October 30, 2014

5 facts about evolution and religion


Are faith and belief in evolution necessarily at odds? According to Pope Francis, the answer is no. Indeed, the pope recently reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church’s view that “evolution in nature is not inconsistent” with church teaching on creation, pushing the debate on human origins back into the news.

Although most U.S. Catholics accept the idea of evolution in some form, a substantial percentage of American adults reject the scientific explanation for the origins of human life, and a number of religious groups in the U.S. maintain that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection is not correct because it conflicts with their views of creation.

Here are five facts about evolution and faith:

1 The Roman Catholic Church has long accepted – or at least not objected to – evolutionary theory. Pope Francis is not the first pontiff to publicly affirm that evolution is compatible with church teachings. In 1950, in the encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII said that Catholic teachings on creation could coexist with evolutionary theory. Pope John Paul II went a bit further in 1996, calling evolution “more than a hypothesis.”

2 FT_14.10.29_humanEvolutionPublicViewA minority of Americans fully accept the scientific explanation for the origins of human life. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, 60% of Americans say humans have evolved over time, but only about half of that group (32% of U.S. adults overall) believes that humans and other living things evolved solely due to natural processes, the explanation accepted by the vast majority of scientists. About a quarter of U.S. adults (24%) say that humans and other life evolved, but that this evolution was guided by a supreme being. The same survey found that a third of Americans (33%) reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

3 FT_14.10.29_humanEvolutionOf all the major religious groups in the U.S., white evangelical Protestants are the most likely to reject evolution. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of white evangelicals say that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form, while roughly one-in-ten white evangelicals (8%) say that humans evolved through natural processes. On the other end of the spectrum are the unaffiliated, a majority of whom (57%) said they believe that life evolved through natural processes.

The rejection of evolution by most evangelicals is largely mirrored by their churches, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which explicitly reject evolutionary theory as being in conflict with what they see as biblical truth.

4 About a quarter of white American Catholics (26%) say that they do not believe in evolution of any kind, despite the church’s acceptance of it. The share of Hispanic Catholics in the U.S. who reject evolution and say that humans have always existed in their present form is even higher (31%).

5 A series of court decisions prohibit the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools. In spite of efforts in many American states and localities to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools or to teach alternatives to evolution, courts in recent decades have consistently rejected public school curricula that veer away from evolutionary theory. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring public school students to learn both evolution and creation science violated the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion.

Category: 5 Facts

Topics: Religion and Society, Catholics and Catholicism, Evolution

  1. Photo of David Masci

    is a senior writer/editor focusing on religion at Pew Research Center.


  1. Anonymous1 year ago

    They’re are over 3000 gods worshiped by the entire human race… but don’t worry, your God is the right one! I can honestly tell all of you that all of the people that I’ve encountered over the years that do not believe in creationism do not really get offended when someone says that evolution doesn’t exist. I for one try not to bring it up in conversation with anybody unless I’m asked of my own beliefs. Because I am aware that most Christians might get outraged when they hear my answer because to them my answer just called them a lier. All of us that believe in evolution do not tend to get too overly worked up on the subject because we have enough knowledge available to us that actually make sense. though it may not be a PROVEN FACT, all of the information about evolution has been acquired by thousands of scientists who seem to understand why the theory is so plausible. After all, it is scientists and doctors who find cures for diseases and medications for health issues that save our lives on a daily basis. Doctors perform life threating surgeries everyday with success but it’s the patient and their families who thank god for the second chance at life. The problem I have with that is that that doctor who they barley know anything about do not realize the amount of schooling, hard work and time that they invest into learning everything they can about the human body. After all, when somebody is sick they don’t get on their knees and pray to God and ask him what’s wrong with them. They simply call a doctor for treatment. Creationists have a “revised” version of the Bible that was mass produced for the population. People go out and buy a bible, read it every day and memorize it and try to pluck versus from it to use as a shield to back up their beliefs and are convinced that the fresh ink they are reading is the “true” word of god. When in all actuality the real bible is broken up into several other books that were written at different time periods by different people and mainly speaks in metaphors that leave the reader to make their own interpretations. Another HUGE problem is when Christians who spend their life putting their faith in God and following his way of life can’t seem to exercise one of the most important commandments that God has asked them to do. THOU SHALT NOT JUDGE. But when their faith is questioned, people seem to forget about that one major rule. I respect what others beliefs are. But all I ask as that you practice what you preach and respect my beliefs as well without judgment. After all the bible says that God gave us free will, but that doesn’t mean he meant for you to express it. That’s what the ten commandments are for am I correct? In my own opinion I see more people use the bible as a shield than a guide. In a sense it is a history book filled with stories of experiences from other people 3000 years ago that couldn’t explain the phenomena that was occurring because they lacked the knowledge of how it occurred, that in today’s modern time can be explained. Devine power or “magic” to some is science that hasn’t been proven. Which in time I believe can be explained. But all of this talk about religion brings up another conclusion. Most of the wars that have been fought through out our existence were because of differences in the beliefs of religion. I would almost argue that if religion had never existed we would have a better understanding of ourselves as a race and possibly could have avoided mass killings all in the name of a supreme being that could have just as easily made us as perfect and Devine as the Lord himself. Instead scientists are not finding a single trace of an omnipotent being creating all that you see before you. But are discovering that there is an entirely different world on a molecular level not only in our back yard and with in ourselves but also on an epic proportion that stretch past the farthest stars. We are only asking that creationists keep an open mind to new possibilities for the better understanding as to what are place is in the universe. And if we are wrong then you can enjoy the glory of being right while your enjoying the good life in heaven. But unless God himself comes down and explains the gaps of missing information he left us to fill with “blind faith” I have to say that it isn’t enough for me to stop believing in evolution.

  2. Anonymous1 year ago

    Out of the thousands of deities & devils humanity has or still is worshipping…not one of these supposed all powerful beings (including yours) has ever convinced me any of them exist. Does anyone not find it odd that we all had to hear about god…jesus & satan from other humans? One would think these so-called all power beings would represent themselves without humans doing it for them. Religions are based on faith…faith is based on beliefs. That’s a fact. I deal with the realities…evidence & ongoing discoveries of the natural earth & universe from brilliant scientists using the many tools of science. & all these ongoing discoveries keeps adding to the list of things religion said wasn’t. Also…when did any religious belief ever disprove any fact of science or evolution? Never. How many times has science & evolution disproved religious beliefs? Do the research…but I can tell you…it’s alot. Only science can disprove science. If any one has evidence to disprove evolution…then by all means…bring it & astonish the world. Evolution is fact & theory…it’s backed by mountain of evidence…ongoing discoveries…science logic & rational sensibility. No beliefs or faith necessary. That is for religious folk.

  3. Torbjörn Larsson2 years ago

    I can understand the study of religion with statistics, but I can’t understand and condone the attempt of marrying it with theology: “The Roman Catholic Church has long accepted – or at least not objected to – evolutionary theory.”

    They haven’t since they:

    a) Reject the natural theory and try to replace it with their magic.

    b) Also reject key results such as the non-existence of their mythical single human breeder pair. We know from 2011 that the human population bottleneck was wasy more tha
    n 11 kpeople. We also know from Pacelli’s encyclica of 1950 that the sect claim that is the single fact that they will never accept, their magic agent stands and fall with it. [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C… ; despite their sect main magic agent is rejected by their own claims, it seem they wont put their money where their mouth is and disband.]

    Oh well, at least the Pew research Center tracking of the vanishing religiosity is nice reading!

  4. Ted LeMoine2 years ago

    The percentage of people who accept the scientific explanation of evolution is 32% . Yet the percentage who believe in Noahs Ark is about 46%? Is this incredibly alarming to anyone else that one has literally hundreds or thousands of pieces of evidence and the other has none. Not only no evidence but claims that can’t be explained without incredible miracles or suspending the laws of physics to be true. It’s a brainwashing system in this country that attacks children’s minds before they can think critically. To deny the basis of evolution is to not understand anything at all about how things work biologically. All 17 out of 17 Republican Candidates who began their presidential bid denied the scientific version of evolution and that included 2 medical doctors. They are either ignorant or feel they must appeal to an electorate that 8s still in the dark. To me anyone who in 2016 can deny some basic scientific empirical truth like evolution cannot reason well enough to be elected. Soon the day will come when they will offend a larger number of people than they are appealing to by denying reality. It’s embarrassing. People deny science without even understanding the basics of how reality works. They do it in the name of an invisible God who is either not able to stop the suffering of children or he doesn’t care to. It’s time we live in reality and stop claiming the end times are coming for the 3 millionth time. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

    1. Anonymous1 year ago

      Creation has no evidence?
      ok, so millions of species just happened all at once and you dont exactly know how or why, and I know that you know that you dont know.

      I know that you dont know because scientists cant decide which theory explains the origins of life.

      We depend on facts to be solid. If they were not then we could not depend on buildings to keep standing (2+2 is 4).

      Playing word games with “accepted as fact vs proven as fact” is nonsense.
      You are saying that for now we will accept 0+0 is 1 even though one day wink wink it could equal 2 or nothing.

      You think people are stupid because they dont buy your crap.

      I think you have no common sense. It doesnt take a scientist to figure out that this entire planet was designed along with everything in it. Everything just came together perfectly by accident? Are you serious?

      1. Anonymous1 year ago

        Did you read the comment? I’m thinking not

      2. TJ Reyes1 year ago

        That was such a compelling argument. Thank you so much for your persuasive brilliance. It’s so obvious, a watch requires a watchmaker. What’s required for a foolish myth?

      3. Anonymous1 year ago

        Creation has no evidence?
        ok, so millions of species just happened all at once and you dont exactly know how or why, and I know that you know that you dont know.

        I know that you dont know because scientists cant decide which theory explains the origins of life.

