back to article Only 1 in 5 Americans believe in pure evolution – and that's an upswing

According to a new poll by YouGov, the number of Americans who believe in evolution not directed by God is rising, but those pure evolutionists still only account for one in five of those surveyed. Specifically, YouGov asked its "representative sample of 1,000 Americans" how they felt about three versions of human evolution …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Tim036

    Teaching Rubbish --- Ugh !

    Any scientist engaged in pure reasearch, will shudder at lessons being taught that are laughable rubbish.

    USA seems to have cornered a lot folk who are hell bent on making their educational curriculum in some states on matters of evolution a very sad event.

    Spreading ignorance is about as bad as it gets.

    Its a bit like finding major errors in text books, or tick a box exams where the person who created the exam didn't understand some parts of the topic ! I've found both in the UK.

    Cringeworthy in the extreme !

    1. Fink-Nottle

      Re: Teaching Rubbish --- Ugh !

      I'd agree that the education system has more pressing problems than teaching evolution.

      I recently came across a young Council employee who, when presented with a series of readings, genuinely did not understand why an average value was a more accurate measure than the last reading in the series.

      How can you possibly go through 12 years of compulsory education and end up not understand basic mathematical concepts?

      I despair, sometimes.

  2. Eradicate all BB entrants

    I think my son summed it up quite well ....

    ..... when he said 'I think there might be a god, but I don't believe in Jesus'.

    I'm an atheist, I do not believe in God (you know, the Christian loving God, that wiped out humanity ..... twice) but I will accept that different people have different faiths, mortality is scary and some people need that safety blanket of heaven to cope.

    Science is there to be questioned, religion is to be accepted. I would rather question.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Educate...

    As long as people are thinking for themselves and not swallowing the media message, we will have this problem.

    Clearly, these guys are not watching enough movies, documentaries or TV dramas. They can't be reading enough magazines or books either. This free thinking is turning people into loose cannons.

    Maybe some kind of compulsory adult education classes should be introduced, or reduced state benefits/services based on their browsing history (if they browse the Dawkins Foundation a lot then they get more service from the state than if they browse extremist sites like Biblegateway, for example).

    But something drastic needs to be done if wall-to-wall evolutionary education and mockery of creationism isn't working.

  4. James 51

    Title is too long

    "He (and The Reg is willing to bet that most of them believe that He is, indeed, a He and not a She)"

    Gender is a function of biology. It’s hard to imagine that if God exists that it has a gender and if it does, why? It would imply the existence of other Gods of the opposite gender and by extension, lots of little Gods and Godettes running round the place (Mount Olympus?). Maybe they’re the ones wreaking havoc.

    Need a spawn of divine being icon.

  5. g e
    Devil

    As an atheist...

    I explain things thus to religious types:

    You know how many many years ago people would throw stones at the moon, shout & wave spears at solar eclipses to drive off whatever was 'eating the day'? You know how we look back on those ancient civilisations and smile yet we understand how, back in those superstitious and unenlightened times, they might come to think those things and hold those beliefs?

    That's how atheists look at you.

    1. andreas koch
      Thumb Up

      @ g e - Re: As an atheist...

      I usually ask if they could please tell me where Cain's wife came from.

      1. Alien8n
        Alien

        Re: @ g e - As an atheist...

        The one I use is "where is Satan?"

        At this point the truly religious will state "in Hell" and thus showing that they really don't understand the Bible at all. 3 points to blow a religious person's mind (this is based on what the Bible actually says, not how it's "interpreted"):

        1. Hell is not a place any being (human, demon, devil or angelic) can "visit" and return from. It clearly states that Hell is a one way trip to non-existence, no "eternity of torture".

        2. The Bible clearly says Satan chats to God in Heaven on a regular basis. In fact he's described as one of God's senior angels at one point. It also states that nothing he does is without God's consent. Read Job.

        3. The casting out of Satan from Heaven is detailed in Revelations. This is a book of prophecy and therefore a description of future events. As the fall of Satan is described as a future event he must, logically, still be in Heaven and furthermore this means he's still an angel. As God cannot have sin or evil in Heaven this also means Satan is good.

        The above must be true if you actually believe the Bible, it's written in the Bible and therefore must be correct. If you genuinely believe the Earth is a few thousand years old then you must also believe Satan is good, everything evil that happens is by God's will and God and Satan are best buddies who like nothing better than to sit and have long chats about how to screw up people's lives. :)

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Alien

          Re: @ g e - As an atheist...

          It also states that nothing he does is without God's consent. Read Job."

          Is that the one by R.A. Heinlein?

        2. jake Silver badge

          @Alien8n (was: Re: @ g e - As an atheist...)

          Your point number 3 ...

          "Revelations" is probably the syphilitic ravings of John the Apostle, describing what was going on outside his jail cell on Patmos. Read it in that context, you'll understand what I mean.

          I am NOT an Xtian, but I have studied the bible. In several languages.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Still

    On the upside that's now more Americans believing in evolution that have actually evolved.

  7. peter 45

    American logic

    And the Americans still fervently believe in democracy and go to war to impose it without a trace of irony.

