Only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution"

[jägermonsta]

"A new poll released just in time for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday found only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution" and just 24 percent of those who attend church weekly believe in the explanation for the origin of life."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html

I figured there would be much more but I guess the 36 percent that say they don't have an opinion either way makes sense.

[DaHanG]

"A new poll released just in time for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday found only 39 percent of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution" and just 24 percent of those who attend church weekly believe in the explanation for the origin of life."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491345,00.html

I figured there would be much more but I guess the 36 percent that say they don't have an opinion either way makes sense.

What's priceless to me is how the article was first published with the phrase "explanation for the origin of life" (as google would seem to indicate, and being edited later), when that isn't what the theory explains. Ignorance on many levels. 

[deft]

Reminds me of Ben Stein when he was promoting his movie "Expelled"..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X8aifay678&feature=PlayList&p=AC3481305829426D&index=22

 

[[BTF]Defiant!]

Humorous given that the Pope even acknowledges evolution as fact!

[QwazyWabbit]

It is not necessary to "believe in the theory of evolution" for it to be true.

The theory of evolution is not validated by how many people believe in it.
The theory of evolution is not a jealous theory, thou may'st have other theories before it.
The theory of evolution doesn't care if you believe in it. It remains valid and testable without you.
The theory of evolution won't condemn you to eternal damnation for not believing in it.
The theory of evolution does not prescribe your diet or daily customs or rituals.
The theory of evolution doesn't require burnt offerings or tithings or contributions to TV preachers to do it's good work.
The theory of evolution only demands one thing: be strong, be competitive, pass on your traits to your offspring, evolve your species.

[|iR|Focalor]

The theory of evolution only demands one thing: be strong, be competitive, pass on your traits to your offspring, evolve your species.

I count 4 things there.

Also, if one must make a conscious decision to "evolve their species", then I guess evolution wouldn't be as much of an inherent truth as an applied science. There's that nasty word "theory" again. It isn't absolute truth at this point.

I have a suspicion that in the not too distant future, humans will figure out how to replicate and manipulate the DNA of all organisms to where we will be able to create brand new hybrids of existing organisms. I foresee this as a bad thing too. Mankind has found out the intricate structures of atoms and molecules only to use them to make devastating nuclear bombs. Just like the "company" from the Aliens movies wanted a specimen of the alien for warfare purposes, I'm pretty sure they'll design the most deadliest germs and animals for war and defense. But hey, at least they'll cure everyones cancer BEFORE they bring about total human annihilation.

It's like getting a nice alcohol swab before they hook you up to the lethal injection IV.

[QwazyWabbit]

The theory of evolution only demands one thing: be strong, be competitive, pass on your traits to your offspring, evolve your species.

I count 4 things there.

Also, if one must make a conscious decision to "evolve their species", then I guess evolution wouldn't be as much of an inherent truth as an applied science. There's that nasty word "theory" again. It isn't absolute truth at this point.


It's like getting a nice alcohol swab before they hook you up to the lethal injection IV.

One need not make a concious decision to evolve, one must only procreate. Natural selection of successful mutations will lead to a more evolved species. Assuming of course that "evolved" means "more suitable for the habitat" the creature inhabits.

Evolution is in the bible:
Genesis 1:22,
1:28, And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

If one is to reconcile the observation of the reality of Natural Selection and the myth of Creation one can simply state:
The Law of Nature is the Law of God.

God set it all up to operate under certain rules, pronounced it all Good, packed up his tools and went home.

See Mark Twain, "Letters from the Earth" edited by Bernard DeVoto.

[[BTF]Defiant!]

...  I have a suspicion that in the not too distant future, humans will figure out how to replicate and manipulate the DNA of all organisms to where we will be able to create brand new hybrids of existing organisms.  ...

Saw Craig Venter at the Origins conference where he briefed his team's ability to:

• sequence DNA from an organism (in other words read it from an organism and store it's representation in a computer)
• modify the DNA sequence (in the computer)
• write it back and boot a cell with the new DNA (using a process which takes the place of the previous DNA, thus when the cell replicates it, it replicates the new DNA

So, already done!