        We depend on facts to be solid. If they were not then we could not depend on buildings to keep standing (2+2 is 4).

        It’s not playing word games; it just wasn’t well explained. Let me explain the fact/theory to you. Evolution is defined as change over time. And evolution is the only working model of how we have species in the past the show to inter-mediate the modern species we have now. The theory is natural selection. Now natural selection proposed by Catholics is that God “naturally” selected species to live and to die. So basically it’s by a supernatural being and by magical, unempirical evidence. The theory of natural selection in evolution according to evolutionary biologists is whether species originated through “group selection,” “individual selection,” or “gene selection;” in other words, whether survival is thought of on a group/individual/or gene “consciousness.” It’s hard to say, but needs more models to be run by the evidence in time.

        Now, people aren’t necessarily stupid for not “buying into” evolution; they could just be brainwashed. Brainwashing from reality needs a few things for it to be true: punishment, isolation for deviation, and removal of positive affirmations. Religion could be toxic on this level, if for instance (1) someone believed they would be punished for eternity in Hell, (2) someone would be isolated from their only friends and family for deviating from the group ideology, and (3) transcendence and other positive emotions arising from spirituality was seen to be taken away if someone did believe in the evidence of evolution or the naturalistic theory of speciation.

        And finally did everything come together by accident? No everything really came together by gravity! That’s how planetary theory is explained. And the five most common elements in the universe are: Hydrogen, Helium, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. Guess what makes up 99% of human biological make-up? The answer is found in the cosmos: Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen.

        As far as models for how life began from a naturalistic point of view, I would point you to “the Replicator” model proposed by evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins, in his classic book, “The Selfish Gene.” It will blow your mind.

        I hope common sense was reached 🙂

      4. Anonymous1 year ago

        Riddle me this then… if all life on earth was created by a supreme being, then I think we can safely assume that evolution had a key role in the creation of the species or possibly even the last of his/hers species AKA (GOD) to the evolutionary omnipotence that he/she evolved into due to the natural selection of the (GODS) genes that had adapted to the environment from which such a being had to evolve from. We were created in his image as your bible says. So with that being said.. evolution would be considered as part of the adaptation process that was required to make such a change due to the environmental changes that GOD originated from. So if he/she came from anywhere else other than earth, then by creating us in his image on this planet would obviously not give us the correct environment for our genes to make the same evolutionary advancement that his/her genes had made to create the all powerful being creationists believe him/her to be. Even a difference in gravity, air pressure, and oxygen would have a direct effect on how evolution would occur here on earth vs gods planet. But God didn’t materialize out of nothingness into the being you all fear. That would be IMPOSSIBLE! And just for kicks and giggles… if God were to have a profession, giving how he created the heavens and the earth and created all of the complex organisms and every little cell in all living things. I think it’s safe to say that he’s a very convincing scientist if you ask me… but if you creationists want to believe it’s magic. I’ve got new for you… magic is just science that hasn’t been explained without observation.

    2. Anonymous1 year ago

      FAITH – The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It is a powerful thing that will never be destroyed even when the world realizes evolution is false. By faith we understand that the world was made by the Word of God and that the things which are seen are not made by the things which appear, by faith Noah survived the flood, by faith Moses gave up the pleasures of Egypt, by faith lives are changed through the Gospel.

      1. Anonymous1 year ago

        What beliefs cannot be supported by Faith? Certainly opposing beliefs exist, for which people of equal levels of faith exist. Therefore, they cannot both be right, but they could both be wrong. The problem with faith is that it leaves us with no means of determining which beliefs are in fact true. When Faith is used to deny reality that is observed and backed by facts and evidence, then Faith becomes a disservice, a detriment. Faith doesn’t lead to truth. That should be cause for concern, if one is interested in what is true.

      2. Anonymous1 year ago

        And by faith you believe in a book instead of empirical evidence of how we have speciation.

  5. Chris Alexander2 years ago

    I’m really surprised that the percentage of evangelicals and catholics that disbelieve the theory of evolution isn’t much higher. But we all know that one or two polls doesn’t always give you the true picture. Evolution is far from factual. Those that believe in the theory of evolution have been sold a bill of goods. The theory of evolution is very unscientific. Scientists have not been able to recreate the occurrence of evolution. A scientific fact is something that can be proven and reproduced. There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution as factual. In fact, the discovery of DNA in the 1950’s pretty much disproved the theory of evolution. Human DNA cannot change to or from any other kind of DNA. It was programed by the Creator to be human DNA. It cannot change species. There has never been any proof of a so-called missing link between any two species. The Bible on the other hand has stood the test of time. Though many have tried to disprove the Bible, none have been successful. It is more scientific to believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

    1. Hyrum O’Day1 year ago

      Friend, don’t get me wrong… I do understand where you’re coming from.
      I grew up in a religious home, and am greatly loathed at the idea of entirely discounting the importance of Faith.
      However, based on the claims that you are making, it is apparent that you have not made an honest attempt at understanding the theory that you are so eager to dismiss, nor the theory that you are so eager to defend.

      “But we all know that one or two polls doesn’t always give you the true picture. Evolution is far from factual. Those that believe in the theory of evolution have been sold a bill of goods.”

      I’ve never actually met anyone who thinks Donald Trump – if elected – will prove to be a responsible president. In fact, everyone I’ve ever spoken with regards him as a contentious court jester wanting to become king.
      And yet somehow he seems to be doing very well in the polls.
      Now, I could claim that very few of us are willing to speak out against him, or that they have been denied the vote based on their political views.
      If I were to make that claim, I would be falling into the same loop of logic that you have accepted as reality.
      The fact of the matter is that we – as human beings – seek to be in the company of opinions that we subscribe to. It’s comfortable for us, as those views don’t challenge our perception of the world we live in. If something does challenge our beliefs we prefer to reject it, in order to maintain a coherent understanding of reality.
      Thus, many of the beliefs we hold are merely a reflection of what we want to be true, regardless of what empirical evidence has shown us.
      The same can be said about the topics that we research. I for example, have found the topic of biology (especially evolution and neurochemistry) to be fascinating, and richly satisfying to learn about. Others might only find such enjoyment upon pondering the richness of God’s mercy. They will choose to place their seed of faith in beliefs that make them happy, exactly as I have done. I will read scientific articles, while they petition me to spend my time reading the Bible instead. And vice a versa.
      Thus, most of the concepts we understand are the concepts that we most want to understand.
      So, one might say that we BOTH have “been sold a bill of goods”.
      Just because one subscribes to a certain viewpoint does not necessarily mean that it is the truth.
      It merely means that we regard it as the viewpoint that is most worth believing in.
      This – above all else – is the principle upon which science (and faith that isn’t blind) is founded upon. As you said earlier, “a scientific fact is something that can be proven and reproduced”, regardless of the beliefs of the experimenter.

      “The theory of evolution is very unscientific.”

      Not so. Your understanding of it (and faith) is very unscientific.
      In order to explain myself, I first need to establish the distinction between law and theory.
      A law is the means by which an observed phenomena occurs. It has been proven to be true in all cases to which it is applicable.
      A theory is a proposed explanation for the observed phenomenon. It has neither been proven nor disproven… yet. If it has been proven, it ceases to be a theory and becomes a law.
      Evolution is a phenomenon. Nothing about the current state of the Earth and its inhabitants is scientifically explainable by any other process. Extensive evidence of it has been found both beneath the ground and above it, so much that I wouldn’t even be able to cite a modicum of it without writing a full dissertation.

      “There is no evidence to support the theory of evolution as factual… There has never been any proof of a so-called missing link between any two species.”

      If you wish I had provided such evidence here, I suggest that you put forth the (minimal) effort required to find it. (Google search)
      Just like divine miracles, if you don’t believe in it, it means you haven’t honestly searched for evidence of it.
      The “Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection” however, is just what it claims to be: a theory that has been proposed by Charles Darwin and others, that attempts to explain the observed phenomenon of evolution.
      The theory of natural selection may only be undeniably verifiable after trillions of years of recording observations. The fact of the matter is that mankind simply isn’t that old.

      “Scientists have not been able to recreate the occurrence of evolution”

      To that, I cite the existence of breeds of domesticated dogs (and cats) that did not exist before we created them. We did this simply by allowing only the dogs with specific traits to reproduce, a form of natural selection in and of itself, or as many would put it “guided evolution”. And what about the “super bacteria” that we have created through the use of antibiotics?
      The counter-argument to this is that we did not create dog from bacteria; we created it from a different breed of dog; one species cannot beget another.
      To that, I ask whether or not you believe that if we yield at all – however slightly – each time we feel the temptation to travel down a path that leads to sin, we will inevitably fail at escaping it.
      You believe in that, but you aren’t willing to believe that enough instances of microevolution would eventually lead to macro-evolution?
      Alright, fair enough. For the sake of argument, I’ll accept that your theory may be plausible.
      So prove it. Prove it using an experiment that can be reproduced by anyone, regardless of their personal beliefs. Prove it using evidence that anyone can see/touch/taste/smell/hear, regardless of their cultural background.

      “It is more scientific to believe that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

      I suspect that the only form of evidence you could provide to support that claim are based on the beliefs of ancient civilizations, and a testimony of how important the gospel is to you.
      See what I’m getting at?
      There are mountains of tangible evidence that corroborates the concept of Evolution, and very little to corroborate the creation as recorded in Genesis.

      Here’s a sample thought to consider:
      Do you think we would have been able to survive around the dinosaurs? If God simply made the “lion lie down with the lamb”, how did he do it, and why weren’t dinosaurs mentioned in Genesis?

      “The Bible on the other hand has stood the test of time. Though many have tried to disprove the Bible, none have been successful.”

      And if you believe that the existence of dinosaurs is just an elaborate conspiracy designed by the devil to destroy the church…
      Well, I’m pretty sure that if it was taught in the Bible, you’d still believe that the Sun revolves around a flat earth… even if you’re standing on the moon, and can see the earth in person.

