On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution

[kpete]

Source: Gallup

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution
Belief drops to 24% among frequent church attender

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.



There is a strong relationship between education and belief in Darwin's theory, as might be expected, ranging from 21% of those with high-school educations or less to 74% of those with postgraduate degrees.




Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

[bunnies]

And once again theres w's 25%.

Cant we just ship them off somewhere?! :shrug:

[saigon68]

142. Knuckle Dragging "BUSH BOTS"

They resemble their Mentor



"Bring em On" shouted the AWOL CHIMPANZEE

[bunkerbuster1]

1. So 26 percent of post grads don't believe?

Actually, given some of the MBAs I've met, I shouldn't be all that surprised.

(no offense. Really.)

[Runcible Spoon]

114. *snicker*

:spray: I'm with you.

[L. Coyote]

145. Over one in four US post-grads are ignorant. No surprise.

My guess would be higher.

[Stellabella]

2. You know, I really dislike that term 'believe'.

In science you either understand something or you don't. There is no 'belief system'. Controlled experiments, peer reviewed and replicated studies, ability to predict what we will discover, and falsifiability are all part of the scientific method. It explains the way the world works, and it not something to be 'taken on faith'.

[jeepnstein]

6. Agree...

The beauty of science is that you don't have to make a leap of faith. Either the data supports your assertion or you're full of it and your peers will gladly disembowel your theory to advance their own careers.

[silverweb]

11. You beat me to it.

I don't "believe" in evolution -- but I do think that evidence shows it is the highly likely explanation for life on earth as we know it. On the other hand, creationism has zero evidence to support it.

As a matter of fact, I don't "believe" in anything except possibilities -- though as Serendipity schooled Bethany in that fabulous movie, Dogma, "I have a pretty good idea" (and it's great fun to speculate).

[ronnie624]

89. Well said.

I clicked on this thread to say virtually the same thing, only not quite so eloquently.

[silverweb]

94. Thanks.

Great minds and all that... or something. :D

:fistbump:

[Zodiak]

33. Agreed

Science has nothing to do with belief, and caging it in such a way caters to the notion that science is on-par with religion and requires faith. It doesn't.

[No Elephants]

101. Good point. Another reason Gallup stinks.

[Robb]

49. A 4th agree here.

It struck me also.

[Zhade]

80. Indeed. You either accept the proven fact of evolution, or you need to get some education -- fast.

NT!

[Eryemil]

84. First thing I thought of myself. Absolutely shameful, pathetic and ridiculous (cont.)

The US would collapse without all the of the foreign intellectual capital it manages to attract from poorer countries around the world and it is still managing to fall behind in many areas of research.

Where will physicists be going in the future? Europe most likely. With the building of the LHC the EU has cemented itself as the place to be for particle physicists.
There was a similar project in Texas which was, unsurprisingly, scrapped.

Who is leading in stem cell research? Have a guess. Even with the change of administration I doubt that the research prospects for me will be very good in North America by the time I am done with my studies.
My peers as well as recent graduates are looking eastward because of their science-friendly policies.

All those Eastern European scientists, they're not coming to America anymore. As China and India develop more of theirs will choose to remain at home.

I'd tell Americans to get your shit together but I'll probably be flamed as it is.

[Stellabella]

95. You're right.

I am very encouraged by the removal of the ban on stem cell research, but we've lost so many years with the Bush anti-science crowd that I don't think we'll ever catch up.

[No Elephants]

102. Christopher Reeve will certainly never catch up. It's not only science, altho that is certainly

bad enough. Lives have been lost, conditions have deteriorated, people have aged past medicine's desire to use resources on them.

[sendero]

139. Not by me..

... America has seen its best days. Americans, as a whole, have become stupid and intellectually lazy. There is an inevitable, inexorable price to be paid for that.

[Frank Cannon]

110. It's like "believing in" the theory of gravity or thermodynamics

I know our news media in this country is a pathetic joke anyway, but that term just really irks me.

[Matariki]

113. Perhaps 36% of the respondents said the same thing.

Or told the Gallup the poll was flawed. How do you 'believe' in a scientific theory?

Actually, come to think of it, I've seen people do just that - 'believe' in science with the dogmatic zeal of a religious fanatic. Usually their science is on the level of a 1950s High School science textbook and they cling to a 19th century mechanistic view of the universe with the faith of Baptist snake handler. In fact of seen quite a few of them here at DU.

[LynzM]

115. I agree.

I'd like to reframe the discussion to whether someone has read all the extensive evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and given all of that, whether they choose to disregard it. :banghead:

[Solly Mack]

120. Yes, that.

What you said

[LanternWaste]

121. I think it's an applicable descriptor

"...and it not something to be 'taken on faith."

