people reject it because it's stupid. Monkeys accidentally transforming into humans. Banana-picking monkeys gradually perfecting banana-picking skills by monkey trial-and-error, thereby changing into full-blown cathedral-building humans. It's stupid.

[gondramB]

>>Many people reject it because it’s stupid. Monkeys accidentally transforming into humans. Banana-picking monkeys gradually perfecting banana-picking skills by monkey trial-and-error, thereby changing into full-blown cathedral-building humans. It’s stupid.<<

Well the genetic difference between a chimp and a human is about 10 times as great as between 2 very different humans.

That seems a reasonable difference to achieve in 200,000 generations. Particularly when you consider that every human has new mutations.

Consider the Woolly mammoth died out 12,000 years ago at 20 years per generation that’s only 600 generations but think how different mammoths are from modern animals.