Only 39% of Americans believe in evolution

[synchroswimr]

... Is it weird that I believe in both evolution and God?

No. In grad school (Geology), I met a LOT of people who accepted evolution and still believed in the God of the Bible.

And this has been mentioned, but evolution isn't a belief, the proper term is accept because you accept or reject the evidence. :-)

[Doomed Harlottt]

The other thing is that the anti-evolution fundies are great at PR and great at exploiting Americans' democratic impulses in a perverse way.

Most Americans buy into the notion that "all [people] are created equal" and that we all -- regardless of education, intelligence, birth, bank account, and success in life -- should have a say in our political process and an equal opportunity to be heard. I believe in those ideals too. Our nation is founded on the idea that our betters have no business telling us what to think, say, or believe, or how to structure our lives.

The problem is when people try to apply these ideals to science. Scientific truth is not a matter of democratic preference. The facts of how the physical world works are not up for a vote. Learning those facts is a matter of intensive study and examination of the evidence through the process of checks and balances known as the scientific method. Some people --through years of rigorous study -- have a better understanding of those facts and the evidence supporting our understanding of the facts than the rest of us. But there is something in the American character that rebels against the idea of a priesthood with esoteric knowledge dictating to the rest of us what we should think, and, unfortunately, the anti-evolution people have managed to cast the scientific community as just such a priesthood.

As part of our impulse to level the playing field, too many of us want to believe that we are literally the equal in the area of science as those who hold Ph.Ds and conduct rigorous studies. That's why you get ridiculous people in America who know virtually nothing about the science, and yet are arrogant to scoff at it from a position of ignorance. It's the ugly flip side of the many good things about American populism and democratic ideals.

[Anxious Girl]

Evolution isn't something you "believe in". You accept it based on the overwhelming evidence supporting it. Or you reject it in favor of ignorance and superstition. Lots of people manage to accept the truth of evolution and continue to believe in their religion.

Thanks. I honestly didn't know that the proper term was "accept". :oops:

[Austin]

For the average layperson who has been out of college for a long time and is working in a non-scientific field, I found Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything to be very informative and very readable. He doesn't ever refer to the deity issue one way or another, either.

[Hane]

Does anyone know what's with all the wannabe fundie Catholics in the US who espouse creationism now like Santorum, Andrew Schafly and what's-her-name on the Bill Maher show that thought she was a witch?

I believe it's because they've found an expedient course that will allow them to ally themselves with fellow social conservatives. A couple of decades ago, the ultraconservative columnist Cal Thomas actually accused Pope John Paul II of "caving in" to evolutionists. I remember thinking, "Cal Thomas is either a non-Catholic or a not very well-informed one if he's unaware that Catholicism doesn't eschew the theory of evolution." (He's a conservative evangelical Christian.)

I attended a production of the comedy show "Late Night Catechism," in which an actress playing a nun conducts a "religious-ed" class for adults. She tells the story of the garden of Eden, then asks the audience where Cain's children came from. People came up with all kinds of crazy theories, until "Sister" firmly said, "We are CATHOLICS. We believe in EVOLUTION. The story of Eden is a MYTH, not a history lesson!" And she wasn't being a bit ironic!

[lizzy]

Catholics are not biblical literalists, so it isn't just this one nun. I think the idea is that we all know (or are supposed to know) that we are born sinful and that the story of the garden of eden is a story to help us understand why, but it isn't to be taken as strict truth. Instead, we are probably supposed to reflect on how God created us, but we are sinful.

I'm a lapsed Catholic without a copy of the cathechism, so if someone understands this better, feel free to step in.

That is not entirely true. Catholic dogma holds that Adam and Eve were the first humans and there existed a fall of man as a result of Adam's sin. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

A couple of points here. This does not imply a denial of biological evolution. Nor does it imply a strict reading of the Genesis timeline. Catholics are free to accept current scientific understanding of these concepts. Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. In that sense, the creation story is not so much about the story of the first two human bodies, as it is about the first two human souls God created.

[lizzy]

Does anyone know what's with all the wannabe fundie Catholics in the US who espouse creationism now like Santorum, Andrew Schafly and what's-her-name on the Bill Maher show that thought she was a witch?

I suspect it is an over-reaction to perceived modernism within the Church. Historically, change in the Catholic Church happens over centuries. However, after Vatican II, a number of very large changes happened virtually overnight. It upended the liturgy, redesigned churches, and yes, there was some non-traditional thought that entered into the discourse. Those that yearn for a time with less uncertainty, tend to paint everything that the Church has done in the last 50 years as tainted by evil. This includes not condemning the teaching of evolution.