Faith is merely that of which we do not have full knowledge in yet trust. So I think it's an applicable descriptor for thus of us (like myself) who do not have full knowledge of the sciences, yet still maintain our trust in them...

I do not have full knowledge of the all the laws of physics, yet I have both a belief in, and trust for gravity and what it can do, despite the fact that I do not engage in controlled experiences or read peer-reviewed studies.

[Zhade]

131. The difference is, this term is applied to *scientists* too, which is absurd.

NT!

[LanternWaste]

134. I'm afraid I was under the impression

I'm afraid I was under the impression the bone of contention was the actual word being used, rather than the demographic using it or the target of their usage, as I'd missed any qualifying statements to that effect...

[Bleacher Creature]

3. The saddest number is the 36%.

How the hell do you have no opinion? Did these people not go to school?

Look, it's sad that 25% of the population consists of ignorant Bible thumping, Bush dead-enders, but they aren't going away. Fortunately, they aren't getting any bigger than 25%. But the fact that more than a third of Americans either don't know or don't care is ridiculous.

[David__77]

16. I don't agree.

Maybe they feel unqualified to state definitively. I prefer that much more than those who discount science entirely.

[ReliantJ]

40. It dont matter to me none

[Zhade]

81. Proven facts don't matter to you?

NT!

[Lance_Boyle]

111. once again, not a proven fact, but the best-fitting theory

If you're going to defend the theory of evolution, please use the correct language. There are no proven facts, just more rigorously tested (and hence more likely true) hypotheses.

Claiming evolution to be "proven fact" is on par with claiming to have scientifically proven the existence of god.

[Zhade]

132. Um, evolution IS a proven fact. It's been observed in and out of the lab.

NT!

[Lance_Boyle]

140. your misuse of language does not help your argument

Gravity is not even "proven fact" in science - it is the best supported hypothesis. Do you even understand how science works?

[ReliantJ]

123. Sarcasm ftl

[Zhade]

133. LOL, fair enough.

NT!

[No Elephants]

103. They went to school, but the subject has been skirted, both in textbooks

and in classrooms throughout the nation's history. No one, whether in public school or in Sunday School, mentioned evolution to me until I was in college. Even then, when I countered with he Genesis creation story, which I then believed very literally, the prof went mute. And there has been nowhere near clarity in explaining what "theory" of eveolution actually means until the last decade.

[Dorian Gray]

106. I would have answered that way, too....

I don't "believe" in it. I understand it and hold it to be a true, yet evolving, explanation of life on earth. We will discover more truths about the development of life, and the Theory will evolve to include those proofs.

[sharp_stick]

4. 6 In 10

people are morons, it validates my belief that "all people are idiots until proven otherwise" ;-)

I really do wish that stupid hurt though, it would be fun to watch republicons writh on the ground in pain.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. I don't "believe in" Darwin's theory.

Any more than I "believe in" the earth circling the sun.

It isn't a matter of belief - it's a matter of fact.

What anyone believes or does not believe will not change the fact.

[struggle4progress]

37. "Believe" is always a strange word to use when describing attitudes towards scientific work

Science, at any moment, consists of the best currently available naturalistic descriptions of phenomena -- and one should merely accept such descriptions as the best currently available ones, provisionally, hoping that future work will reduce somewhat the gaps and inconsistencies in our present knowledge

[The2ndWheel]

7. I'd call that diversity

[Zhade]

82. I'd call it ignorance of proven fact.

NT!

[ComtesseDeSpair]

8. A perfect example of how our education system has failed us.

This is just another example of why religion hurts society. It's an absolute joke that there's even a debate over this anymore. I would suggest that the "non-believers" read the latest issue of National Geographic, where it talks about how they've determined how the same genes in different species act differently because they're turned on and off in different combinations and for different lengths of time. It's the most compelling proof ever that evolution is a fact. The same genes are found in humans, giraffes, frogs, fish, etc. In a giraffe, the genes that control neck length are just turned on for a longer period of time than they are in humans. The same exact genetic process is used in juvenile zebra finches to learn a song from an adult finch as in human babies learning speech from adult humans. It's amazing stuff - and it just makes me love this planet and all its creatures even more to know how closely tied we all are to one another. I don't see how anyone can find it remotely offensive.