      But then again, it sounds like you might be one of those people that wouldn’t be willing to go to the moon, for fear of being proven wrong.

      Again, tying back into the idea that we tend to believe in ideas that are necessary for us to preserve a coherent perception of reality.

      I would contend that you have very little understanding of faith as well.
      Faith is that which is hoped for but not seen. Thus, faith cannot exist without doubt to fight against.
      Faith is a verb. It is a willingness to step into the darkness, even when you doubt the light will follow you.
      It is based on active experimentation. Faith is tested using the scientific method.
      A scientific mindset is not evidence of the devil’s influence, but rather the manifestation of Enlightenment.

      In conclusion…
      Research the evidence behind opposing ideas, and the basis for your own.

      THEN decide whether or not such ideas are valid.

      1. Anonymous1 year ago

        Hey guy… your basically saying that evolution doesn’t exist but your trying to convince someone that a word that has been given a definition wich does not have a smell or can be seen touched or tasted but can only be heard to describe a feeling that would differ from person to person to justify it’s existence as a fact that it actually exsist.. faith cannot be proven to exist as a fact because of the emotion that YOUR brain Processes it as. I think of faith and I don’t associate it with any feeling but only see it as a word to describe it’s definition of the meaning. And blind faith is a contradiction in itself.

        1. Hyrum O’Day1 year ago

          I’m not sure if I understand what you mean to say.

          “[You’re] saying that evolution doesn’t exist…”

          On the contrary.
          I mean to say that evolution is a phenomenon that has been proven to occur.

          “… a word that has been given a definition…”

          As I understand it, the subject you are referring to is faith.
          My definition of faith is “a hope for things which are not seen, which are true”.

          “… which does not have a smell or can be seen touched or tasted but can only be heard to describe a feeling that would differ from person to person…”

          Beliefs based on faith cannot be empirically verified.
          I’m with you so far.

          “…to justify it’s existence as a fact that it actually exsist…”

          It is very easy to empirically prove the existence of faith in one’s worldview.
          Therefore, I assume that what you mean to say is that faith is comparable to a Self-Reinforcing Delusion (SRD).
          In many ways, I am inclined to agree with you.
          However, the dividing line between an SRD and faith is that the conclusion of the former tends to be false, while the conclusion of the latter tends to be true.

          For example…

          Those who make good parenting a priority (NOW) tend to raise children who become happy adults (LATER).

          I can look at that in several different ways:

          I have faith/hope that if I make good parenting a priority, my children will grow up to be happy adults.

          Although this isn’t true 100% of the time, it is true most of the time.
          This viewpoint of faith encourages one to be a good parent even though doing so might make one’s children unhappy right now.

          Alternatively, I might focus entirely on the negative aspects of reality.

          Parents cannot force their children to be happy.

          This emphasis of the negative allows SRD’s to take hold.

          My children will never appreciate anything I do for them.

          If that was my belief, I would have no reason to make good parenting a priority.
          Instead of doing what is best for the child, I would tell him/her that I’ve already done too much for them, and that they should be more grateful for what they’ve been given.
          Because I do not feel obliged to give them anything, they will not feel grateful for that which I never gave them, and my delusion is reinforced.

          While both claims (marked CLAIM) are technically untrue, they both have elements of truth within their premises, and both inaccuracies have a strong emotional effect on both parent and child.

          Do I have a decent understanding of what you meant to convey when you said the following?:

          “…faith cannot be proven to exist as a fact because of the emotion that YOUR brain Processes it as.”

          In my experience, the most reliable distinction between a Self-Reinforcing Delusion and faith can be found in the long-term effects of the inaccuracies inherent to such beliefs:
          If I am happy in life, my children will tend to be happy in life.
          If I am unhappy with life, my children will tend to be unhappy with life.

          “I think of faith and I don’t associate it with any feeling…”

          I think I understand, but I could be mistaken.
          I am not a parent, but I do feel very emotional when considering parenthood.

          I have been comparing this to the way many people feel about their religious beliefs.
          For many people, such beliefs are based on spiritual experiences.

          As a child, I tried very hard to be spiritual.
          As it turns out, I was merely being emotional.
          Truth be told, I am not what most would call a spiritual person.

          But there ARE ideas and concepts that fill me with thumos. (Great word. Look it up!)
          They however, are not based on religious conviction. Instead, they are based on the principles and patterns that are found throughout the natural world.

          The Tree of Life for example, can be used to represent the potentially eternal growth of one’s posterity.
          The Fibonacci spiral represents a desirable rate of progression, which helps us to discern goodness and beauty.
          Enlightenment teaches us to value “what is right” more than we value “who is right”.
          Adaptation is what happens each time we make this transition.
          The concept of evolution brings me much hope;
          It means that my children, and my children’s children can have a better start than I did.
          These are the things that I have have found to be most worth having faith in.
          To me, that is the purpose of thumos.

          “…blind faith is a contradiction in itself.”

          I think you might have meant that it’s redundant. I’m not sure how it could be seen as a contradiction.
          Please clarify if I have misunderstood.

          As I see it, this is the difference between real faith and blind faith:

          Real faith is a hope that drives you out into the unknown in order to seek evidence to test what one believes to be true; real faith is constantly being tested and re-evaluated.

          Blind faith is an assumption that such evidence is there, whether or not one bothers to search for it. Out of contempt for reality or fear of being proven wrong, it is rarely – if ever – tested or re-evaluated.
          Oftentimes, blind faithfulness can lead to or further complicate Self-Reinforcing Delusions.

    2. Hyrum O’Day1 year ago

      For starters, I would like to recommend a podcast called “Evolution Talk” hosted by Rick Coast.
      It’s a well-balanced, scientifically sound overview of the phenomenon of evolution, yet it still manages to be respectfully neutral when dealing with the subject of religion.

  6. Craig2 years ago

    Evolution is a worldwide verified and accepted fact…that’s just the way it is…religion has the burden of proof …until theists PROVE there is a god then I’m afraid they haven’t got a leg to stand on in this argument…..they’ve had over 3000 years to prove it and still nothing…..also…Adam and Eve have also been indisputably proven to NOT have existed because if they did then essentially they would have to have started the human race and got us to the he population we have to day…now… But o do that would mean through continuous incest….anyone with a shred of knowledge of birthday logo would know,…if this was the case the human race would have died out within 2-300 years from severe genetic defect…which means no Adam and Eve…so no original sin, so no need for Jesus and ultimately NO GOD….these are simple scientifically proven facts…the same goes with the Ark myth…evolution is a fact…so much so that in the UK creationism has been banned from all public schools because it would be lying to the children and it is scientifically false….sadly though in America people are brainwashed by religion because it’s in the governments interest to keep people obedient and the best way to enslave minds is to use religion….you can’t escape this…it is fact….anyone with a fully functional brain knows this….glad to school you on reality….carry on…

    1. Craig2 years ago

      Biology* not birthday logo….damned predictive text

      1. Deysi2 years ago

        Craig, you speak about “evolution facts”, where can I find them? If you are able to direct me to these facts, I will gladly stop believing that there is a Supreme Creator of all things, including humankind….I would like to ask you two questions and hopefully you answer them. Do you believe in evil? And last but not least, what keeps you alive other than water?

    2. Chris Alexander2 years ago

      Craig- Your jumps to conclusion that Adam and Eve never existed, and that your great great great grandfather was a monkey are quite a leap of faith!

      1. 7moonwalker71 year ago

        It took millions of years not just few generations..

    3. Anonymous1 year ago

      Less than 2000 years ago you could have seen Jesus raise the dead. Witnesses wrote about it. Then Jesus rose himself. That pretty much proved it less than 3000 years ago. Even then people were too stiffnecked to believe, but they couldn’t deny the proof. Actually even then they accepted creation.

      Actually Christianity teaches free will….therefore freedom not enslavement. Our government has been far from embracing the Bible. History shows you don’t need religion to control people. “Science” would work just fine. What happens is people turn to human authority for answers and needs. Then they become completely reliant on them. Sounds more like enslavement to me.

  7. Ken2 years ago

    There is not shred of evidence that people came from other species, There are no fossil Records or no Historic record. Evolution is Unscientific itself Since it can not be test or Proven. Evolution is The Change from One Species to another like Fish to monkeys or Spiders to a Elephant. Charles says there are 2 or 3 ways Evolution can Happen Through a Very Slow Process through millions of Years (Witch then there should Be plenty of Fossils Left Behind since animals have a short life span compared to the Earth) Or A very Fast Process Then we should see Evolution happening Right now on our daily lives. There is Nothing Natural about Evolution anyways, Humans are not made from Fish, We don’t Have primate Ancestors, We are them Same since the thousands of Years Of Recorded History People Should Stop making stuff up about Prerecorded History Because It is Recorded in The Bible on what Happened. Who would you believe a 5000 Year old Book that Has of what really happened back then and survived through Destruction Of Recorded Things and Most people in the World back then could not read or Right Unless you were rich. Or Do you believe a guy 200 Years ago that got the Idea of Evolution From a Fairy tale that adults would use to Mock people. The Bible reviled Matter Space and Time in the first verse Of the Bible “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Heaven as in The Space, Witch in Greek Heaven Means the heights as in Space, The Earth Witch Means Matter and Time The Beginning, Because there is no Time in the spiritual Plane witch is Beyond The Expansion of Space. And Time is only in The Physical Plane Were it all Started. The Big Bang Theory doesn’t even make since how can anything exist compressed in a small dot probably the same size of a Plankton in a field Were there is No existence Even Darkness doesn’t Exists because God Created the darkness, God Explains The physical Plan before the Beginning as Void Like there was no light no darkness there was nothing. You can not say There isn’t enough Evidence of God Existence Because we have Life and Nothing Else in the Known Universe Have Life. We As Humans Proves That there needs to be a Intelligent design by Making stuff intelligently, What we don’t Make is Natural Meaning It come directly from God. God made with world so we can explore it’s culture and Learn about the world he made witch is the definition of Science The Study of the Natural World. Most Adults always try to take God out there life to make a excuse to do something that they know is wrong, but God always comes back and makes sure what happens happens. Everything Happens for a reason and a Higher Purpose and through God he says He can make anything possible. The fool says in his heart,
    “There is no God.”
    They are corrupt, and their ways are vile;
    there is no one who does good.
    Evolution States That People are Naturally Good, When we all know that’s a lie Not One person who ever lived (Except for Jesus) on Earth Have not Committed one bad deed.

