February 10, 2017

For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

Photograph of Charles Darwin by Maull and Polyblank for the Literary and Scientific Portrait Club (1855) via Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#mediaviewer/File:Charles_Darwin_by_Maull_and_Polyblank,_1855-1.jpg
Photograph of Charles Darwin by Maull and Polyblank for the Literary and Scientific Portrait Club (1855) via Wikimedia Commons.

Sunday is the 208th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, a day now celebrated by some as Darwin Day. Darwin, of course, is best known for his theory of evolution through natural selection. When Darwin’s work was first made public in 1859, it shocked Britain’s religious establishment. And while today it is accepted by virtually all scientists, evolutionary theory still is rejected by many Americans, often because it conflicts with their religious beliefs about divine creation.

While not an official holiday, Darwin Day has been adopted by scientific and humanist groups to promote everything from scientific literacy to secularism. This year, more than 50 events have been planned worldwide, many of them anchored by scientific talks or symposia. Others, such as a children’s scavenger hunt at the Smithsonian’s Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., are a little less serious.

To mark the occasion, here are six facts about the public’s views on evolution, as well as other aspects of the debate in the U.S. and elsewhere:

1Only a minority of Americans fully accept evolution through natural selection. Roughly six-in-ten U.S. adults (62%) say humans have evolved over time, according to data from Pew Research Center’s Religious Landscape Study. But only a little more than half of them (33% of all Americans) express the belief that humans and other living things evolved solely due to natural processes. A quarter of U.S. adults (25%) say evolution was guided by a supreme being. The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.

2Scientists and beliefs about human evolutionWhile 98% of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science say they believe humans evolved over time, only two-thirds (66%) of Americans overall perceive that scientists generally agree about evolution, according to 2014 data from a recent Pew Research Center survey on science and society. Those in the general public who reject evolution are divided on whether there is a scientific consensus on the topic, with 47% saying scientists agree on evolution and 46% saying they do not. 

3A series of court decisions have prohibited 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 Constitution’s prohibition on the establishment of religion.

4Belief in evolution by religious traditionOf all the major religious groups in the U.S., evangelical Protestants are among the most likely to reject evolution. According to the Center’s Religious Landscape Study, a solid majority (57%) of evangelicals say humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. (About half of Mormons and roughly three-quarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses also reject evolution.) These views are largely mirrored by the positions of large evangelical churches, as well as, in many cases, by majorities of their members. For instance, majorities of those who affiliate with the Southern Baptist Convention (58%) and the Seventh-day Adventist church (67%) reject the idea that human beings evolved over time. By contrast, much smaller minorities of mainline Protestants (30%), Catholics (29%), Jews (16%) and the religiously unaffiliated (15%) share this view.

5More broadly, most Americans (59%) say that science and religion are often in conflict, but those who are more religiously observant are less likely than others to see this clash between faith and science, according to a 2015 Pew Research Center Survey. Among those who attend church at least once a week, half (50%) view religion and science as in conflict, compared with nearly three-quarters (73%) of those who seldom or never attend house of worship. At the same time, most people (68%) say that their own personal religious beliefs do not clash with accepted scientific doctrine.

6Compared with the U.S., even larger percentages of people in many other countries reject evolution. For example, in Latin America, roughly four-in-ten or more residents of several countries – including Ecuador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic – say humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. This is true even though the official teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority religion in the region, do not reject evolution. Meanwhile, Muslims in many nations are divided on the topic, although majorities of Muslims in countries such as Afghanistan, Indonesia and Iraq reject evolution.

Note: This post was originally published on Feb. 12, 2015, and has been updated. 

Category: 5 Facts

Topics: Science and Innovation, Religious Beliefs and Practices, Evolution

  1. Photo of David Masci

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


  1. Peter Nuthak5 months ago

    Created life came from God. You can’t get life from non-living things. Evolution or change of people or anything else happen all the time. In 1964 (I graduated) a 6ft. girl was a starter for sure on a basketball team, now not a sure thing.

    1. some one5 months ago

      You can get life from non-living things. You just need to combine the right proteins in the right conditions.