    1. g e

      Re: American logic

      I think that's just why they say they're having another war.

      It's just a pretext for what they actually want.

  8. NomNomNom

    of course it doesn't help that the evidence for evolution is somewhat exaggerated by science types. One question that goes unanswered for example is why are there still monkeys around if they are supposed to have evolved into humans? the fact we don't see new humans evolving in monkey enclosures in zoos is rarely commented on. I am not saying it disproves evolution (you can't disprove a negative) but it certainly raises questions that the likes of dawkins etc are loath to address in their fancy books on the subject.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Are you serious? This is an often asked question that there is reams of evidence for.

      We evolved from a common ancestor, not the same great apes you see around you today.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Facepalm

        Have I just bit?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Wow

      @Nom

      Noooooooooooooooooo. I thought dawkins had found severe religious nut jobs to find people who said that (it was a religious school). It was not some linear and absolute change from one form to another (monkey-man) it was a common ancestor which we split from. Through common ancestors which is traceable through genetics we see what diverged from where. We see the relationships between the current species.

      I do now see why you have such difficulty with science in the climate debates. Your spherical chicken may lay but you wont have any real eggs to eat

    3. GrantB
      Trollface

      you forgot the troll icon

      Take this one as your trolling badge.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      "their fancy books on the subject"

      That says it all. If you'd read those fancy books then you wouldn't be spouting such idiotic nonsense.

      Sinner! Heal thyself...by reading.

  9. r2ro

    ...and God did not directly guide this process...

    That statement "...and God did not directly guide this process." implies the existence of a god, as a true atheist I would not accept participation on such survey as all possible answers are skewed towards the existence of certain deity.

    Take completely out god out of the equitation, then you can have my opinion.

    1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      equitation

      God rides a horse?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: equitation

        There are no gawd/esses.

        And if their were, my horses would kick the shit out of them for being uppity.

      2. hplasm
        Happy

        Re: equitation

        A six-legged horse...

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipnir‎

      3. Kubla Cant
        WTF?

        Re: equitation

        "He delighteth not in the strength of the horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man." (Psalm 147)

        The first part seems to mean that he owns a horse, but doesn't like it. It's hard to know what to make of the second part.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: equitation

          ""He delighteth not in the strength of the horse: he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man." (Psalm 147)

          The first part seems to mean that he owns a horse, but doesn't like it. It's hard to know what to make of the second part."

          That's why all the picture books of ancient hebrew and early christians have long dresses and the evil Roman soldiers have miniskirts.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    W O W!

    Makes the 'mericans look rather stupid!

  11. JohnnyZ

    Why is it beyond the mentality of church chickens to believe that maybe their god created human beings and other animals via evolution? They are always referring to nature, but never considering that God's nature is nature itself. Many of them are strangers to nature and locked into a belief that nature and God are somehow separate. They cling to a man made book while ignoring what God's nature is telling them. In some respects, they seem to hate God's nature while proclaiming that they love God. Really quite dumb how they never fail to claim that certain groups of people are "unnatural," yet they are totally ignorant about how God's nature works. Seems to me that they are not capable of this line of thought, as they use religion as an excuse for their willful ignorance and as a tool for male domination and power over other people's lives. The laws of nature are God's laws, not some book written by a bunch of goat herders that created religion as a weapon of conformity against those that have other beliefs. "God is both good and bad, the positive and the negative." Only a fool would believe that God is any more perfect than God's own nature is.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This mental illness of "religion" needs to be addressed.

    1. Flashy Red

      Aye, sir, it does.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    All those faith believers who dismiss scientific discovery should be denied medical treatment and let their god treat them!

    1. NomNomNom

      so be it. faith healing and orgone energy have healed far more people than so-called "modern" medicine ever has.

      1. jake Silver badge

        @NomNomNom

        Are you really that stupid? Or are you just trolling?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @NomNomNom

          I think we can safely assume that NomNomNom is trolling now.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @NomNomNom

          "Are you really that stupid? Or are you just trolling?"

          No, it really is that stupid!

          I bet it's seen a doctor. And I'd wager it was born in a hospital.

          When its cancer afflicts it, it will be modern medicine which will be its saviour, not the bible.

          Religious types are always the BUGGEST hypocites.

        3. hplasm
          FAIL

          Re: @NomNomNom

          He's proving that the God botherers aren't the climate Deniers he claims they are.

      2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

        "faith healing and orgone energy have healed far more people than so-called "modern" medicine ever has"

        That is probably true, given that, probably (does anyone know the numbers?), more people lived since the origin of homo sapiens until the advent of "modern" medicine (and so only had access to the loony kinds of medicine, at best) than during the period of existence of "modern" medicine. That is likely to change soon, though.

        1. Kubla Cant

          more people lived since the origin of homo sapiens until the advent of "modern" medicine (and so only had access to the loony kinds of medicine, at best) than during the period of existence of "modern" medicine

          I don't know the numbers either, but I'm fairly sure that there are more people alive to day than ever lived up to, say, 50 years ago. What proportion of the people alive have access to modern medicine in any useful way is a different question.