  8. Jamal2 years ago

    hey, the big bang was an explosion, right? But don’t you think explosion destroy things more than create them?

    1. rob2 years ago

      Nope. Equal and opposite.
      For as much as it destroys, it would create.

    2. Amal2 years ago

      Hi, It’ll destroy in the beginning but overtime millions of years, it’ll create. E.g. the massive volcano eruptions. They destroy everything in it path after its initial eruption. Over a period of 100s or 1000s of years it’ll create mountains, islands.

  9. Chris Lockett2 years ago

    Evolution is certainly not a process the Biblical God I believe in, would or even could use.
    He is perfect, and a God of perfect love. If He created an evolutionary world then He is neither perfect nor loving. Evolution is survival of the fittest, where the weakest live in constant fear. Where animals kill and eat each other, where humans farm animals to kill and eat them. In my opinion it borders on blasphemy to say God created for this to happen. The Bible shows that death only came because of man’s disobedience. God had to curse us and the creation which we had been given dominion over, to limit evil. Look at this world and how we treat each other and the rest of creation. It was out of mercy that He cursed us with death

    1. Dan2 years ago

      Exactly how did death come due to man’s disobedience? How could the entire world change JUST due to some people disobeying when this change includes animals and plants and even the very atmosphere and geology of the earth?

      You say God had to curse us. What compelled God to do…anything? Some outside force? Some internal weakness? His own nature he just can’t control…or worse simply doesn’t want to control.

      How did “cursing us” limit evil? What difference does death make in the proliferation of evil especially since we still procreate and make more “evil” beings? Was God simply unable to limit evil with his own omnipotent power?

      And THIS is the God of classical theism…the “that which none greater can be conceived of” being? The God you describe seems quite simple-minded, barbaric and weak. It seems God and those who purport to follow him have no power demonstrating their association with such a being.

      1. Amal2 years ago

        “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars.” – Charles Darwin

        I had several questions. One of them was the various human races of this world.
        No religion could give me an explanation explanation except Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

        1. Chris Alexander2 years ago

          The Bible DOES give an explanation of the races. Charles Darwin’s book the Origin of the Species describes other races as “Undesirable.” Yes Virginia. Charles Darwin was a racist.

      2. Pete2 years ago

        God gave us free will so that one day the ones that follow him will have ever lasting life with there free will intact.

    2. Jamal2 years ago

      I’m a christian, but I don’t think God ‘cursing’ us will limit evil.

  10. marie2 years ago

    I think the latest I’ve heard was that even the pope believes in evolution but he still wants people to believe that god created the soul.

    1. Jamal2 years ago

      The Pope himself isn’t believing in creation now? Good Lord. Then he cannot be a true christian!! Plus he’s the POPE!!

    2. Chris Alexander2 years ago

      Just because “the Pope believes in evolution”, that doesn’t give the theory and factual basis.

  11. Philbot2 years ago

    Evolution is laughable, I ask everyone I meet if they believe in evolution and if they say yes I’ll then ask them what is their favorite piece of evidence for evolution and the answers are hilarious. Dinosaurs is a popular answer, so is the monkey to man chart , fossils, DNA, Darwin, technology(the fact that humans create technology is somehow proof of the universe coming into existence and through the process of time creating intellgent, self aware, bioelectrical, walking, talking, loving ,and hating emotional beings called humans). The conclusion I’ve come to is that no one really knows how evolution happened and no one is even close to a good theory of the theory of evolution. One can look at the evolution of human culture and technology and think that this is somehow evidence of macro/organic evolution but if you think about it this is actually evidence against evolution. The argument goes something like this: the observable fact of human cultural evolution is a small example of how evolution works on a large scale. But human cultural evolution has one major factor behind it that is heresy to the theory of evolution: intelligence. No matter how you look at it every bit of human progress and the evolution of civilization is the result of human intelligence. So the evolution of human society is not very good evidence of evolution since evolution requires zero intelligence. This world and life are too awesome for me to accept on faith that we arrived here by accident through the process of evolution(which even our best scientists can’t adequately explain without some theory that contradicts some other scientists theory) and if I did believe it I surely wouldn’t care if anyone else did. If I truly believed I arrived by random chance mutations to live a meaningless life only to die a meaningless death which ends my entire being then I’d be free of all concern. If evolution is true then nothing matters, we come nothing only to end in nothing so why worry at all what others believe? It literally matters not, do you really think if we all believed in evolution the world would be a better place? And if you believed in evolution why would you care? The fact that we care about anything other than water, food , and shelter is in of it self evidence that there is more at work in human origins other than evolution.

    1. Qma2 years ago

      Philbot ….. you and your kind who believe in fairy tails can do so. For me, and many others, evolution is a PROVEN FACT, and no matter how you wish to cut, slice and dice up the evidence in a manner that makes you think its not. As for a meaningless life and existence, I don’t need to believe in somethings that is utter hogwash to live a meaningful and fulfilled life, and in any case, I will be back again some day in the future to do it all over again!

      1. Jamal2 years ago

        Hey, you. Do a bit more research and then say if evolution is a PROVEN FACT. It’s just a highly accepted theory.

        1. Haris2 years ago

          Educate yourself on what a theory is. It’s not just a proposal, it has to have a lot of clear evidence and facts.

    2. Dan2 years ago

      There are many good reasons for believing in evolution. Biochemistry, morphology, genetics, fossils, biogeography and simply the obvious relationship between critters and plants one can see and the defects in life. The very fact that mutations occur and, for the most part are deleterious, suggests a flawed and natural source of life…not a divine creation by a perfect being. The evidence is all there and pretty obvious. Just because a few people don’t have the answers that would convince you…well that’s a problem. But not for them.

    3. Jamal2 years ago

      I thought I was the only one who asked people that.

    4. 7moonwalker71 year ago

      So to you it makes more sense that this magical creature made humans, animals, space, planets, stars and everything just in 6 days?

    5. Anonymous1 year ago

      Besides the fact that your argument makes no sense, who asks people what their “favorite piece of evidence for evolution” is? How does that conversation even start? Seeing that you’re CLEARLY not a scientist, why would you even bring this up in a conversation? Much less ask EVERYONE you meet! “The argument goes something like this”, no, it doesn’t. “which even our best scientists can’t adequately explain without some theory that contradicts some other scientists theory” WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? So after reading your quite cancerous comment, may I point you or anyone reading to JMajik in the comments below? If you have any questions on evolution, just read his post. I think it covers all of the major points.

  12. citlali2 years ago

    these help a little thank you

  13. Mitch Lange2 years ago

    I love you man

  14. Kulbhushan Singhal (कुल भूषण सिंघल)3 years ago

    Hindus believe in evolution. Obviously unlike in creation where PERFECT GOD can make PERFECT CREATION, evolution takes its own time; allows various actions, reactions taking place both inside earth, and on the surface of earth to harmonize within themselves and with the cosmos. It is easily said than done. It takes millions of years. Geographic practices and geological changes keep on taking place almost regularly, and it takes time for meaningful biosphere to develop which is sustainable.

    Shiv and AdiShakti are inseparable; they symbolize Supreme God, Shiv with Supreme Power and Goddess, AdiShakti in feminine form, representing growth and nature. AdiShakti left Shiv after the earth was born; why? This is something important and symbolic; does it have any message?

    Stories of Shiv and AdiShakti represented by Parvati and Sati, and also stories of Sur and Asurs are not merely stories but provide valuable information about initial turbulence and problems on earth, description of those problems and subsequent resolution. It is the growth story and true history of earth from Puraans or one can say from ancient India. Science from ancient India is symbolic in nature, it has to be deciphered. Shiv is GOD and his CONSORT NATURE.

    Ramayan, Mahabharat and Puraans are actually coded history, and once you understand this and also have faith in the fact that this religion is god-gift to humanity, everything becomes easy and understandable. For understanding Puraans, containing history of earth, one need not get bogged down by the use of the word code. Code here simply means interpreting the text using the current information and level of knowledge. This is the beauty of the code. Try this; you will get very rich information.

    Sati a Sanskrit word used for females means lady who voluntarily ends her life.

    AdiShakti is now Parvati, daughter of Himalayas, and at the beginning of the formation of earth was called Sati.
    Symbolically Sati here means that nature, including humans, animals, vegetation, and sea life kept on growing without decay and this created problems triggering further reactions and subsequent destruction or self destruction of this expansion of nature. AdiShakti then was called Sati, meaning self-destruction.

    How many times during the very initial stage of the evolution of earth, this happened; I have no idea, because only greater in-depth study of these texts may reveal all this. And this could be better done by institutions.

    On the other hand the information we are getting from the modern scientific world is that, now Himalayas are the father of nature and are nurturing 75% of the earth directly and 25% indirectly. However in the initial stages of growth, Himalayas were smaller in size and were not contributing to the growth of nature and life as much. It was an early or nascent stage of evolution.

    Please Click & Read Full Post…>>>

    1. Anonymous3 years ago

      Where do you get the information in which a Creationist claim that the creation was perfect? In Genesis it says that God created the planet and it was “Good” not perfect…[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.” So creationists do not claim that when God created the world that it was perfect…but good.