  2. Anonymous5 months ago

    Hinduism accept the truth of human evaluation. Manicavasagar a celebrated saint in his thiruvasagam has accepted that the humans we’re created from various species in an evolutionary process.

  3. Anonymous5 months ago

    In public schools, what I believe is reasonable in an American or World History class, perhaps on “Darwin Day,” is to teach the facts of such a study as yours in a lesson or two and a discussion and a writing assignment could follow. You would then be teaching what people believe about evolution, and what people believe about creationism, and “test” what they have learned about the facts, as well as get their opinions through discussion and/or writing assignments This could also be a lesson in an English class where students would be given these facts through reading and/or lecture, and then express/defend their opinions orally or in writing. In neither of these cases is it appropriate for the the teacher offer his/her opinion on the subject. In science class, the teacher presents the information in studies such as yours, again, defines Darwinism and creationism, but eventually teaches evolutionary theory as accepted science. That teacher’s opinion would be self-evident (That’s why (s)he is a science teacher in a public school). In a private religiously affiliated school that accepts creationism, I feel truly sorry for students who may not be given full instruction on Darwin’s concept of natural selection.
    What would be fascinating to me is a research study that asks individuals of these same religious groups – Jews, Christians and Muslims who each accept some form of the Old Testament – if they are aware that the Bible has two distict origin stories, one in Genesis 1, and the other in Genesis 2. Adam and Eve is only one of them.

  4. Anonymous5 months ago

    Re. Darwin’s Theory and the Supreme Court’s support. Why is teaching in opposition to religion in public schools not an infringement of the Religion Clause?

  5. John Barclay5 months ago

    Re 6 – It is also reasonable to point out that much of the world fails to understand the use of the word “debate”.

    Refusal to accept the evidence because it disagrees with a particular reading of a religious book is not “debate”.

  6. Shylock Maximus5 months ago

    I just want to know if there are any young earth or creation scientists that are not part of a religion. I have been searching everywhere and cannot find one paper published on the subject without the mention of god. I know by definition creationists all believe in a “creater” but what about young earth theory? Is there not one single person who believes man walked with dinosaurs that does not believe in god?

  7. Anonymous5 months ago

    There is no “debate” evolution is a fact….those that do not understand this are just simply wrong.

  8. Anonymous5 months ago

    nuber 1 s misleading the uestion being asked is misleading, i would like to see pew redo that question or rremove it, evolution occurs by other processes than natural selection so of course only a small pop. would think it only happened via natural selection

    1. Anonymous5 months ago

      How do you define the term, “natural selection?” Does, for example, it include “directed evolution,” the natural response of a living organism to applied stress (see work of Frances Arnold at Cal Tech)? Does it exclude DNA modification(s) made using CRISPR/Cas or other editing techniques? How about modifications initiated by exposure to natural materials like asbestos or phenomena like cosmic radiation?

  9. Anonymous5 months ago

    What debate? Can you explain the “debate”?

  10. Anonymous5 months ago

    Charles Darwin, circa 1882. “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”
    Charles Darwin, 1859. “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

    His favorite book was Hebrews. “The Royal Book” he called it.

    1. Anonymous5 months ago

      Where are you getting this information? Please cite your source.

      1. Anonymous5 months ago

        Second one is in origin of species, key word being “seems”. He literally then shows how the eye could have evolved thus by showing different complexities in living creatures.

    2. Anonymous5 months ago

      You left out the rest of the paragraph:

      “Yet reason tells me that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.”

  11. Anonymous5 months ago

    Well its true folks.Darwin rejected HIS own theory close to HIS end..A Theory is just a theory..Good money jn Theories however.

    1. Anonymous5 months ago

      Not true. Darwin never rejected his theory. When it comes to science “alternative facts” don’t exist. It’s true, or it’s not, and this is not true.

    2. Anonymous5 months ago

      He never rejected his theory. And theory does not mean “just some random thought.” Please look up scientific definition of theory and how scientists use one. And please read a history of Darwinism.

    3. Anonymous5 months ago

      There’s a significant difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical one. The main one being that a scientific theory – the kind relevant to this discussion – requires substantiation by empirical data(aka. facts), and the other does not.