  14. Miek
    Trollface

    This really only proves that 1 in 5 people in America are not Americans.

    1. Fehu
      Pirate

      not Americans?

      So, are you saying that only recent immigrants are sophisticated enough to understand that the crap being sold by organized religion is just that, crap? Or are you saying that if you believe in evolution you are not a "REAL" American? Sounds vaguely familiar. Now I understand why so many say that the Tea Party is the American Taliban. Yieks!! It's Mieks.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How many of these thought that Jesus was a former president? Or that he was born in the "Good ol' US of A"?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'd like to see the same poll carried out among the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims.

    'Mericans don't have a monopoly of common ignorance y'know.

  17. robin penny

    Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution

    The THEORY of evolution suggests a "tree of life" where we started from something basic & evolved into more sophisticated creatures. Unfortunately the unpalatable truth for those who want to belive this is that genetic evidence does not support it. As reported in New Scientist some while back, the GENETIC EVIDENCE suggests a "web of life" instead i.e. what you would see genetically from hybridisation - like when you get a cross breed between 2 plants.

    I think the article is in the January 2009 issue of New Scientist.

    1. David Paul Morgan
      Go

      Re: Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution

      web-of-life is true, but really applies to simpler organisms.

      The 'tree of life' on which natural selection seems to affect, grows out of the web-of-life.

      at least, that's the way I perceive it.

      Also, species 'self selection' based on sexual attractiveness or appearance is not, strictly speaking' darwinian natural selection, hence the appearence of peacock feathers, birds-of-paradise or bower-bird behaviours. The species 'selects' the descendants, not the environment.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution

        DNA is a funny thing.

        I have a couple acres of Merlot grapes here that have Eucalyptus genes. I didn't do it (not on purpose, anyway, because I don't like the flavo(u)r of VapoRub in my grapes. nor my plonk). I continue to grow them, press them, and ferment them, as a favo(u)r for UC Davis.

        Ravenswood Winery also has a Merlot with a hint of a Eucalyptus background note ... I don't know if they have had the DNA checked, but the grapes are grown in the field alongside the road leading up to the tasting room, which used to be lined with huge Eucalyptus treesweeds. (They were removed a couple years ago after one fell over in a storm).

        The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine ... Simak, not Clarke.

    2. Alien8n
      Alien

      Re: Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution

      Actually I think you'll find that even as creatures are constantly evolving so does the theory of evolution. It's called science, amending the theory to best fit the latest evidence. It does not invalidate the original theory, but instead compliments it and makes it fitter for purpose.

      Hybridisation has been known about for centuries. It's how most of our domesticated animals and plants came into being. Want a faster dog? Breed your dog with your neighbour's faster dog. Repeat until you get a greyhound.

    3. Miek
      Linux

      Re: Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution

      "Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution" -- Look up Speciation

      1. Rampant Spaniel

        Re: Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution

        Which is one reason I prefer science. Science frequently accepts it was wrong. Science doesn't start a war or behead anyone for criticising it, although expect some shunning if you attempt to disprove someone populars lifes work. Science evolves over time, ideas are tested and either survive or are replaced. Science rarely beheads nonbelievers.

        In religion it is usually not wise to argue, you can question but disagreement tends to not go down too well. Religion is like a catalyst, it can bring out the best in people (during the Rwanadan massacre, while the UN was playing pocket pool, Muslims and Jehovas witness's and probably other faiths were sheltering both Hutu's and Tutsi's sometimes resulting everyones deaths) and sadly the worst in people.

        1. MrXavia
          Mushroom

          Re: Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution

          On certain subjects I suspect scientists are just as bad as the creationist lot....

          The problem I see with scientists is they often don't look outside the box and try and find flaws in their theories...

          Things such as the theory of relativity, the laws of thermodynamics, and even evolution should be challenged at every opportunity. the assumption that we have these theories correct is arrogant, even if they are right we should be challenging them, trying to break them, then may we discover something we didn't know about those rules...

          just because we think we know these things are facts not just theories, we should not presume that we have the right answer..

          1. Rampant Spaniel

            Re: Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution

            I did state earlier that most scientists are pretty honest about science 'facts'. That its basically the current best explanation.

            You are right that scientists don't as individuals look too far outside their own box and accept criticism too well, but you rarely see them starting wars and \ or beheading people because of a dispute over the speed of light. Please do give examples :-)

            However, for any given scientist there is usually someone he pissed off at a conference trying to discredit his (or her) work. It can get to be quite competitive due to funding. If you mean looking at faith as a component of answers, there is some science that tries to merge faith and science but its rare and not well funded, not least because the faith element by its very nature does not lend itself to scientific methodology.

          2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
            Mushroom

            Re: Even Science doesn't support the widely held views of evolution

            "Things such as the theory of relativity, the laws of thermodynamics, and even evolution should be challenged at every opportunity. the assumption that we have these theories correct is arrogant, even if they are right we should be challenging them, trying to break them, then may we discover something we didn't know about those rules..."

            They are challenged. Hence all the excitement when some scientist thought they'd identified a faster than light neutrino.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like