It is unfortunate, if you ask me, since the church has contributed a great deal to science over the centuries.

Edited to add: The scary ones are not the anti-evolutionists. It is the geocentrists. I don't know how prevalent it is among protestant fundamentalism, but there is a minority (a small minority, thankfully) that are espousing not only young earth creationism, but also geocentrism as well. If you want to have your mind blown google Robert Sungenis.

[medievalist1980]

Thanks, Lizzy. Glad someone has a catechism. I haven't seen one since the Christmas Eve one of my brothers and I took my dad's to solve our debate on the virgin birth, only to discover that we were both potentially right as the point of contention is a "mystery of the faith."

As for catholics disavowing evolution, I have no idea why other than people seem to really want to embrace the bible literally. It is a major pet peeve of mine and back when I was teaching at a catholic univsity, I would include the fact that catholics believe in evolution.

Oh, and I would like to see the wording, too, because, even as an agnostic, I would have a tricky time saying I didn't think God was involved, even though I still think evolution is a correct theory.

[QAF_Rocks]

That is not entirely true. Catholic dogma holds that Adam and Eve were the first humans and there existed a fall of man as a result of Adam's sin. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

Yes, that's what I always thought. The Catholic church believes that Adam and Eve were real people. I'm not surprised that a lot of modern Catholics (even nuns) reject that, but it is still the official party line, so to speak.

Unrelated to Catholicism, the thing that bugs me about creationists is that they are always stuck on their particular creation story from their particular religion. Of course, they just assume that their god is the only real god and their holy book's creation myth is the only one out there. If they even acknowledge that there are other stories, they see them as myths. They're sure not advocating that those myths be taught in science class.

[Islandmom]

I am really surprised by how low that percentage is. While it is not something I discuss on a daily basis with people, I would have placed the percentage higher. I am really floored by it, but as another poster said, I would be interested in seeing how the question was worded as I do know many people who believe in intelligent design or god led creation. Interesting.

[freejoytoo]

I'm confused. I thought there was a separation of church and state and America, so what is the justification of teaching creationism as fact and evolution as a myth? Evolution isn't a myth, it's scientific fact which doesn't belong to any religion! Surely there should be no teaching of any kind of religious belief in a science room?

[QAF_Rocks]

I'm confused. I thought there was a separation of church and state and America, so what is the justification of teaching creationism as fact and evolution as a myth? Evolution isn't a myth, it's scientific fact which doesn't belong to any religion! Surely there should be no teaching of any kind of religious belief in a science room?

It is illegal to teach creationism in public schools, but that doesn't stop people who want to sneak it in through the back door by casting doubt on evolution ("teach the controversy!") or trying to get schools to teach intelligent design, which is merely creationism watered down and repackaged.

[medievalist1980]

Yes, that's what I always thought. The Catholic church believes that Adam and Eve were real people. I'm not surprised that a lot of modern Catholics (even nuns) reject that, but it is still the official party line, so to speak.

Unrelated to Catholicism, the thing that bugs me about creationists is that they are always stuck on their particular creation story from their particular religion. Of course, they just assume that their god is the only real god and their holy book's creation myth is the only one out there. If they even acknowledge that there are other stories, they see them as myths. They're sure not advocating that those myths be taught in science class.

that's not how i read the quote and i just checked the online catechism (it just occurred to me that one most likely existed), but, apparently, you guys are right and i am wrong because we do believe in Adam. CCC 386-421 cover this. However, the Tree of Life is symbolic, so I guess we believe that Adam existed, but the story might not be the true story? But Adam and Eve totally existed .... Sorry for dwelling on this guys. I am happy to learn a new thing every day, though. :D

[emmiedahl]

No. In grad school (Geology), I met a LOT of people who accepted evolution and still believed in the God of the Bible.

And this has been mentioned, but evolution isn't a belief, the proper term is accept because you accept or reject the evidence. :-)

Most of the science majors I know are religious in some way, as are at least half of our professors (PhDs in various sciences). So, no, I don't think it is weird at all. For example, you can believe that the Bible contains history explained by Bronze Age sheep herders who had little scientific knowledge and thus contains vast over-simplifications, a lot of metaphor, etc, but is true in some sort of spirit.