      1. Kulbhushan Singhal (कुल भूषण सिंघल)2 years ago

        Please explain the difference between ‘good’ and ‘perfect’ for me to further comment.

        Creationists accept that God is perfect, and when Perfect God CREATES, His creation will be perfect.

        1. Lathen Mardlin2 years ago

          God did not make perfect so that we can choose to live for him. What’s a relationship that is completely forced?

          1. dude2 years ago

            This Judeo-Christian god attempts to force a relationship, by stating we’ll all burn in a fire of hell if we don’t except the holy spirit. But it’s our choice.

          2. LE Smith2 years ago

            So you your assertion is that one has a choice even though that supposed choice must be made under the threat of painful and eternal damnation, an everlasting punishment for a transgression that is finite in duration and, one would expect, limited in its impact? Would one’s unbelief interfere with Yahweh’s ability to conduct His god-business? At least when a criminal gang gives a judge the choice of silver or lead it is because the actions of that judge can impact the wealth of those offering the bribe. It’s kind of like the video of the purge conducted by Saddam Hussein in which Baathist officials stand and proclaim their loyalty as they wach members of their group led away to execution. That’s free will, alright…

          3. Anonymous1 year ago

            It’s not a matter of this god or that god. The matter is that there is only one true God, the Judeo-Christian God. To reject Him is to reject all truth. To reject Him is to reject life itself. To reject Him is to oppose Him and align yourself in the effort against Him to replace Him as God. It should not be expected that He would allow that. He not only offers freely a way out of getting what we deserve but He offers peace, joy and contentment for all eternity. No reason for an almighty God to give us anything.

    2. Amal Raj2 years ago

      1000s of years ago, (1) all the people/nations in the world were poly-theist i.e. worshiping 1000s of God. Then 100s of years ago that changed and most nations adopted (2) mono-theist i.e. worship one God. 10s of years ago people started moving to (3) Agnostic/Atheism which is the next advancement in evolution of religion.

      India is the only sh..ty country where most people are still in level-1 i.e. worshiping 1000s of God and still believe in it (while 99% of all other countries moved out of poly-theism 1000s of years ago) and India don’t want to come out of poly-theism.
      For every imaginable thing there is God in India. Can you believe that a man and woman having sex with their genitals is considered as God (Linga) in India?!?!?! And Linga is worshiped all over India.

      It is like Indians want to continue to use transistor radios from 1930s and dont want to use the latest 4K televisions. In my opinions, all these poly-theist people in India must be forcibly converted into Atheists thereby taking them to level-3.

  15. Majdhd3 years ago

    I don’t believe in evolution either. I believe god put us on this earth.

    1. 7moonwalker71 year ago

      Why do you believe that? Same as I would believe 3 pink unicorns ate sweets and made magical world out of glitter just because they are the 3 pink unicorns. And then they danced for 69 days so they could put us on Earth.

  16. Jay Herring3 years ago

    It would be a favorable improvement to compare survey’s like this to in two groups. Well educated scientific communities to the general public’s view of the world. How far apart are the people who actually study hands on evidence from thousands to millions of years ago versus those who are deliberately ignorant and accept no change from a superstitious story from 4000 years ago.

    We really need to see how far apart science proponents and science deniers stand.

    1. Amal Raj2 years ago

      Excellent point.

  17. Raassay3 years ago

    I am a Christian and I don’t believe in evolution for scientific reasons. The evidence (scientific) for intelligent design and the lack of evidence that natural selection ( a fact) could create an increase in information in the genome, make evolution by natural selection non-scientific.
    Add to this soft tissue in dinosaur bones and the the assertion of “punctuated Equilibrium” which is an admission that the fossil record does not support Darwinian evolution
    darwin was an atheist, evolution supports this belief system and so atheist support it. Atheists had great faith that the destruction of faith in God would lead to a better society. Unfortunately the wars and purges of the 20th century proved they were wrong. But that does not keep them people like Dawkin from promoting their blind faith.

    1. JMajik3 years ago

      Evolution is a scientific fact. Darwinian evolution (the theory as darwin wrote it) was incomplete, in that genetics and cell theory were not completely understood. But it was still correct. The evidence for evolution is astounding. All the theory of evolution calls for is great change over long periods of time. Most creationists accept what they call micro evolution, which is small changes over a short amount of time. Common sense should lead you then to the conclusion, that over a large amount of time, those “small changes” add up to much larger and more noticeable changes. Evolution is proven in both the lab and the field. Genetic mapping proved the legitimacy of darwin’s tree of life by showing the undeniable fact that all living things are in some way related. As humans we are more related to chimps than dogs, more related to dogs than iguanas, more related to iguanas than flowers, mapping the genetic codes of these species confirms this. This is one of the predictions that darwin made when he wrote origins, and he was able to use his theory to make this prediction without having prior knowledge of genetics. Another good example of evolutions predictive power is when darwin discovered an orchid in Madagascar (later named darwin’s orchid) and noticed that the nectar was kept in the very far back of a long spur. If you understand the process of pollination, you understand that insects and other animals have to assist the plant by collecting nectar and passing it to other flowers. Darwin theorized that the only way this flower could pollinate, is if there was an insect with a very long tongue to reach the nectar. In 1903, Xanthopan morgani was discovered in Madagascar. This confirmed his prediction that he was mocked for by his critics for most of his life. (the ability to make predictions is a pretty good sign that something is a scientifically verified fact btw.) Then there was the prediction that birds were descendants of dinosaurs, this was proven by the discovery of archeopteryx and the micro raptor. As well as the discovery of feathers on velociraptors, and the nesting habits of the oviraptor confirm this prediction as well. Then there’s vestigial features. Evolution is the only viable theory that explains these in exquisite detail. Things like teeth and claws on wings in birds, tails on humans, legs on whales and dolphins and legs on snakes. Evolution also explains why we don’t see vestigial features like mammary glands on amphibians, fur on fish and bones in worms. Intelligent design on the other hand, has no predictive power, it has no evidence that is verifiable and vindicated to prove it’s claims, it is rooted on a single religious ideology that is littered with bias and does not rely on the scientific method and does not submit to peer review and if it does, it is shut down by scientists of every field. It also makes a claim about the existence of the supernatural, which is by definition unverifiable by science and therefore can not be proven or falsified in any way. Even if there was a god, and he did start life on this measly speck of dust traveling through space, evolution would still be a verifiable fact. And creationism/ID would still be almost completely wrong. Because if god did start life on earth, it would have to be he who constructed the fossil record, wrote the genetic tree of life and produced the impressively accurate timeline that spells out evolution in every detail. And on your comment about “new information”. It is a fact that when creatures reproduce and cells reproduce, they don’t do so perfectly and some modifications are sometimes present. This is a natural phenomenon that is so common that there are over 100 genetic mutations per person. Genes are made up of duplications of base pairs of 4 proteins (kind of like the 26 letters in the alphabet can make hundreds of thousands of different words that can then be grouped to form phrases and sentences as “information”) These 4 base pairs match up with their respective counter part A with T and G with C. The duplications of these proteins does not always happen perfectly and duplications and deductions occur. This changes the “information” into something that is first introduced and not before present and therefore can ONLY be described as “new”. Now, onto your stab towards atheism. One, charles darwin was NOT an atheist. Don’t worry though, he wasn’t the first mold breaking scientist to be accused of being an “infedel”, (were galileo and newton atheists too because their work goes against the bibles teachings?) I wish Darwin had been an atheist. But no he was a christian, get over that fact, I know, it’s hard for me to accept that too. And you have a pretty interesting idea of what an atheist is, you seem to think of atheists as single minded individuals that can be accurately grouped into a single world view. And you made the statement about a destruction of faith in God would lead to a better society and that that is incorrect. Let me demonstrate what’s incorrect about that, america is made up of a population that is 80% christian and about 93% total believe in God. We are number 1 in 2 categories. Military spending and prisoners per capita. In Europe, you have Denmark, Norway, Sweden and France. For each of those countries arround about 50% or less believe in God (it’s only like 25 in Denmark) Those countries are known for being the happiest, cleanest, most educated and most invested in science countries in the world.

      1. Amal Raj2 years ago

        JMajik, you are a genius. Looks like you do lot of research. Your comment is the best one I read so far to give clear details about evolution.

    2. Soren3 years ago

      Your faith is more blind than Dawkins..

  18. Jim Clark3 years ago

    I would have liked the table for number 3 to be ordered by the “correct answer” according to what scientists think, namely evolution due to natural processes. Would show more clearly that only “unaffiliated” category achieves even 50% agreement. “Unaffiliated” is of course a mixed bag, and might usefully be broken down into finer groupings, presumably with Atheist as the least religious category and the highest agreement with scientists (i.e., science?).

  19. Karl Kenneth Leathley3 years ago

    Very interesting! I would however assert that evolution is a scientific fact ! A process which is continuing! Fact! Also a process which began without the aid of any external “supernatural ” forces! The evidence is indisputable. Fact.

    1. Gary Niblock3 years ago

      Logic would (according to the survey) indicate that apparantly it is disputable. And that’s a fact.

      1. captbilly3 years ago

        The fact that lots of people don’t believe in evolution means about as much as the fact that most people can’t design and build a spaceship or nuclear reactor or cell phone. The opinions of people with limited education or knowledge are not likely to be based on rational thinking and data but rather, gut feeling and bits of information they hear from other unknowlegeable people.

        A first grade class gets a hamster as the class pet. The teacher says, let’s name the hamster, so the kids ask, is it a boy or a girl hamster? The teacher says she doesn’t know how to tell if a hamster is a boy or girl, then says, “let’s vote on it”.

        Obviously the point of the story is that the opinion of a bunch of people who don’t know enough to make a rational determination has no bearing on the truth. The hamster’s sex is what it is and the opinion of the students is meaningless. Now if we asked a group of veterinarians or specialists with expertise in small mammal biology what sex they thought the hamster was, that would mean something, and in all likelihood they would almost all vote the same way.