    4. Anonymous5 months ago

      Wrong, a theory is an accepted idea that has evidence backing it up. You confuse theory with hypothesis. The evidence for evelolution by natural selection has piled up since Darwin’s death. Not a single shred of counter evidence has ever been found – every fossil in every species in every location exactly conforms with natural selection. To deny the theory is to simply ignore a growing mountain of evidence.

  12. Anonymous5 months ago

    The only part of this article I take issue with is the first point that states or implies that most of the people who reject evolution also reject natural selection. In my experience, most of the people who reject evolution as a fact, accept natural selection. They simply do not accept (as evolution teaches) that random mutation produces new species. It is one thing to say that all dogs descend from some common dog, and through natural selection and environment, all the different types of dogs were produced; it is something else to say that a dog randomly mutated into a cat. Also, they tend to have a hard time accepting that life spontaneously generated.

    1. Anonymous5 months ago

      Dogs turning into cats and life spontaneously generating have nothing to do with evolution. Dogs and cats share a common ancestor. Dogs descended from Wolves, cats didn’t. Both still have a mammalian ancestor that they share but we don’t. However we all share a mammalian ancestor further back. Theory of evolution doesn’t cover how life began as it only explains how existing life diversified.

      1. Anonymous5 months ago

        Here is a example, in Roman Empire latin was the main language (Italy and Spain). To reject evolution is like saying that at some point a women had twins and one of them spoke spanish and the other italian. Those two latin language evolved on their own separate over many decades. For species it take much more time but the most evident proof is that if human and T-Rex, Raptor had cross path, we would not have this discussion.

    2. Isc Grdnr5 months ago

      You clearly demonstrate the problem, you simply do not understand evolution by natural selection, and yet you assert assumptions that the theory doesn’t make. “a dog randomly mutated into a cat” is ridiculous.
      Every animal born is exactly the same species as its parent, yet all mammals share a common ancestor. If that sentence seems contradictory or impossible then you need to do more research before commenting on a this topic.

    3. Lars Cade5 months ago

      Nobody suggests that a dog randomly mutated into a cat. If such a thing occurred, evolutionary theory would, in fact, be in crisis.

  13. Anonymous1 year ago

    If you want to put your faith in a 1 book written by a man who refuted his own book before his death, that’s obviously your choice.
    I’m going with the 66 books. I choose to believe these books because they are a reliable source of historical documents written by eyewitnesses in the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events fulfilled by specific prophesy and claim to be divine in nature, not inspired by man……. (No evolution in his book! Unchanging)
    Its not religion, it’s History and it’s the owners manual. You are a creature and an amazing design. Deal wit it!!!!! You will never be God.
    “Religion is the human response to the Law of God”
    Every human is religious

    1. G Osmond1 year ago

      You would definitely have to explain how kangaroos got on Noah’s ark since it is a reliable source of historical documents ?? Only 8 living witnesses there as well.

    2. Anonymous1 year ago

      How can you say these 66 books are historically reliable?

      We aren’t even sure who wrote every book.

      Who wrote Genesis?

      If it was Moses he wasn’t an eyewitness.

      Why didn’t Adam write the creation account? And Noah the flood account?

      Sounds like the author was relying on hearsay.

      Who wrote Matthew?

      If Matthew did write it, how did he witness the temptation of Jesus?

      It says Jesus went off on his own into the wilderness. So no eyewitnesses there either.

      You say its not religion. Have you read James 1:27?

      “Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you”

    3. Anonymous5 months ago

      Exodus 32:14 “And God changed his mind.” Also, Christ is the first of the new creation. Lots of evolution going on in your 66 books.

      1. Anonymous5 months ago

        Anonymous, 1. Exodus 32:14 is an example of a “theophany”, of which there are many in the 2 Testaments, some of which involve God appearing to change His mind or ask for information. However, it is possible that God would in “teaching mode”, and already knew what His people would do. After all, He had promised to make the seed of Abraham, be “as the stars”, a project that is easier, I presume, with living subjects. 2. Job 9:31FF may be a good next step for you.