Almost all of us in the science/academic world accept evolution, because scientists believe in empirical evidence. It is the basis of what we do. If fact contradicts your beliefs, you need to adjust your world-view. You don't have to abandon it completely, just adjust the part that has been proven wrong.

[medievalist1980]

Most of the science majors I know are religious in some way, as are at least half of our professors (PhDs in various sciences). So, no, I don't think it is weird at all. For example, you can believe that the Bible contains history explained by Bronze Age sheep herders who had little scientific knowledge and thus contains vast over-simplifications, a lot of metaphor, etc, but is true in some sort of spirit.

Almost all of us in the science/academic world accept evolution, because scientists believe in empirical evidence. It is the basis of what we do. If fact contradicts your beliefs, you need to adjust your world-view. You don't have to abandon it completely, just adjust the part that has been proven wrong.

so true. in my class last week, we discussed how Hammurabi's Code and the Egyptian Book of the Dead share common laws/moral behaviors with the Bible and how that probably (because nothing is ever for sure in history!) common cultural, regional values of some of the first civilizations.

[QAF_Rocks]

that's not how i read the quote and i just checked the online catechism (it just occurred to me that one most likely existed), but, apparently, you guys are right and i am wrong because we do believe in Adam. CCC 386-421 cover this. However, the Tree of Life is symbolic, so I guess we believe that Adam existed, but the story might not be the true story? But Adam and Eve totally existed .... Sorry for dwelling on this guys. I am happy to learn a new thing every day, though.

I'm still confused as to how Catholics can accept evolution while believing in the literal existence of Adam and Eve. Either the people mentioned in the creation story are a myth, or they existed, but it can't be both. To claim both doesn't make sense. If we accept that humans evolved, then surely we know that Adam and Eve were not actual people, let alone the first human beings on the planet.

[medievalist1980]

first, QAF_Rocks, you have to allow for "mysteries of the faith" where everything will be explained when we're dead. (i usually tell my students to picture it like a jedi mind trick and obi wan kenobi waving his hand in front of your face while saying "mystery of the faith"), but how i would fanwank it (yeah, i just said fanwank the bible), is that after letting hominids evolve from the sea and such, God guided evolution to the first homo sapiens, Adam and Eve (which God knows because he/she is God and he/she passed this info on), and we the rest of humanity comes from those first two homo sapiens.

again, i'm agnostic now, so i'm doing this more for pleasure and because i should be writing a lecture.

[Doomed Harlottt]

I'm confused. I thought there was a separation of church and state and America, so what is the justification of teaching creationism as fact and evolution as a myth? Evolution isn't a myth, it's scientific fact which doesn't belong to any religion! Surely there should be no teaching of any kind of religious belief in a science room?

As someone already noted, the creationists have been trying like crazy to skirt the constitutional prohibition on teaching creationism. They are doing this by attempting to cast creationism as a scientific theory called "intelligent design." I believe the Discovery Institute is the main organized group behind this effort.

A lot of the so-called science they use consists of pointing to the complexity of various life forms and saying, "Gee, it's really complex and therefore an intelligent consciousness must have designedf it." (They use science-y sounding words though.) They claim that many life forms show "irreducible complexity," -- which refers to a biological mechanism which is so complex that there is no more primitive precursor from which it could plausibly have evolved. The human eye is one much debunked example of supposed irreducible complexity.

These folks are also really into fallacious statistical arguments to the effect that chances of the earth and humanity turning out as we have is infinitismally small.

A few years ago, a federal court smacked down an effort to introduce "intelligent design" in an American public school district. The existence of God, i.e. the intelligent designer, is not verifiable or falsifiable in a scientific sense, and therefore it is a religious concept that cannot be taught to children in government run schools in the U.S.

[QAF_Rocks]

first, QAF_Rocks, you have to allow for "mysteries of the faith" where everything will be explained when we're dead. (i usually tell my students to picture it like a jedi mind trick and obi wan kenobi waving his hand in front of your face while saying "mystery of the faith"), but how i would fanwank it (yeah, i just said fanwank the bible), is that after letting hominids evolve from the sea and such, God guided evolution to the first homo sapiens, Adam and Eve (which God knows because he/she is God and he/she passed this info on), and we the rest of humanity comes from those first two homo sapiens.

again, i'm agnostic now, so i'm doing this more for pleasure and because i should be writing a lecture.

Oh, it's definitely interesting, but I think it would just make so much more sense if they could say Adam and Eve are mythological. I think most Catholics would be on board with that, but the hierarchy wouldn't be. If there's no literal "original sin," the whole theology really does fall apart.