    2. Raassay3 years ago

      fact the genome is information. fact information does not come into existence by accident. It is the creation of intelligent beings. Fact evolution by natural selection is fiction not science. Natural selection of existing genome information is also a fact. But it does not create new information.

  20. Daver3 years ago

    That is absolutely astonishing. 30% of us don’t believe in evolution? It’s a scientific fact. Astonishing.

  21. David Sirrine3 years ago

    The author engages in a false dichotomy and twists the reality of the poll numbers regarding evolution. Science does not make any claims about the supernatural guidance behind evolution; it’s unable by definition to comment on anything other than natural phenomena. The statement that “humans and other living things evolved solely due to natural processes” intentionally excludes believers who accept the truth of evolutionary science but find meaning and purpose in their religious views. Science has nothing to say about “ultimate questions” such as meaning, value, and purpose, and when scientists propose answers to these questions they are speaking as believers in a certain metaphysical philosophy, not with the authority of science behind their beliefs.

    1. Gary Whittenberger3 years ago

      David, I think you are making an incorrect philosophical assumption in your definition of science. Science is a method of systematic replicated objective observation and of rational analysis and needs to make no assumptions about natural vs. supernatural phenomena.

      The exclusion which you identify was intentional. So what? That fit with the purpose of the survey.

      “Meaning, value, and purpose” are phenomena of intelligent agents. Human persons are intelligent agents. The sciences of psychology and biology have much to say about human persons.

      You have not specified as single “ultimate question” which science has nothing to say about. What is an ultimate question and who decides it is ultimate?

      1. willem3 years ago

        Gary, evolution can not be proved and thats why they require a millions of years phenomena so that no one can witness the so called facts.
        Fossils dont come with date tags and that is why carbon dating is an irrelevant method of trying to get facts which dont exist…unless you can prove it by being a witness as you stated ” Science is a method of systematic replicated objective observation and of rational analysis and needs to make no assumptions about natural vs. supernatural phenomena.”. – your own statement can be used against you, you havent been there to observe it, and neither have any evolutionary scientist. not all scientists have fallen into the evolutionary dilemma, there are many that believe in the Creation. but unfortunately society has liked the idea of not having to obey a higher power but to live in a “free” world, and has the power to suppress the Creation, and has now called Christianity a religion. Atheism is a blind faith religion >
        As for facts no evolution between kinds (fish to bird or algae to plant ) has ever been proven, nor observed.

  22. John3 years ago

    Jesus believed in the existance of Adam. Chuck away Adam and you chuck away Christianity maybe the pope doesn’t realise that. All you slaves to evolution don’t realise you are merrily embracing your ticket to oblivion

    1. Mr. See3 years ago

      John, then may we be struck down by lightning for allowing ourselves to think critically using the amassed data and evidence collected over the last 155 years which has thoroughly supported evolution.

    2. Ian3 years ago

      Adam well may have existed but he was not the only Homo sapien on earth. What he was most likely in The Christian faith however, was the first to have breathed into him a soul ( the thing we believe to separate humans from animals) if such a theory was true, then the creationist view collapses & God driven evolution exists !. Look at it this way, if one was to take the creationist bible view word for word. Then Adam was created into a empty world of humans. Then Eve was created to keep the poor bloke company 🙂 . They had 2 sons Cane & Able but cane killed Able ( bugger) so after all this, Cane took a wife & off they went :). ok John ? Where did the wife come from ?????? Bugger Big hole in creationist world !!!!!
      What The Pope is saying is there can be another view that doesn’t go down the Puritan Creationist view. God can be driving evolution & be a active engaged God who is interested in everything in our universe and beyond every animal, germ & virus is evolving. Not some un engaged and or uninterested limited creator that made the earth in 6 days then had a rest & forgot about the place. :))

      1. graciela3 years ago

        Most think that there was only Cain and Abel born to Adam and Eve but the Bible actually teaches that by the time Cain took a wife there were many human beings, that came from Adam.
        Not everything recorded in the Book of Genesis is written in an exact chronological order. The events of Genesis eleven (the Tower of Babel) happened in the middle of chapter 10, chronologically speaking –Genesis 5:4 states, “Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.

        Evolution is W-R-O-N-G!! You don’t what you say if you’ve never had a personal relationship wit God!!! We don’t need to know everything!! Jesus is coming very soon, let’s see if when everything the Bible says will happen in the last days, you will still believe in creation… NOTHING of what you, evolutionists say, makes sense… I’m not an adult, but I am 100% sure that God created the heavens and the earth!! How do you think all of these different galaxies exist!?? How?? How?? How?? God! He created it… And if you can’t find the answer, just have faith in God… God will answer ALL of our questions when we go to heaven… Just have faith!!

        1. Mary3 years ago

          The creation story has to be untrue even if you ignore the all the other evidence we have, for one simple reason. The bible does not describe the earth or the universe that matches our understanding that has developed over hundreds of years. Here is what the bible describes:

          Heavens, earth, and underworld

          The Hebrew Bible imagined a three-part world, with the heavens (shamayim) above, earth (eres) in the middle, and the underworld (sheol) below.[9] After the 4th century BCE this was gradually replaced by a Greek scientific cosmology of a spherical earth surrounded by multiple concentric heavens,[6] but even so the New Testament writers continued to assume a flat earth and it was not until the Middle Ages that spherical earth was accepted by the Church.[22]

          The cosmic ocean

          The three-part world of heavens, earth and underworld floated in Tehom, the mythological cosmic ocean, which covered the earth until God created the firmament to divide it into upper and lower portions and reveal the dry land;[23] the world has been protected from the cosmic ocean ever since by the solid dome of the firmament.[24]


          In the Old Testament the word shamayim represented both the sky/atmosphere, and the dwelling place of God.[30] The raqia or firmament – the visible sky – was a solid inverted bowl over the earth, coloured blue from the heavenly ocean above it.[31] Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the raqia, which had “windows” to allow them in – the waters for Noah’s flood entered when the “windows of heaven” were opened.[32] Heaven extended down to and was coterminous with (i.e. it touched) the farthest edges of the earth (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:32);[33] humans looking up from earth saw the floor of heaven, which was made of clear blue lapis-lazuli (Exodus 24:9-10), as was God’s throne (Ezekiel 1:26).[34]

          Cosmic geography

          In the Old Testament period the earth was most commonly thought of as a flat disc floating on water.[17] The concept was apparently quite similar to that depicted in a Babylonian world-map from about 600 BCE: a single circular continent bounded by a circular sea,[49] and beyond the sea a number of equally spaced triangles called nagu, “distant regions”, apparently islands although possibly mountains.[50] The Old Testament likewise locates islands alongside the earth; (Psalm 97:1) these are the “ends of the earth” according to Isaiah 41:5, the extreme edge of Job’s circular horizon (Job 26:10) where the vault of heaven is supported on mountains.[51]


          I would recommend that you read this entire 6entry online and also google ‘biblical cosmology” which will take you to scholarly papers on this.

          1. Raassay3 years ago

            lets try to keep in mind that your understanding of the universe is based on “theoretical physics” not fact. As you have present historically science has changed and unfortunately the church as married itself to models that were doomed. But scientist were just as resistant to new models as the church was. The idea that every one believed in a flat earth by the way, is a fairly tale. As for the Bible, it was never intended to be a scientific text or explain ever detail of the universe. But the people in the 19th century who claimed the Bible was a book myths because for example: Babylon didn’t exist, the Hittites didn’t exist, the book of acts was a made up story: those people where all proven wrong by archaeology. As Anthony Flew, came to understand the existence of design and information in the human genome is evidence of a creator. And that creator is very intelligent and creative.

        2. Michael3 years ago

          Well now lemme see as I understand it the evolution theory is : “In the beginning there was nothing. And then nothing blew up. The detritus from the explosion of nothing became everytjhing.”

          For me, that particular religion requires more faith than I have.

        3. Qma2 years ago

          Sorry Graciela, I am not loony enough to “just believe”!

      2. Jamal2 years ago

        Dude, you should do a bit more research before commenting on people. Adam had daughters too. Cain took his sister as his wife. That’s why nowadays people call their nation ‘brothers and sisters’ in pledges and stuff.

  23. Linda Jenkinson3 years ago

    In the context given, the term “creation science” is an oxymoron. There is no science behind creationist theory or intelligent design (in context, another oxymoron, IMO).

  24. Marlowe C. Embree, Ph.D.3 years ago

    I’m curious about longitudinal trends in the acceptance of theistic evolution. Can you point me in the right direction?

  25. B. Beech3 years ago

    what can we expect from citizens if a majority still believe in fairy tales and not science? Why are we locked into the fables and fabrications which are traceable to ancient Sumerians, Egyptians and many other civilizations? Has anyone done a survey of Harvard, Yale, Stanford University etc graduates and asked them if they believe in scientific research or Biblical “revelation”?

    Religion is power over one’s mind and life. Ancient Greeks and even Romans had rules for living ethical lives.

    B. Beech

    1. Josiah3 years ago

      Well, scientists are not exaclty the greatest at communication. I suspect alot of people who do not believe science, don’t know what they are not believing, and that is pretty easy. Also, ridiculing peoples beliefs by calling them fairy tales is not great communication either, and not very compelling reasoning.

      1. Josiah3 years ago


    2. Bob3 years ago

      But the Greeks and Romans were also intensely religious people–with a vast pantheon, household shrines and giant temples, oracles, a large priesthood, etc. That didn’t seem to hold them back at all.

    3. Michael3 years ago

      The full motto of Harvard: Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae (“The Truth of Christ and the Church”).

      Yale Motto: Lux et Veritas (Light and Truth)
      This, of course, is a wonderful motto for a school (and note that Yale was founded to provide academic AND religious training, concerned first with the training of the CLERGY).