    4. Michael Mathews5 months ago

      “If you want to put your faith in a 1 book written by a man who refuted his own book before his death”

      I do not believe that Darwin refuted his own book would you like to present your case this is true?

    5. Matthew Fero5 months ago

      Just about every statement here is a fallacy:
      1. “If you want to put your faith in a 1 book written by a man who refuted his own book before his death, that’s obviously your choice”. Evolution is not a religious doctrine in which one chooses to believe or not believe.

      2. “I’m going with the 66 books. I choose to believe these books because they are a reliable source of historical documents written by eyewitnesses in the lifetime of other eyewitnesses.” If the bible was historically accurate then you wouldn’t need to “choose to believe it.” The bible was not written in the style of the classic roman or modern historians, and it written in the style of religious philosophy and propaganda. If you set it aside and take a dispassionate historical or archaeological viewpoint, you will find that is high distorted in almost everyday. A more accurate description would be a collection of legends, myths, philosophy, theology, and political propaganda.

      3. “You will never be God. Religion is the human response to the Law of God. Every human is religious”.
      These are three nice examples of truisms and empty statements. God is whatever you define it to be. Some people have claimed to be gods (e.g. Egyptian Pharaohs). If you define god not to me than I am not god.

      Sure, religion is defined by theists as being the law of god. Mostly this to deter arguments against its authority. However, there is no evidence that religions were not invented by people. Just take a look at Mormonism. It was invented scarcely 150 years ago, by a convicted con-man who blended then-popular myths of buried treasure, indian origins, and lost-tribe of Israel mumbo-jumbo that carries on to this day.

      Every human is religious? Well, again that depends on how you define religion. Not everyone would admit to being religious. They may all be emotional, superstitious, or spiritual (in a broad sense); but religious?

  14. Anonymous1 year ago

    Law- 1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law …
    I wanted to start with the definition of a Law… Here’s why. In this case I am talking about laws that exist in our world today which have been and can be proven using the scientific method.
    Newtons 2nd law of thermodynamics basically says that any isolated system goes from order to disorder. (Ignore your garden for 1 month and you will understand)
    Law of inertia(look it up, if u don’t know), law of non-contadiction(ditto); these are all laws, not theories, because they have been proven over and over again using the scientific method.
    (Must be observeable, measureable, and repeatable)
    I have a point here.
    First of all you can’t have a law without a law giver (imperative must flow from the indicative)
    The Big Bang theory is not a law. It’s a theory which means a guess. The concept also violates all 3 of the forementioned laws. I will go one step further and say that the word “evolution” whew referring to it should be eliminated all together. Here is why; since it can’t be proven scientifically because it is allegedly a historical event and it can’t be proven using the evidentiary method because no one (minimum requirement is 2) was there to witness it. Hence, therefore, ergo, just call it big bang guess. Period…

    1. Anonymous1 year ago

      First of all, I will link you to an explanation of scientific theory: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific…. As you can see, a scientific theory (see: scientific) is much different from the usual definition of theory. A scientific theory is the most rigorous and well-substantiated form of scientific knowledge. In fact, a scientific theory falls above laws in the scientific hierarchy of learning! Scientific theories are explained by decades of research, by thousands of scientists (all using the scientific method,) who have to come to a consensus (general agreement) before it can even be considered a theory. The laws you talk about are weaker than scientific theories and do not contradict evolution. Thermodynamics refers to isolated systems. However, the earth as a whole is not an isolated system, as it gains energy from the sun. Read more about laws and thermodynamics in these links: physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/Evoluti… quora.com/Why-is-the-concept-of-…. It should also be said that these laws are seperate areas of study than evolution. I hope I clarified for you! 🙂

  15. Anonymous1 year ago

    Here’s another thought to add to my diatribe!
    The only “explosions” I know about either kill of mame living creatures. Maybe Darwin got his ideas from suicide bombers? I know he tortured puppies. It’s in his book.