[RobinA]

25. Well, In All Fairness

I am 51, educated in the "liberal" '70's, went to a decent, middle/upper middle class serving high school. They never even attempted to teach evolution. Too controversial.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

31. Exactly my point.

In my high school, the religious right controlled the curriculum to the point where our biology teacher could only make a one sentence disclaimer that there is a "theory of evolution that you can look into but I will not be teaching about it here". I didn't learn anything until I went to college. Until our schools break free from the fear of the religious right we're doomed.

[kiranon]

61. Well I'm 67 and they taught evolution in school and my kids learned it also.

We live in California where evolution can still be taught but apparently not how to do budgets. It is the rise of the religious right that has lead to this anti science atmosphere. This country's progress has depended on science and heaven help us (no pun intended/no specific religion intended) if people stop believing in science.

[kiranon]

63. For Valentines Day bought my husband the book "Your Inner Fish"

which is "A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body". My dh is a fly fisherman and will enjoy this evolutionary tale. A large portion of the U.S. population would consider this fantasy instead of the work of a paleontologist and professor of anatomy. There is little hope for us all.

[RebelOne]

109. I am 70 years old and was taught about evolution

in schools in South Florida. And when I was in school, evolution was never considered controversial. It was taught as a fact and not a theory.

[Thothmes]

125. Evolution theory was part of the biology and the earth science

cirriculums when I went to public school in the 1960s. It was part of my sons biology cirriculum at a Jesuit High School in the early 90s.

[treestar]

143. Where was this?

I'm near that age and went to public school. We did learn about evolution in 6th grade science. No major deal was made about it by any parents (of course those days the fundies didn't seem to be so pervasive).

[Nevernose]

72. That's not an example of how our education system has failed

That's an example of how religion (and our society) has hampered our development. The education system itself is just fine.

[No Elephants]

104. If our education system cannot or will not fight for the truth, it has

indeed failed. Of course, something is wrong with our society if religion can fix things so that public education has to fight for the truth against literal Biblical interpretation. Both things are true. Religion may be wrong as well, but that is not the business of the State. If the State took care of itself and lived up to separation of Church and State, it would not matter what churches taught about creation or how Genesis should be read.

[tblue37]

138. I teach college English and have done so since 1972.

I can assure you that our educational system is not "just fine," although I do agree with the other half of your post, that the high percentage of Americans who reject evolution is "an example of how religion (and our society) has hampered our development."

When I first started teaching in 1972, I was appalled at the level of ignorance and the weak level of skills I found in students who were, after all, high school graduates and, therefore, supposedly "educated" to some degree. In many ways, I have seen a decline from even those low levels over the past 37 years.

The students are not stupid, of course. They learn just fine when they are taught. And in some subjects many of them are laps ahead of where my generation was in science and math. But many others have not even taken much science and math, and virtually none of them can write beyond what would have been considered a weak sixth or seventh grade level when I was in school.

I don’t blame the K-12 teachers. For the most part, they work heroically against a system that throws obstacles in their path at every turn. But parents and administrators don’t back them up when they try to hold their students to actual standards, since everyone must get passing grades, and most parents won’t tolerate even a “C” on their kids’ report cards. Much of what K-12 teaching has devolved into is simply crowd control, because the students have not been taught self-discipline and respect at home, so they won’t settle down in study in class or at home.

If you are interested, I have a number of articles on my Teacher, Teacher website, where I post my laments (read “rants”) about the failures of our educational system:
http://www.teacherblue.homestead.com/index.html

[defendandprotect]

9. The interesting thing about Darwin's own time was that many .....

studying nature understood that evolution was likely.

None of them published, however, because of the strength of "god" theories/religion -

Creation themes.

Darwin was simply the first and perhaps most courageous in putting forth his theory

of evolution.

Meanwhile, here we still are with religion having a stranglehold on the brain!

[Vattel]

36. One obstacle to belief in evolution

in Darwin's time is that no one had a good explanation of how life could have evolved. Darwin (and the other guy--was it Wallace?) were the first to offer a plausible explanation of how life can evolve, namely, by natural selection.

[byeya]

52. Wallace put pressure[unintended] on Darwin

because he, Wallace was going into print, but without the background and data Darwin had. You'll recall that Darwin made himself into the world's leading authority on barnacles so that his grounding in zoology would be unimpeachable.
Darwin sought an intermediary to explain the situation to Wallace and they co-published. Darwin was a modest and meticulous person as well as a great scientist. Wallace was also brilliant.

[nichomachus]

10. It's not something you "believe in"

That's like asking people whether they believe in gravity. It's a stupid question and gives the idiots the idea they can believe in it or not.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

70. Thank you. That was really bugging me.

Science is not religion. Though I wish the religious people of this world would view science as a gift from their god/goddess rather than an affront to him/her.