  26. The Digital Druid3 years ago

    Read Nicholas Wade’s last 3 books to understand why and how we invented religion. It used to have some evolutionary benefits…now, not so much.

    1. Raassay3 years ago

      oh so he was there? or is this another evolution “just so story”. It must me nice to make a living imagining stories to prop up atheism and still be able to masquerade as a scientist.

  27. Max T. Furr3 years ago

    I see that 33% believe that humans did not evolve, but have been as we are since the beginning. I would love to see the educational level of that 33%, including the nature of the college, if any, attended (religious or public), and their majors.

    1. Dear Max3 years ago

      To answer your question of the educational level of the population who still believes that the earth did not come into being through random chance happenings, but through the spoken word of God. I am a Civil Engineer how graduated from North Dakota State University.

      1. strato man3 years ago

        I think you answered the OP as he/she expected. Had you studied any biology, astrophysics, astronomy, geology… Or had you been paying attention in those classes, you would find it logically impossible to believe in the biblical version of creation.

  28. Anna3 years ago

    The problem with this research is the way the questions are worded. It shows a lack of understanding about what people believe, because most people who say they don’t believe in “evolution” mean they don’t believe in molecule to man evolution, but also don’t believe living things were created exactly as they are today. They believe that fish were created fish and birds were created birds, but not that they never changed. Just as (virtually) everyone understands that viruses evolve and mutate, most people believe that all living things can change over time. Among creationists who think about these things, it is generally believed that living things have evolved from the family or genus level. For the record though, I am in no means an expert in these fields, just an informed young person. If you are interested in being more informed, either in support or in opposition to this idea, I suggest that you check out some sites that explain in more detail, and might be able to answer some of your questions. One that I’ve had experience with is answers.com, but of course there are many out there. Please don’t just write people off as crazy because they think differently that you. Most people just don’t know how to express what they believe. If someone tries to tell you that viruses don’t mutate though, move on. They aren’t really worth your time.

    1. Max T. Furr3 years ago

      Logically, the questions concern human evolution. This is the whole point. I would suspect that the 33% considered the questions pertained to human evolution as well.

      However, I do think Pew should qualify by inserting the word “human” in order to make it more clear to folks who tend to parse too much.

      That said, I would love to know the educational level of the 33%, and the nature of the college they attended, if any.

    2. Kathy K-m3 years ago

      I don’t think the issue is what people believe. I’m an atheist and don’t really care what anyone else believes.
      The issue is bringing those beliefs into educational settings, where they conflict with every bit of scientific evidence, from every field from geology, to cosmology, to dendrochronology.
      While other civilized countries have learned to separate religion from science, and wouldn’t dream of teaching creationism in the classroom, it seems to be a BIG problem in the U.S., and clearly, that is evidenced by the numbers shown.

    3. Linda Jenkinson3 years ago

      Whoever informed you, got it wrong. Fish were created fish as were birds, as were mammals. We all got our start in the ocean and there is scientific evidence to that fact. There is no evidence that “man was created man”. If you believe that, you believe it on theistic faith, not fact.

  29. jerry3 years ago

    I’m happy to live life believing in Jesus Christ and when I die it will be a full and fulfilling life without any regrets.I hope you can say the same in the end.

    1. Max T. Furr3 years ago

      Personally, I am very happy to live my life with a mind free of religious dogma but full of questions, speculation, and wonder. I revel in nature’s beauty and the human desire to understand it. I question everything, especially religion, because I understand that the religious beliefs I once had were taught to me from tothood. I understand, now, that virtually everyone of every religion believes what he was taught to believe.

      When I realized that years ago, it set my sails for a journey into honest self analysis and education. I am now satisfied that if a good god did exist, it would be cool with the use of reason.

      This is my favorite quote:

      Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blindfolded fear. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, 10 Aug. 1787, Lower case “g” in “god” retained)

  30. Bosco Peters3 years ago

    Not really an article about facts about evolution and religion, was it? More about Americans and strange ideas. More in the vein of: 70% of Americans do not know what the Constitution is, 20% of Americans allege that an alien life form has abducted a friend or family member of theirs, only 51% can identify where New York is on a map, 25% of Americans are unable to identify the country from which America gained its independence, 20%, believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.


    1. Kathy K-m3 years ago

      LOL. They aren’t exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, are they? They can barely find my country on the map, and we’re next door neighbours. They have a vague sense that anything North of them is probably Alaska. 🙂

  31. Marc in NA3 years ago

    Folks who say “I believe in evolution, but I think it is directed by God” either don’t really believe in evolution or don’t understand it. The two processes underlying evolutionary theory, random variation and natural selection, do not require any divine intervention.

    One can interject a deity into anything, but it is not clear what this is supposed to mean. “Gravity exists but it is created by God”, “the stars shine bright at night emitting the energy created by God”, “sodium and chlorine react to form stable chemical bonds created by God”. It works for just about anything.

    1. PuddleglumsWager3 years ago

      God is nothing. No-thing. He’s not a member of the set of things. God doesn’t exist. He’s not a member of the set of existent things. Rather, he is the necessary ground for all contingency; the reason anything exists at all. This is classical theism.

      The alternative to God as the ground of all being is an infinite regression of causation, turtles all the way down, which is equivalent to saying there is ultimately no cause for anything at all.

      God doesn’t guide or interfere in nature. God as creator continually calls all things into being. Demiurges guide and interfere with existent things. God is not a demiurge.

      Gravity, energy, elements do not exist in themselves. They are not necessary beings. Rather, they are the creations of a necessary being. Theology contemplates necessary being. Science contemplates contingent being.

    2. Kathy K-m3 years ago

      I believe they understand evolution fine. The deity part comes in, to address the matter of the, well, let’s call it a “soul”, for want of a better word. The part of humans that made us like no other species, giving the ability for sophisticated communication, which involves art, literature, music. The morals/ethics, that only we seem to want/need, beyond merely tribal cooperation to increase our population. Our concern for what comes next and how things work. The endless striving to know why the hell we’re here. 🙂

    3. Bob3 years ago

      I don’t think it’s odd that a person holding two apparently contradictory ideas in his brain attempts to reconcile them. That’s human nature–we tend to be complex.

  32. Charlie Sitzes3 years ago

    Most scientists agree we evolved to our present state some 200,000 years ago when our brains had reached the present size of some 1500 cubic centimeters.

    One has to wonder at what point since then, a god decided to implant a soul within us.

    1. Marc in NA3 years ago

      One idea is that when the brain becomes large enough it creates a “self” in order to better organize its higher functions and impart a strong instinct for survival. I also instinctively believe in a “soul”, but hey who’s telling me this? My own brain. Would you trust your brain to tell you the truth?

      1. Grammar3 years ago

        Whales, parrots, apes and even octopuses all appear to demonstrate varying degrees of consciousness. Some researchers studying orcas suspect they may be even more self-conscious and socially aware than humans. All of which suggests that in consciousness, as in other characteristics, evolution is at work in lifeforms as diverse as mammals, birds and mollusks!

  33. eeenok3 years ago

    what’s happening here is that evolution is consistent with reality. whether your religion is also consistent with reality tends to depend on how much of a bet it has made in testable claims

  34. Jeffery Holte3 years ago

    What I call nature, for me is the creation force, or God if you will.

  35. Eddie3 years ago

    The Catholic Church has always been wishy-washy. No surprise here.

  36. Mikki Mack3 years ago

    I agree, that we have evolved since the world as we know it began – 500 to 1,000 years ago, ‘most’ women barely grew to 5 feet tall, the men mostly to 5’4″ to 5’5″ and today most men are 5’10 and taller, women 5’6″ and taller for average heights. To those who think we or animals do not evolve, deny a higher power and put limits on their ‘God’ as it is the people and animals who evolve and adapt who survive.

  37. eric burns3 years ago

    It needs little more than common sense to come to that conclusion, so why are they wasting time telling people fairy tales?

  38. James Kohl3 years ago


    “Researchers have long known the sequence of the nisin gene, and they can assemble the chain of amino acids (called a peptide) that are encoded by this gene.”

    The epigenetic link from nutrient uptake to genetic networks and metabolic networks that lead to the control of reproduction by species-specific pheromones is hard for serious scientists to ignore.

    How do theorists ignore it?

    These researchers just showed that bacteria ecologically adapt via amino acid substitutions that stabilize their organized genome, which is what all species do.

    Organisms that cannot adapt to changes in ecology that alter their food supply starve to death. They do not evolve into other species.

  39. Peter Kinnon3 years ago

    It is shameful that the US, which in many respects leads the world in science, technology and rational thought, still has a large proportion of its residents hide-bound by superstition. Unfortunately this indoctrination, even now, is vigorously promoted by many at the highest levels of government.

    My previous, very informal book “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?”, a free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website might, I hope, help to dispel such myth-based nonsense.

  40. Boadicea3 years ago

    Nice talk until the Vatican walks it back.

  41. RICHARD D.+STACY3 years ago

    I believe that evolution is an on-going process, the results of which may take millions of years to form. One of my “bucket list” items is to be able to return to earth in about a million years (if it still exists) and observe the changes.