  16. Anonymous1 year ago

    There are many “logical fallacies” in this article. If our public schools would only teach a course in logic!
    1) fallacy of reification:attributing a concrete characteristic to something abstract. i.e.: “Science proves evolution”
    Science can’t prove anything; it is just a word that means knowledge. It doesn’t have the ability to do anything.
    2) Equivocation: shifting from one meaning of a word to another within an argument:
    The word evolution can mean “aging”or the “origin of a species” Natural Selection is an aging process which can be measured over time(observable, measurable, and repeatable) It does not prove or disprove the origin of anything.

  17. Anonymous1 year ago

    The 27 books of the New Testament reiterates and reinforces everything in the first 39 books. There are over 6,000 Historical manuscripts that surpass all other manuscripts from antiquity just for the New Testament alone.
    Our incompetent public school system teaches all other history except these 66 books. Even if we could pass a law to allow this back in, we don’t have the amount of scholars necessary to teach it. We are too stupid and lazy after 3 generations without it! Welcome back to slavery

  18. Anonymous1 year ago

    The 66 books of the Bible being referred to as “teaching creationism” is ludicrous. The first 39 books are based on Jewish Law, the Prophets, Wisdom Literature, Historical Narratives , Geneology of the majority of our people today.
    In fact, the Scientific method we use today was derived from the book of Genesis!!

  19. Anonymous1 year ago

    Events from the past can’t be proven using the Scientific method. The scientific method can only be used in the present.
    You can’t prove George Washington was the first president of the United States using “science.” It isn’t a matter of science, but of evidence. The evidentiary method is based on historical manuscripts and oral or written
    witness testimony of two or
    more people; similar to a court of law. A “theory” is a guess, not a fact. A theory is something that has not been proven using any of the above.

    1. Anonymous5 months ago

      You’re confusing the colloquial definition of “theory” with the scientific definition of “theory.” A scientific theory is not a guess. You’re thinking of a “hypothesis.” A theory must be backed by quite a lot of evidence and pass quite a lot of peer review and scrutiny by the scientific community.

      Characterizing the concept of evolution as a “guess” is like this: well, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it behaves like a duck, it has DNA consistent with duck DNA, and we have an army of respected biologists that concur that it’s almost certainly a duck, but it might not be a duck. It’s just a guess.

  20. Anonymous1 year ago

    Natural selection does not prove or disprove human origin. They are two separate entities. Natural selection is an “aging” process that can be measured using the scientific method because it can be observed over time.( observable, measurable, repeatable-basics of scientific method-) The word “evolution” can be used as a synonym for “aging” and the “Big Bang Theory” Same word, different meaning.

  21. Dash a1 year ago

    The article seems to think that the scientific sphere of discussion should be unified with the public sphere, but in reality the scientific sphere is not necessary related to the public sphere, and in fact some idea from the sciences can clash with understanding outside of it. I would add that the public needs can justly cancel understanding from the scientific communities if they deemed correctly that its will harm the health of them as a group, but its might be up to debate by some.

    from this understand derive non-issues, under today world at least, such as
    1. not all the people knowledgeable on the agreed idea within biology in masses

    2. people even up to debate the very ideas as they deem them to be harmful or wrong when measured against what they see as the community goal.

    3. if I would extrapolate point on why ideas can be possible rejected, some people might misunderstand and be less rigorous in their understanding as they don’t focus on it to begin with. i would guess they rather focus on their interest which is accidentally not the latest research in biology journal.

    In this case I sure it would be deemed unfair if some biologist is not knowledgeable on subjects outside their expertise. for example education. or do the writer argue also that people would be forced to learn every field?

    if indeed such article want to argue to such position surely he understand that he would de facto enter the discussion in biology into a political discussion to some degree.

    whats more, I am sure the writer understand that he argue for limiting the political debate, which would be bound by the truth of his highlighted theory of the month, hence, limiting what can be talked in politics as result. something I sure he can support why is it just to teach biology and enough people would agree with him(by his data its seems as if its not conclusive but who knows what other data he have under his sleeve). unless of course, he want to limit the discussion in his highlighted theory to the ideas of what is just to society. though I would guess he against it by his critique that its not being taught enough.

    its also open the question on why biology in particular? why shouldn’t the same article be equal to any field? Is Musicology so much different than Biology that its shouldn’t be learned as base studies? if so why?