[Robeysays]

12. i think there's a mistake.

today is MY birthday

[GinaMaria]

14. Happy Birthday nt

[Robeysays]

19. party.

:party:

[jeepnstein]

17. I'm not sure I believe that.

[KansDem]

35. And I have no opinion either way...(nt)

[GinaMaria]

13. What is a better way to ask this question?

The data may be a reflection of how this was asked. As others have pointed out this isn't a belief system which may account for how people answered.

[cosmicone]

22. A better way to ask would have been

"Do you think that there has been adequate scientific proof to validate Darwin's theory of evolution?"

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. No, that wouldn't fly.

too many big words.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

71. I suspect it was planned that way.

But I'll bet they hoped for more "No I don't believe" responses than they got.

[GinaMaria]

77. Even those who accept Evolution as scientific fact

might answer this question as 'no' because it's not a belief system. This is really a screwy question.

[Mithreal]

15. Too bad you didn't get some nifty gift when you believed

like heaven.

Darwin's biggest mistake.

[Lorien]

18. Yes, we are officially a Nation of morons

pathetic. Just pathetic.

[laconicsax]

21. If this is your criteria, it's been official for a long time.

[Lorien]

68. I honestly thought that it was around 70-30% in favor of evolution

at least it was a couple of decades ago. Talk radio and the fundies have really done a number on Americans.

[Thothmes]

126. I wonder if we polled the x billion people

on this planet, how many would profess an acceptance of evolution theory.

[ananda]

20. Boy we're a stupid country.

Shamefully stoopid and obviously getting stoopider.

[slackmaster]

29. It's about the same in the UK

And worse in some other countries.

[Prophet 451]

98. We're a little better

According to the Guardian, about half the UK population accepts evolution as definitely or probably accurate ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism ).

Which, granted, is still fucking depressing.

[jb5150]

23. Is the title mathematically/grammatically correct?

Someone correct me if I am off-base. mathematically, if you eliminate the people who said they have no opinion or refused to answer, wouldn't that leave you with 4 people out of about 6 who say they believe in evolution?

Meaning that a title like:

1. On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 2.5 in 10 Believe in Creation.

or

2. On Darwin’s Birthday, only 25 percent of American believe in Creation.

..would be more correct, just wondering.

[Aristus]

24. In a related story, a group of anti-evolution activists protested the birthday of Charles Darwin

by screeching and throwing their feces...

[Tempest]

26. The Vatican just called Intelligent Design poppycock

And endorsed evolution.

[slackmaster]

30. I was stunned when they let Galileo off the hook several years ago

What's happening to them? Are they returning to the intellectual roots that they used to have?

[Tempest]

34. They're getting tired of being the butt of jokes

Recent discoveries of fossils and molecular biology have also hurt them in this subject.

They did set themselves back by allowing the Holocaust denier back into the church.

[happyslug]

78. On Galileo the Vatican has had some problems

First was Galileo was NOT censored by the Church for his observation about the Sun and the Earth, even the Vatican in his time was ready to accept that the THEORY that the earth revolved around the Sun was the best explanation of known facts. The problem with the Vatican is HOW he did it. The book where he made this statement consisted of three people discussing the facts of the heavens. In the worlds of the third and dullest person he put the then Pope's statement (Paraphrased) "If that is how it is, that is how it is". The Pope took this as a personal attack. This is scary for the Pope that condemned Galileo had defended Copernicus theory in front of the previous Pope when Copernicus theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun as NOT violating Scripture for it was the best explanation of known facts and "Revealed" knowledge, (i.e. Scripture) does NOT come into direct opposition of those known facts. The fact that Gideon ask God to stop the rotation of the earth and God did so, did not mean God stopped the Sun, God could have stopped the Earth to have the same affect (OR even stop EVERYTHING except Gideon so he could have more time). Thus the Pope view this as a personal attack and this is during the height of the Protestant Reformation.

While the above appears to explain WHY Galileo was censored, the grounds was more solid. Basically the Church asked Galileo why, in his book, he portrayed the theory that the Earth Revolved around the Sun as FACT not THEORY. The Church demanded absolute proof under the rules of Logic. The Scientific method does NOT follow the Rules of Logic for the Rules are to strict for the Scientific Method. The mere fact you have a bunch of fact that is best explained by a Theory does NOT prove that theory under the rules of Logic. No matter how many facts you have that are explained by the Theory, does not and can not prove the Theory under the Rules of Logic. It is always possible for a fact to be found later that upset the theory. Inf act within 60 years Kepler upset Copernicus's Theory, for Kepler showed that the Planets revolve around the sun in elliptical obits NOT Circular obits. This may sound minor, but another way to look at those obits is NOT that the earth revolves around the sun, but the Earth and the Sun revolves around a common center and around that common center the obits are circular (The center is much closer to the Sun then the Earth, thus the appearance that we revolve around the Sun).