Of course humans have been effectively modifying DNA indirectly through selective breeding anyway.

[|iR|Focalor]

God set it all up to operate under certain rules, pronounced it all Good, packed up his tools and went home.

See Mark Twain, "Letters from the Earth" edited by Bernard DeVoto.

Sounds more like Voltaire and his clockmaker theory. Anyway, I was just being a jackass and tooting my conspiracy theory horn a little. Anything to help sow more seeds of healthy mistrust (and/or righteous hatred) for our government suits. Furthermore, the verses you cited do not specifically indicate that Jehovah devised a system whereby any species might physiologically change in accordance with their environment. All that has ever meant was "worship me, fuck and bear children, and labor in the fields for your food, shelter, and prosperity", which would later coincide with divine edicts after the fall of man.

...  I have a suspicion that in the not too distant future, humans will figure out how to replicate and manipulate the DNA of all organisms to where we will be able to create brand new hybrids of existing organisms.  ...

Saw Craig Venter at the Origins conference where he briefed his team's ability to:

• sequence DNA from an organism (in other words read it from an organism and store it's representation in a computer)
• modify the DNA sequence (in the computer)
• write it back and boot a cell with the new DNA (using a process which takes the place of the previous DNA, thus when the cell replicates it, it replicates the new DNA

So, already done!

Like I said... Man-Bear-Pig is on the way!

Of course humans have been effectively modifying DNA indirectly through selective breeding anyway.

Mmmmm, yes. Some more than others...

[ReCycled]

Here's a graph that's surprising and troubling...

[Whirlingdervish]

What makes me wonder the most is how the phrasing of this question dictates the results of this poll.

They include the term "belief" in the question, as if a theory needs to be believed to be correct, and as if you must accept it completely (believe) for it to be right. Faiths need this to back them up, theories don't.

Using "believe" attaches an un-needed layer of quasi-intellectual acceptance to the pot, when in terms of theories if you ascribe to one, you just have to accept that they are a plausible explanation for a recordable phenomenon, not that they are the only answer that could be possible.

If you asked people if they thought that all of the uncounted assumptions about God that religions make were 100% dead on, you'd get an even smaller percentage of people who agreed that they believe that.


If you asked people if they thought that Evolution was based more on observation and logic, than any claims about an all powerful being existing and giving a shit about us, you would see different results that don't hinge entirely on one extraneous and poorly used word that is loaded full of guilts and values by years of religious indoctrination in our culture.

 

[sinner]

So pathetic... Shows how half the people of the US arent educated at all...

"Just 21 percent of respondents who had up to a high school level of education believe in evolution, compared with 74 percent of those with postgraduate degrees."

This survey should be renamed "Half of US residents are too stupid to think..."

It is sooooooooooooooo hard to even imagine for me how one cannot take time in a freaking 75 years lifespan to just conclude, with all facts and proofs related to the subject, that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the earth has been created 6000 years ago and that species dont change in time... This is ridiculous, I understand why many americans are ashamed of some of their people, as we are here also in Canada....

[jägermonsta]

Yeah the survey is done in America and I suppose Americans should know more regarding evolution and all but shit... other countries numbers would be FAR more scale tipping in the direction of religion humping then the US...

[quadz]

other countries numbers would be FAR more scale tipping in the direction of religion humping then the US...

Some other countries for sure, but not most of the countries on that chart above.

U.S. one of the most religious countries
Funded by a variety of public and private sources, including the National Science Foundation, the series of representative national surveys now contains data from nearly 250,000 respondents around the world. [...]

Here's kind of a funny graph... religiosity vs. per capita GDP...

( From: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/secularism )

Talk about an outlier...


Regards,

[QwazyWabbit]

A highly suspect graph. The article says nothing about how "religiosity" was measured except that it was "gauged by the responses to several questions about faith". Several? Exactly how many? In what language? Measuring what degree of observancy? Of what religion? How many samples? Against what populations? Were the sample representative of the population being measured?

More like self-fulfilling measurements created to determine an expected result. I find it hard to believe that the US can score higher in "religiosity" index than Italy or Mexico given the number of per-capita "observant" Catholics. Israel should have scored much higher as well.