    1. Anonymous1 year ago

      I reject the phrase “the origin of species through natural selection” because the phrase itself is a logical fallacy of begging the question. The origin of a species is not proven by natural selection. The phrase is also a grammatical reversal. Here is why: In order for there to be an imperative, there must be an indicative. Example; “this is a chair”(indicative), “sit in this chair” (imperative) The imperative must flow out of the indicative. Darwin’s statement is saying that natural selection came before the “Origin”……of species. Origin means beginning. If the Big Bang is the origin, then natural selection would have to come after. The statement itself is flawed in more ways than one!

      1. Anonymous5 months ago

        Speciation occurs through the process of natural selection. If the Big Bang happened, no species were created by it. I think you might be misunderstanding what is meant by “origin of species.”

  22. jim thompson1 year ago

    On a planet of our species, is there much hope and us, given that the above facts certainly seem to be true? Especially in a nuclear world. I look forward to the day when, if possible, Earth will finally, perhaps through evolution of simple reason, be free at last free from the dread of fundamentalist religion.

  23. XaurreauX1 year ago

    Bottom line: the sole basis for denying evolution is the denier’s terror that it is true. Evolution is for grownups (and for those of us who, with varying degrees of success, are trying to be).

    1. Anonymous1 year ago

      Natural selection doesn’t prove or disprove the The origin of anything. Natural selection is merely an aging process that occurs over time with living organisms who adapt and mutate according to their climate and mating prospects. We can use the scientific method to measure species as long as they are in the “present”. However, anything from the past can no longer use the scientific method. We must use the evidentiary method to prove anything from the past. Hence, Human origin is not a matter of science, but of History.

  24. Bob C1 year ago

    “But only a little more than half of them (33% of all Americans) express the belief that humans and other living things evolved solely due to natural processes.”‘
    The most recent Gallup poll shows that only 19% of Americans accept evolution without supernatural magic. This is disgraceful. Only the Muslim theocracies are worse.

  25. Chris Alexander2 years ago

    Here is an interesting point that no one seems to be talking about in the discussion of Creation vs Evolution. Charles Darwin’s famous book, The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection OR The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, describes Darwin’s shot in the dark theory of evolution of species. Earlier printings of the book display the entire title and subtitle as typed about. Later printings left off the subtitle, OR The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. I wonder why that is. I wonder if it’s because those who believe in and support Darwin’s theory didn’t want the truth to get out about the deeply entrench racism in Darwin’s theory is.

    1. Zach2 years ago

      Wrong 100% wrong my good sir

    2. Bob C1 year ago

      If you had read the book you would have noticed not once was human evolution mentioned. Obvious you never read it.

    3. Al Settle1 year ago

      Darwin’s use of the word, ‘race’, was in regard to localized variation within animal species, and had absolutely nothing to do with racism.

      Furthermore, evolution is a fact, as real and actual as gravity. The Theory or Evolution by Natural Selection is the scientific theory of how evolution happens, just as gravitational theory is about how gravity happens – which incidentally we are learning more about since the recent detection of gravity waves.

      1. Anonymous1 year ago

        My friend,
        Your statement is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of “equivocation”and “begging the question”
        In this case, you have made the error
        of combining three
        separate concepts, two of which can be proven using the scientific method, and one which
        cannot. You are
        “begging the question” when you say that natural selection is how evolution happens.
        By evolution you mean the “Big Bang”
        Theory. But natural
        selection is not a
        “theory”, it is a fact
        that can be proven
        using the scientific
        method. It is an
        aging process that
        begins at conception and ends at death.
        It can be observed, measured, and repeated (scientific method) You are also
        using the word
        “evolution” meaning
        “Big Bang” and attributing that
        meaning to the aging
        process of natural
        selection-fallacy of
        equivocation- one
        word, two meanings.
        Natural selection does not prove or
        disprove the Big
        Bang “theory”
        One can just as easily attribute God to creating natural selection within a species.
        The Big Bang theory cannot be proven using the scientific method because it would be considered a historical event which happened in
        the past. Anything
        from the past must
        use the evidentiary
        method, not the
        scientific method.
        Also, a “theory” is not a fact, it is a “guess” which has not been proven using either method. The concept of gravity is not a theory, it is a fact that can be proven using the scientific method because it exists in present time.