As you can see, Galileo could NOT prove, under the rules of logic, that Copernicus's theory was fact. Since he could NOT prove that theory was the only correct fact AND he did NOT call it a Theory (Except once in the very early part of the book) he was guilty of attack the Bible without any basis in fact. Notice had Galileo stayed with Copernicus's statement that his theory was just a theory even through it explained all known facts, the church would NOT have had any grounds to Censor him. In affect what the Church did was Censor Galileo for confusing theory with fact. The later can NOT be contested (Even the Church in the days of Galileo agreed with that) but the former can be unless it can be shown to be true under the Rules of Logic. Copernicus's theory could NOT be proven under the Rules of Logic.

Now the Rule of Logic violated by most scientific theories goes this way:

If you have A, you have B, C, D, etc.

But if you have B, C, D. etc does NOT prove A.

If you have a Murder you have a body and a weapon (Or something else that killed that person)

On the other hand if you have a Body and a Weapon, that does NOT mean you have a murder. The Body and Weapon could be unrelated to each other, or the body was hit with the weapon AFTER it was already dead (That means no Murder). You an add additional facts to this scenario but you can also see how those additional fact do NOT prove a Murder (i,e, add a motive, add a person who is holding a weapon, add people who saw the person use the weapon, you can go on. If you have a murder you have all types of facts derived from that Murder, but those same facts can sometime exist without a Murder.

This was the Attack on Galileo, not that the theory that the Earth revolved the sun was heretical (It was NOT) but that you can NOT teach it as if it was unchallengeable fact. The Whole Scientific Method accepts this premise, unless something is a fact, it can be challenged for it can NOT be proved to be absolutely true. Thus while the Church seems to have wanted to Censor Galileo for a perceived attack on the Pope, its method of Attack reflects present Scientific method.

Now John Paul II formally forgave Galileo for his "errors" but that was more John Paul II's efforts to build bridges with the Scientific Community AND his effort to undermine attacks on the church by people who have a weak understanding of the above.

People will hate what I have to say, but the Church did a service to Science when it came to Galileo, telling people that it is sometime necessary to attack people who try to make Scientific theory indisputable fact. Scientific theory can NEVER be indisputable fact, for a Scientific Theory is just that a Theory that explains known facts. Being a theory, it is always possible for the theory to be proven wrong, and as long as that is the case a theory is just that a theory. It may be the best explanation we have but unless it follows the rules of Logic it is NOT a fact but only a theory. I have seen to many people on this board (And elsewhere) trying to make a theory fact, that is wrong.

Now the Christian Fundamentalist try to make to much of the concept of Theory. Even the Catholic Church accepted in the time of Galileo that a theory may be the only way to explain known facts. The fundamentalist try to expand this concept of theory to undermine the theory of Evolution. That is a problem, for the Catholic Church's attack on Galileo was NOT that the Theory was wrong, but that the theory could NOT be proven under the Rules of Logic. That is a very hard thing to prove and even the Catholic Church accepts they is no way you can prove most things to that level let alone the Theory of Evolution. The Fundamentalists attack on the Concept of Theory undermines any and all scientific theory, a position rejected by the Catholic Church even in the days of Galileo.

Anyway, the above is a short attempt to show WHY John Paul II tried to redeem Galileo and why there has been a lot of problems with that action. The biggest problem was that Galileo was punished for something he would be censored today by his Scientific peers, publishing a book to show a theory but stating that theory as Fact not Theory. The Scientific Method demands such censorship to preserve Science. Fact is NOT theory, and theory is not fact. That is important concept to accept, Galileo was to early to understand that concept, but we living in the 21st century must accept that difference and when it is violated, but anyone, we must condemn that person who confuses (and deliberately confuses in the case of Galileo) the difference between fact and Theory.

[Hardrada]

32. Hurray for the Church of Rome.

They get a lot of things right and many horrendously wrong.

[Dumak]

27. In my high school biology class, back in 75

we had brand new text books. We covered every chapter *except* evolution. Instructor just skipped over it without saying why. Idiots.

[Soylent Brice]

28. *forehead slap* n/t

[rollingrock]

39. We are officially

the dumbest nation on the planet

[ozu]

41. I think this must have been phrased badly

There's plenty of religious people who acknowledge evolution as scientific fact but just don't think it applies to creation theory.