  42. Joy Ohler3 years ago

    It is true that in 1950, in the encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII said that Catholic teachings on creation could coexist with evolutionary theory.  And that more recently Pope John Paul II went a bit further in 1996, calling evolution “more than a hypothesis.” But did you know in the USA, Western civilization’s leading theologian of the late 19th Century was quoted to say “In its history of mortality, Darwin’s theory of evolution from a material basis is more consistent than most theories.” Furthermore stating: “One distinguished naturalist argues that mortals spring from eggs and in races. Mr. Darwin admits this, but he adds that mankind has ascended through all the lower grades of existence.” Following this bold statement the author, theologian, and Christian Scientist, Mary Baker Eddy continues as the ever intuitive and finds all matter as non-existent. Her inspired thought leads 20th Century theoretical physics in stating that all causation is Mind. By the way in full agreement with Einstein’s statement “Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” Einstein. “The error,” Eddy finds “which says that Soul is in body, Mind is in matter, and good is in evil, must unsay it and cease from such utterances;” “From mortal mind comes the reproduction of the species, — first the belief of inanimate, and then of animate matter. According to mortal thought, the development of embryonic mortal mind commences in the lower, basal portion of the brain, and goes on in an ascending scale by evolution, keeping always in the direct line of matter, for matter is the subjective condition of mortal mind. “ Or later as Einstein’s “perceptible to the senses.”
    Recent reviews of Eddy’s seminal work ; Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures:
    Book by Mary Baker Eddy
    Google Books

    1. Dyzlak3 years ago

      You didn’t actually say anything!

    2. strato man3 years ago

      Your understanding of modern science is incorrect. Many knowledgeable scientists have attempted to explain modern physics in a way that was accessible to people without the necessary background to really understand the actual quantifiable theory (the math). Einstein was notable in his ability to make his theories partially understandable to non-scientists but, at the end of the day these simplified explanations of theory allow misunderstanding as well.

      Einstein never meant to suggest that the physical world only exists in our souls, though obviously we can only presently sense and comprehend through our body.

  43. Barbara3 years ago

    What about other religions? Islam? Judaism? Hindu? Buddhism?

  44. Bob Gordon3 years ago

    Hmmmmm…… so survey data is now considered so accurate it is fact. Well that is very interesting.

  45. BK3 years ago

    Evolution would explain their “nakedness”. And God said, “Stand up straight, and go put some clothes on”……familiar.

  46. S. J. Powell3 years ago

    I’m one of those Christians who believes evolution is the way God works in creation. I’ve never found this to be unreasonable. As for after humans are extinct and evolution moves on (which will probably happen), I’ll let God worry about that. I’ll admit I have the same attitude towards any intelligent extraterrestrial life lurking on a distant planet–there’s no need to try to convert them to an earthly religion like Christianity. (There’s an interesting survey question. 🙂 )

    1. Peter Kinnon3 years ago

      Sure, as I point out in my writings, there can no basic logical objection to plugging in a deity if one goes back far enough.

      On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to do so. The notions of Gods stem from myths rather than hard evidence.

      1. Brian Watson3 years ago

        And what is the hard evidence for your claim that the notions of gods stem from myths? Might I suggest such a claim is, well, a myth?

        1. Grammar3 years ago

          If you have serious questions about the origins of contemporary belief in more ancient belief systems, you may wish to watch the documentary film, “The God Who Wasn’t There.”
          The reality is that we have no more proof for the historical existence of either Jesus or Mohammed than the ancient Greeks had for Hercules and the many wondrous feats attributed to him, including his ability to stand for a time at Gibraltar and “hold up the sky.”

      2. Kathy K-m3 years ago

        And at the core of every myth, there’s usually some kernel of truth.
        The deity concept is something every culture on the planet has come up with, even though they were completely disconnected from one another.

        1. Grammar3 years ago

          No, not every. Some are content to live their lives without this concept. Many (though not all) Buddhists hold no opinion on the existence of a supreme deity.

    2. Mary V.3 years ago


    3. Charlie Sitzes3 years ago

      Any guess as to when your god implanted us with a soul after we had finally evolved to our present state some 200,000 years ago?

  47. Sam Whaley3 years ago

    Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean it is not true.

    1. Michael3 years ago

      True, but I find it interesting that this argument is so often put forward when it comes to God, but ignored for pixies, magic unicorns and anal probing aliens.

      When it comes to God, were are expected to believe without any evidence, but if we used the same argument for other knowledge we’d still be sitting in mud huts, shivering, afraid of the dark, and things that go bump in the night.

      I’d rather believe more true things than false ones. This is the sole reason why we can feed more people than every before, it’s how we can cure diseases and have a communications system that spans the globe and allows us to have the worlds knowledge at our fingertips. The real shame is that so many people refuse to access that knowledge and also learn more things that are true than are false. Knowledge and knowing what is true has done much for the human race, while ignorance has never done anything except lead us astray.

      1. Kathy K-m3 years ago

        How do you imagine our quest for knowledge came about? For a great many early scientists it was the desire to understand the works of their God. And there was never anything in their findings, from Father Lemaitre and his Big Bang to Brother Mendel and his work in genetics, or Newton “discovering” gravity, that made them say “Well, now we’ve figured that out, I can stop believing/seeking.”

        1. Grammar3 years ago

          Philosophical analysis of religion did not spring up overnight. But neither was skeptical inquiry into the gods or a supreme god unknown in ancient times. The Greek philosopher Epicurus living in the fourth and third centuries BCE, wrote:

          “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
          Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
          Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
          Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

          Prevailing opinion is no indication of truth. Eratosthenes, scientist and librarian of Alexandria, proposed in the third century BCE that the Earth was a sphere, and by observation and calculation, he provided the first close approximation of that sphere’s size, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, and the distances to the Moon and Sun. For more than a millennia afterward, most people around the world continued to live and die thinking they were on a flat Earth, based on scriptures and other ancient erroneous sources.

          1. Dory3 years ago

            Now here is true Scripture…”It is He who sits upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants are like grasshoppers; Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in; Who brings the princes to nothing, He makes the judges of the earth as vanity. To whom then will you liken Me or shall I be equal? Says the Holy One”.
            Isaiah 40:22-23,25

    2. Dan Hilbert3 years ago

      Just because you believe in fairy tales and fables doesn’t mean that they are true. The only thing that is true about Christianity is that it is false.

      1. Kathy K-m3 years ago

        The whole point of fable is not necessarily the truth of the characters. (I’m pretty sure rabbits and tortoises didn’t arrange foot races)
        That doesn’t make the message less valid.
        Whether someone like King David existed, historically, remains to be seen. (although they are finding some archaeological evidence in Israel. Jury’s still out on it, right now.) But his story and the lessons contained within are no less pertinent.

    3. Jonas3 years ago

      Just because you belive in something doesen’t make it true either.
      There is absolutely no evidence for any deity, what so ever.
      And no, the bible proofs nothing. It’s just a book made up by humans.

      There are the same amount of evidence for Spiderman as there is for God.

      1. Kathy K-m3 years ago

        Not exactly “no evidence”. There is circumstantial evidence, reas ipsa loquitor, if you will.
        There are “ear” witness testimony, a few thousand years old, yes, but that makes it no less valid. If you applied that standard, then figures like Alexander the Great or Washington didn’t exist, either. We really have very little evidence for many historical figures. The written account of others is all we’ve got.
        To consider Spiderman and God on the same evidentiary level, there would need to be large, unexplained webs strung about, and a whole bunch of very credible people claiming they saw/spoke to him.
        While you may not find the evidence compelling enough, you can’t say it doesn’t exist.

    4. Gerald Moore3 years ago

      Just because you believe something, that doesn’t make it true.

    5. j. zawacki3 years ago

      The issue is not one to be settled by “belief.” Scientists do not believe,quote-unquote, in evolution. Evidence, the result of experimental knowledge, compels scientists to accept the truth, however provisional all science is, of evolution and the unity of all living entities. We share about 2% of our DNA with Neanderthals and about 95% with our closest primates. These findings are not subject to belief. They just are and, of course, one can refuse to accept scientific truth and remain ignorant of science. However, that is a rather self-imposed and unnecessary constriction for living a full life.

    6. dave 11203 years ago

      but the fact that you HAVE to believe should make you question its reality

      reality is known

      fantasy is believed

      1. Kathy K-m3 years ago

        LMFAO. Reality is purely subjective.

        1. Grammar3 years ago

          Is it? Would you agree to be injected with a deadly virus, knowing that the “reality” of that virus is “purely subjective”? I hope not! The standard, rational standard for what is real is reproducibility of measurable evidence under skeptical inquiry. When a person sees & hears things which no one else does, we not unreasonably conclude that person is deranged.
          Of course, this standard applies only to things which have been measured and tested. Until the invention of the radio and x-rays, we had no glimmer of how many invisible radiations existed. That did not make them unreal, it only made them unknown. Science does not claim to have investigated every possible claim, rather it acknowledges that there is much yet to study and discover. In general, it speaks only to propositions that are measurable and testable. A claim that unicorns or extraterrestrials cannot be supported if no one can produce one.

  48. Beth Gazley3 years ago

    Interesting to see how four fact-driven points, merely reporting on public opinion, contrast with Masci’s fifth point. That point seems hopelessly partisan and opinion-driven rather than fact-driven. “Creation science” is a made up term that attempts to place creationist beliefs on an even par with evolutionary theory. I am sorry to see something from Pew come out with such an obvious ideological and pro-creationist bent.

    1. Michael3 years ago

      I don’t see your conclusion on fact number 5.
      I see it simply as a fact without a bias or agenda. Perhaps because it’s written that way, very neutral, that it’s easy to read into it more than what’s actually there. I’d suggest you reread it and see if that makes a difference.

    2. Anna3 years ago

      The survey doesn’t cater to creationists, it only twist their ideas. They don’t believe everything was created exactly as it is now or that things never evolve. They believe fish were created as fish and birds as birds, not that viruses don’t mutate. In fact, there is no way for a creationist to answer this survey because every option contradicts what they believe. This survey is so simplistic and clearly designed to make creationists look like nuts that I think the people who refused to answer were likely creationists. This survey is very poor quality and I am very disappointed to see it coming out of Pew Research.

  49. Ken Rynne3 years ago

    .a majority (53%) of Catholics find pie charts more persuasive than bar charts. Up from 51% under JPII. So we’re evolving.

    1. Charlie Sitzes3 years ago


    2. Anna3 years ago