Fanwanking aside, I don't know how people could decide that the first homo sapiens were Adam and Eve. I mean, there would have been more than two of them, in any case, and the first homo sapiens were born to actual mothers and fathers. They weren't the first ones on the planet.

[medievalist1980]

Oh, it's definitely interesting, but I think it would just make so much more sense if they could say Adam and Eve are mythological. I think most Catholics would be on board with that, but the hierarchy wouldn't be. If there's no literal "original sin," the whole theology really does fall apart.

Fanwanking aside, I don't know how people could decide that the first homo sapiens were Adam and Eve. I mean, there would have been more than two of them, in any case, and the first homo sapiens were born to actual mothers and fathers. They weren't the first ones on the planet.

Yup, I agree with your first point. As to your second, mystery of the faith ;)

edited to add: hey! I got to blanket trained! working my way up :)

[freejoytoo]

As someone already noted, the creationists have been trying like crazy to skirt the constitutional prohibition on teaching creationism. They are doing this by attempting to cast creationism as a scientific theory called "intelligent design." I believe the Discovery Institute is the main organized group behind this effort.

A lot of the so-called science they use consists of pointing to the complexity of various life forms and saying, "Gee, it's really complex and therefore an intelligent consciousness must have designedf it." (They use science-y sounding words though.) They claim that many life forms show "irreducible complexity," -- which refers to a biological mechanism which is so complex that there is no more primitive precursor from which it could plausibly have evolved. The human eye is one much debunked example of supposed irreducible complexity.

These folks are also really into fallacious statistical arguments to the effect that chances of the earth and humanity turning out as we have is infinitismally small.

A few years ago, a federal court smacked down an effort to introduce "intelligent design" in an American public school district. The existence of God, i.e. the intelligent designer, is not verifiable or falsifiable in a scientific sense, and therefore it is a religious concept that cannot be taught to children in government run schools in the U.S.

If you're arguing for intelligent design you're arguing for the existence of God, and apparently the Christian one at that. I don't believe in God anyway but what makes the Christian creation story the 'real' one? What about all the other creation myths, why aren't they being taught as well by that logic? I know it's because it's being pushed for by nutjob Christians but it's shocking that they are actually being supported.

[Doomed Harlottt]

For laughs it is always fun to visit the facebook pages of Ken Ham and Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis. Their commenters spend a lot of time congratulating themselves for knowing the "truth" about creation and pitying the poor deluded fools who accept evolution.

One particularly entertaining recent entry from Dr. Georgia Purdom expresses dismay that various companies write about evolution and the old age of the earth in their marketing materials. For example, a box of kids cereal has science facts written on the back, such as the fact that the crocodile has remained virtually unchanged for 70 million years. Or a box of sea salt goes back millions of years in its discussion of the origins of salt. As one commenter said, it's very "sad."

[freejoytoo]

Also, what's the motivation against teaching comprehensive sex ed if not religious? It seems the argument is that it's going to encourage teenagers to have sex, whilst in countries which have a comprehensive sex ed from an early age teen pregnancy rates are lower. There seems to be an underlying attitude that it's wrong for teenagers to have sex, even if they are of the age of consent, and I don't understand the attitude for that which doesn't come from religion and the idea that it's wrong to have sex before marriage.

[Rosa]

well, people's morals are separate from their religious beliefs (even if they don't think so - look at the cherrypicking among our beloved "Bible literalists")

There's no legislation sayin states have to have sex ed at all, as far as I know (individual states may require districts to do it.) The federal government gives grants for different programs; under Bush, those grants went to abstinence programs, not scientific sex ed. Just like the funding for anti-drug and anti-dropout programs. Starting in 2010 those were dropped and grants were given to public school programs with proven records of lowering teen pregnancy rates, but those didn't just go to public schools, they went to neighborhood, church & activist groups as well.

So any school district that wants to offer sex ed has to get the funding somewhere; usually from general education funds, which are overstretched right now, and who wants to go to the school board and defend why you're cutting busing or free breakfast in favor of sex ed?

[freejoytoo]

There should be funding for sex ed. It's stupid to just tell teenagers 'don't do it'. I think it's absolutely vital to tell teenagers how to tell themselves how to protect themselves sexually. If you don't that's how sexual myths like 'you can't get pregnant the first time' spread. I think it is beyond irresponsible to go on abstinence only. If you want the teen pregnancy rate to go down you have to educate people how to actually have safe sex.