In fact most of the religious people I know don't think God and evolution are mutually exclusive.

[byeya]

55. Who paid for the poll? Gallup is notorious for

picking wording to suit the money.

[sakabatou]

42. We have a long way to go.

At least it's more than those who don't believe in it.

[mwb970]

43. The ones who don't know about or understand evolution are the ones who don't "believe in" it.

This seems to be a matter of education, although with this type of person, once they decide evolution is "evil" and ungodly no amount of education will have the slightest effect.

[regnaD kciN]

44. As opposed to the day BEFORE Darwin's birthday...

...when only four in ten believed in evolution. And the day AFTER Darwin's birthday when, probably, only four in ten will believe in evolution.

:eyes:

[HomerRamone]

45. Don't these stats PROVE humans don't evolve? nt

[slackmaster]

47. I'm sorry to say this, but your response suggests that you hold a common misunderstanding

One often repeated by creationists:

That evolution always goes in one direction, toward greater complexity, sophistication, organization, etc.

Evolution has no such volition. Features that aren't needed tend to atrophy, like the eyes of blind cave fish. Families of animals can tend toward smaller individuals when conditions warrant it.

(Just kidding, I know you know better but I enjoy exercising my evolution argument techniques.)

[GinaMaria]

119. Here's mine

"It's just a theory"

So is gravity but I don't see you jumping off the roof.

[vinylsolution]

46. Happy Darwin Day, everyone! (February 12)

It's always nice to be among thinking people.

[sofa king]

137. Happy Darwin Day to you, too!

Since we're celebrating Darwins, we might as well mention another important one. Recently I was wandering about the Internet and happened across Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Erasmus founded the Birmingham Lunar Society, with which both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin corresponded. Check out a couple of things Erasmus Darwin had to say in his heyday:

Would it be too bold to imagine that, in the great length of time since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the commencement of the history of mankind would it be too bold to imagine that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament, which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by irritations, sensations, volitions and associations, and thus possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to its posterity, world without end!

He also wrote a poem which appears to anticipate theories of the Big Bang and the Big Crunch:

Star after star from Heaven's high arch shall rush,
Suns sink on suns, and systems systems crush,
Headlong, extinct, to one dark center fall,
And Death and Night and Chaos mingle all!

I have a suspicion that Patrick O'Brian may have used Erasmus Darwin as the model for his character Dr. Stephen Maturin, who is also a physician and a natural philosopher, and occasional (and occasionally unwilling) medical confidant of royalty.

The apple of Charles Darwin didn't fall far from the tree, but Erasmus Darwin had another notable grandson who is less esteemed these days. That grandson was Francis Galton, founder of the eugenics movement which was so closely embraced by Adolf Hitler.

Yeah, it's true: I can't write four paragraphs without mentioning Hitler.

[PfcHammer]

48. Depends on your perspective. If you're part of the propaganda machine

this is a hugh success. The population has reached a minimum in terms
of intelligence. If you're on the side of truth, science, and progress
it's a massive fail.

[dcindian]

50. The word believe in this instance is sickening.

No need to believe it. Science doesn't ask for belief that is reserved for the sky daddy crowd.

[jimlup]

51. Yep, that's the nail on the head

"Belief" isn't something that one holds as a scientist. A system of knowledge that is based on observables and testable hypothesis is not a "belief".

[daleo]

53. 4 in 10 in the States

Its much higher in less fundamentalist countries.

I don't know how 36% can "not have an opinion". I mean, they must lean a little bit one way of the other. It is probably just that the public mood in the U.S. is discouraging people from admitting it.

[dipsydoodle]

54. Just about sums up

the general level of intelligence of some Americans - present company here on DU excepted of course.

[superconnected]

56. I do not believe these statistics. Even very religious people I know, believe in Evolution.

[laconicsax]

73. The results in this poll are consistent with others on the subject.

A similar poll from five years ago:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

Another one from about a year later:


Creationists and other idiots are quite numerous.

[AndrewP]

57. Another one of the joys of religious bullshit. Ignorance.

[wizstars]

60. a GREAT quote:

"If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance 'God.'" -Jerry Coyne, geneticist, University of Chicago

[AndrewP]

74. THAT is awesome!

[prostock69]

58. This is mainly because of the sorry fact that 95% of Americas are scientifically illiterate

It's a fact that the more you are educated, the less likely you are to have superstitious beliefs.

