Full article with graphs and all... http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx June 1, 2012 In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism by Frank Newport PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process. Trend: Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? 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 Gallup has asked Americans to choose among these three explanations for the origin and development of human beings 11 times since 1982. Although the percentages choosing each view have varied from survey to survey, the 46% who today choose the creationist explanation is virtually the same as the 45% average over that period -- and very similar to the 44% who chose that explanation in 1982. The 32% who choose the "theistic evolution" view that humans evolved under God's guidance is slightly below the 30-year average of 37%, while the 15% choosing the secular evolution view is slightly higher (12%). The Most Religious Americans Are Most Likely to Be Creationists Gallup's question wording explicitly frames the three alternatives in terms of God's involvement in the process of human development, making it less than surprising to find that the more religious the American, the more likely he or she is to choose the creationist viewpoint. Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? By church attendance, May 2012 Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church. The views of Americans who attend almost every week or monthly fall in between those of the other two groups. Still, those who seldom or never attend church are more likely to believe that God guided the evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved with no input from God. Majority of Republicans Are Creationists Highly religious Americans are more likely to be Republican than those who are less religious, which helps explain the relationship between partisanship and beliefs about human origins. The major distinction is between Republicans and everyone else. While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree. Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? By political party ID, May 2012 Those With Postgraduate Education Least Likely to Believe in Creationist Explanation Americans with postgraduate education are most likely of all the educational groups to say humans evolved without God's guidance, and least likely to say God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The creationist viewpoint "wins" among Americans with less than a postgraduate education. Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? By education, May 2012 Implications Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982. The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. More broadly, some 78% of Americans today believe that God had a hand in the development of humans in some way, just slightly less than the percentage who felt this way 30 years ago. All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins. Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.
I wasn't going to post in this thread, but something has consistently kept bugging my mind. Granted there are those who take doctrines much too literally, and aside those who use the excuse of religion for monetary purposes, what's so bad about religion itself? The moral and ethical principles that is taught through religion is equivalent to any other way of acquiring moral and ethical principles. How does it matter if you take a bus to a location or a car to that same location? It's just a vehicle. As a man of Science myself, Science provides the understanding of the universe. However, how can one explain the concept of morality and ethics scientifically? There are no mathematical equations that defines morality, ethics and philosophy. One who studies Science to the level of great historical scientists such as Einstein, Newton, Liebniz, and etc, will at some point turn to philosophy for moral and ethical knowledge. And religion is simply an extension of philosophy, for those who cannot grasp the understanding of Science. And I've said it before, Ph.D is abbreviation for Doctor of Philosophy. So all scientists are to some extent, researchers of Philosophy. So I ask, what's so bad about religion? Is it really religion that is at fault, or is it the people who make up the groups of people who follow said religion and misinterpret the religion? Edit: another note. Religion has been followed for tens of thousands of years. Surely you can't expect this survey to demonstrate anything else lol. Changes in beliefs take time, and a lot of it. Maybe this survey results might change in another 100 years.
you ask, what so bad about religion and is it really the religion or the people? Well first you need people to create religion. In the old days powerful people use religion to control people. But let's not get into that. Your first few sentences made me laugh. So you are saying as long as religion teaches us good moral and ethical principals, it's ok for some of them to use religion to gain monetary purposes, dictate what we can and can not do, outcast those who don't believe in their religion and control those who are weak and poor and molest our children and declare war on others? Hmmm....sounds like that's completely opposite of what they should be teaching. Or is it do as I say, not as I do? If it's equivalent either way, than why do we need religion? Imagine if there is no religion, how much less wars would we see now and in our history? Why can't we just have good people and bad people? Why do we need to be associate to a religion? You are right, it doesn't matter if you take a bus or a car. It's the driver of these vehicles that is causing the problem and where they are claiming to take you. I still say as long as we educate ourselves and our children properly and follow the golden rule. We would do just fine in the human race. Here's a couple of videos you should watch that shows we don't need religion or god to have morals. [video=youtube;1qiaJ0myd2U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qiaJ0myd2U[/video] And this one! [video=youtube;hCovYF51qHE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCovYF51qHE[/video]
I asked a legitimate, unbiased question. I don't see why you feel the need to be condencending and arrogant in your reply. You've made me regret to have attempted to discuss this matter civilly. Please descend from your high horse. I'm a scientist, of the same group of people whose research methods you praise, but I don't see myself on the same horse you're riding. The problem isn't your evidence. It's your communication and interaction tactics.
You say religion has been followed for tens of thousands of years. Just because it's been followed for a long time doesn't make it right. Otherwise, we would still be sacrificing people and throwing them down volcanoes.
I never said it was right. I said it is difficult to change in a short time. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. Scientists don't bend arguments like you're doing.
Sorry you feel that way about me, I don't feel that I am condencending and arrogant at all. You ask the question and I answered it the way I see fit. And I think you are the one on the high horse, just because you don't like my communication method doesn't make me arrogant. I feel the same way about you. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen!
If you take away the religion and science variables, your debate tactics mirror that of extreme Christians. You say what you want to say and you bend people's argument to fit your own. That's not scientific whatsoever. I regret even stepping into this thread. Good bye. Enjoy discussing to yourself in the future.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, i just have a problem with your statement. I'm clearly stating that just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it right. How am I bending the argument? Here you go again on your scientist high horse again. I'm sorry I'm not as intelligent as you are!
A fucking joke, considering all you do is shove scientific facts down people's throat. I'm glad my scientific high horse has given you a taste of what you've been doing to religious people. Its so ironic this thread is.
Just like the rest of them, once they lose the argument, they resort to profanity and leave. Don't get your panties all bunched up just cause we don't see eye to eye. Life goes on!
Lose the argument? LOL. You're right because at this point I can't think of anything to say that would get through that thick ass skull of yours. I finally understand how you feel with Christians. And now, I'll give you the chance to pretend to think you've won the debate, because I will not waste my time with this one way debate of yours anymore. Good night to you, sir.