[wizstars]

59. Six of 10 evolved from the monkey...

...that landed on his head coming down from the tree

[acmavm]

62. It seems like we're slipping back into the Dark(er) Ages sometimes. N/T

[veganlush]

64. faith means DECIDING to believe something...

that the evidence we all have at our disposal doesn't support. I think that many people, perhaps most, that claim to know the creator of the universe (and on a first-name basis!) and that attend church and so on, are just hedging their bets in case of a real judgment day. As a non-believer (I don't claim to know the origin of the world) I am proud to say that I can walk the straight and narrow path and treat my fellow mortals right without the threat of hell or the promise of heaven.

[veganlush]

65. I don't remember where I heard/saw this...

or exactly how it was said, but it was to the effect of: "with science we fly spaceships to the moon, with religion we fly planes into buildings"

[Lorien]

69. Here:

[santamargarita]

66. Unfortunately, most people are hard-wired into this bullshit

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[WCGreen]

67. On a lighter note...

Comedy Central is airing Idiocracy...

Here is a synopsis from IMDB...

Joe Bauers, an Army librarian, is judged to be absolutely average in every regard, has no relatives, has no future, so he's chosen to be one of the two test subjects in a top-secret hibernation program. He and hooker Rita were to awaken in one year, but things go wrong and they wake up instead in 2505. By this time, stupid people have outbred intelligent people; the world is (barely) run by morons--and Joe and Rita are the smartest people in America. Written by Anonymous

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/plotsummary

[Zhade]

83. I contend that that movie is a horror film, not a comedy.

Scared the hell out of me!

[WCGreen]

85. It is scary...

What happens when Right Wing Christian modern deniers get into power...

[Kellen RN]

75. Where I live I fear that the percentage is far lower...

Bible belt, America, AKA Oklahoma. People laugh at me when I talk about evolution around here. Nurses who have a generous knowledge about biology laugh at me. I'm giving up on my home state. Long gone are the days of Woodie Guthrie and progressiveness.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

90. Welcome to DU!

You will find this place a terrific oasis!

:hi:

[MellowDem]

76. Stupid way to ask the question..

but supposedly, this is an improvement over the last one I saw, where Americans were 33-33-33 (or something) with regards to this question.

[Zhade]

79. WOW. Considering it's a well-established fact proven again and again, that's just sad.

And not a little frightening.

[gauguin57]

86. Ugh. This makes me want to be sick.

My scientist dad is rolling over in his grave. He'd be so appalled at what's been allowed to happen to science in this country under Ex-President Dumbya.

[gauguin57]

87. OK, holy rollers, lemme spell this out for you all ... slowly. A scientific theory ...

... is as close to a stone-cold fact as you can get. The word "theory" in science doesn't mean the same thing the right wingers mean when they say, "I have a theory that Barack Obama isn't a U.S. citizen."

These people refuse to learn anything or understand anything. They want to believe god made woman out of a man's rib, and that Cain and Abel somehow had wives to have children with (and yet didn't commit incest).

"Fairy tales ... can come true ... it can happen to you ...."

nimrods.

[20score]

88. I remember when Rayguns became president and the religious nuts started to come out

in the open. They started by asking, "don't you have an open mind?" It's been down hill ever since.

K&R

[serrano2008]

91. Is this for believing in "evolution" as a whole or that humans evolved from apes?

I'll start off by saying that I'm smart enough to not know either way if humans evolved from Apes or if god put us here, because I wasn't around to witness the event. Therefore, all theories are equally plausible and ridiculous to me.

But when they ask these questions, are the people who don't believe in evolution saying they don't believe that any species evolves or specifically that humans didn't evolve from apes?

Obviously, we don't know for sure that humans evolved from apes, but to say that no species evolve is just stupid.

There are many instances in nature where animals evolve and in fact become other animals over time. I can understand those that correctly question evolution (just as the SHOULD ALSO be questioning if God put us here) but you cannot logically argue that "evolution" doesn't exist.

[Eryemil]

92. Actually -we- know. You apparently haven't taken the time to learn.

Please don't embarrass yourself.

[20score]

93. This post put it nicely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3734247&mesg_id=3734255

[progressive_realist]

105. Evolutionary scientists do not claim that humans evolved from apes.

That's never been the claim. The actual claim is that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. The difference between these two claims is like the difference between these two statements:

1. You and your sister have the same mother.
2. Your sister is your mother.

At some point in the chain of transmission of knowledge from the scientists to you stood someone who was not intelligent enough to understand the difference between these two statements. I would suggest educating yourself closer to the source.

[RadiationTherapy]

107. You aren't here to witness me! Maybe I don't exist!

AAAAHHHHHHHHH!

[serrano2008]

112. Geez, do other people have the same experience on DU as I do?

Where you get about the dumbest people in the world who respond to your post and argue with you about things you don't even say?

It's like an adult left their account logged in when they left for work and their 10 year old is responding.

- 1st response says he has 100% proof that humans evolved from apes and I'm stupid with my statement that I don't know either way

- 2nd response was more coherent at least though still not addressing anything I was asking or stated in my post

- 3rd response now claims that no one thinks humans evolved from apes (except maybe responder #1?) even though that is completely irrevelant to my post as well, yet still I'm too dumb too understand why I didn't make the point that this guy is trying to make before he brought it up.

- 4th response is the most intelligent of them all, and the sarcasm is appreciated.


Here's my point...when they ask 100 random people in a survey if they believe in "evolution" the majority of those people assume they're asking if humans evolved from apes and will answer "No". Obviously evolution DOES exist (get off my case you fuckin wacko responders) but depending on how they word the question in the survey, their results will not reflect this correctly.

[Zhade]

135. The third response is irrelevant? So you DIDN'T say the following?

"I'll start off by saying that I'm smart enough to not know either way if humans evolved from Apes"

[slackmaster]

127. Nobody who knows jack about the subject says humans evolved from apes

:argh:

[eridani]

96. Actually scientists don't "believe in" the theory of evolution.

Scientists USE the theory of evolution.

[Eryemil]

97. Brilliant! So well said

[acsmith]

130. ....

and can be demonstrated in the lab.

[GeorgeGist]

99. Evolution has moved on ...

while the non-believers remain stuck on nonsense.

[No Elephants]

100. In other news, on Lincoln's 200th birthday (same day), the Confederate flag is still being flown.

[sofa king]

108. Frightening.

Leo Strauss would be unsurprised. He was the guy who proposed that what the ancients were really saying was hidden deep in the text, so that the unwashed, uncomprehending masses would not and could not divulge it.

The followers of Leo Strauss went on to become the neoconservatives, and they took Strauss' theories a step further and adopted the "never tell the truth" rule, which was used with such great success (and regularity) these past eight years.

I'll say this and then shut up: if you cannot think your way through the six or eight logical steps necessary to accept the scientific basis for evolution, you're a sucker, and you can and will be exploited for the rest of your life by people who can think through it. They need you to believe rather than to think, and our nation was very nearly destroyed because there are so many people who prefer not to do the heavy lifting.

Karl Rove is an atheist and most likely a believer in evolution. He turned his diabolical mind to the manipulation of those who are not, and did it easily. Keep that in mind lest you think that evolution is an abstraction not worthy of your time.

[Sandrine for you]

116. Someone have stat from other country to make comparison ??

[dflprincess]

117. Strangely, the less apt a person is to believe in the evolution of the species

the more apt they are to believe in social Darwinism.

"The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority." (Or for some, the superiority of the God they pray to.)

[JitterbugPerfume]

118. some do not understand what Theory means in Science

a scientific theory has been put through intensive testing .Science does not call anything a fact. It is the nature of science to want to know more, and things formerly called "fact" (like the sun moves around the earth) has been proven false and science accepts it a false

Evolution just is , like gravity just is.If things started falling up , we would not dispute the theory of gravity , we would try to find out what the hell is going on to break a law of nature! If evolution can be disproved with a better tested theory , so be it . That is where creationism fails, it depends on faith instead of intensive testing

It is not a question of belief Not believing does not make it false. It just makes the non believer ill informed.

[EFerrari]

124. The headline is a little funny, though, because of people who have an opinion,

more than half do believe in evolution.

[BirminghamExaminer]

122. And you wonder why the GOP wants to keep people uneducated...

[acsmith]

128. proof...

...that americans are really stupid. everyone in the world belives it, just the americans in the homeland dont realise it.

[acsmith]

129. .

funny that all the people making fun of anti-darwinists also are making fun of anyone that doesn't vaccinate their children. strange twist of irony there, not that the reactive trolls on DU can understand that.

WORLD VIEW PEOPLE, GET ONE!!

[Zhade]

136. Funny that both anti-evolutionists and anti-vaxxers have ZERO evidence to back up their bullshit.

Meanwhile, those of us on the correct side? ALL the evidence.

[bitchkitty]

141. 6 out of 10 Americans are stupid as shit. Big surprise n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

144. Evolution...its the law..nt

[JCMach1]

146. Leading survey... designed to get a low answer with a fence-sitter response

Like giving a poll last October that said who is the right man for the job as president Obama, McCain, or none of the above.

There would have been at least 15-25% in that last category if you had asked it that way with a third 'none of the above' option.