    4. Aaron Hill1 year ago

      Yes, Darwin was a racist. Not only is no one denying that, it is utterly irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true – which is it.

      Also, note that modern science has moved far beyond ‘Darwin’s theory’. We now have things like DNA evidence, which hadn’t been dreamed of in Darwin’s time.

  26. Chris Alexander2 years ago

    I have some food for thought for the Darwinian evolutionists out there who have bought into this idea that matter can come from non-matter, and one species can evolve into another species. In the time before the “Great awakening”, the church has been often criticized for being closed-minded toward any other ideas about our origins, except for the Biblical account of Creation. Today, in many scientific circles, such as university science departments and most science and biology teachers, for someone to come out and say that they do not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution takes a tremendous amount of courage. That can get them “excommunicated” in a skinny minute. Today’s scientists are no more open-minded than the church was over 1500 years ago. And that’s a fact!

    1. Bob C1 year ago

      Mr. Alexander, anyone who denies the established truth of evolution is a science denier. Scientists are not science deniers. Also, evolution is a basic scientific fact. Facts are not beliefs. Nobody has to believe in it. Biologists accept the massive and powerful evidence for it, evidence you apparently know nothing about.

  27. don2 years ago

    Evolution has been thoroughly discredited by the ICR, Institute for Creation Research

    1. keyzman881 year ago

      “Evolution has been thoroughly discredited by the ICR, Institute for Creation Research”

      …which we all know is a reputable non-bias firm without an agenda or pre-conceived conclusions.

    2. Bob Cu1 year ago

      Most bible organizations want to throw out science. Nobody cares.

    3. Al Settle1 year ago

      As has gravity. And the earth is flat. And humans are controlled by alien lizard people…

  28. Oliver A Bañaria2 years ago

    Gods existence is testable, refutable..

    1.create life from non life
    2. Demonstrate change in kind
    3. Demonstrate info in DNA can arise by undirected process

    If God is not true this should be easy

  29. Lee Bowman2 years ago

    Correction to the comment just posted. The addition of the word ‘not’:

    Designer input does not necessarily equate to a singular God, but just the hypothesis of ID input along the way.

  30. Lee Bowman2 years ago

    Darwin in his first two chapters of ‘The Origin of Species’ compared species variations under ‘domestication’ to variations under ‘nature’, and later concluded that they were related to similar mechanisms. He also addressed the higher taxonomic forms, genera and families, and had doubts concerning their evolving due to natural processes. In short, he presented data concerning flora and fauna (plants and animals), and his conclusions regarding their lineage progressions (evolved mechanisms).

    And while self-evolving species do exist (and are testable), higher taxonomic lineage progressions are tentative, speculative, and are NOT testable in the laboratory. Thus, the extension of his ‘tentative’ conclusions to embrace all of biologic life have not been confirmed, and despite AAAS and NAS proclaiming the his theory is hard fact, it is just not so.

    And any thinking scientist, who has studied anatomy and physiology, along with genetic encoding and the hox6 gene programmed embryo process, has doubts concerning progressions based entirely on natural processes, but dare not make his views known, at least to his cohorts and administrators. Plus the fact that any mention of ‘design’ within evolutionary theory is cause for (1) rebuke, (2) career impairment, and if a student, (3) the possibility of lower grades and possible impairment of curricular completion.

    So while Darwin’s work is commendable within his time, it is subject to modification, including the additions of ID as a commensurate addition to the theory. Designer input does necessarily equate to a singular God, but just the hypothesis of ID input along the way. Thus, ID is NOT religion in a lab coat! And going back to the origin of protein formations mRNA, DNA, and Ribosome formations, Darwin’s’ Theory does not even address those issues, which are intrinsic to biologic formations. Thus, evolutionary theory is far from complete.

    1. Roger Chapell2 years ago

      To ascribe the development of the universe and life to an intelligent designer is to imply an intelligence capable of doing this and that can be none other than God. If ID is not ‘religion in a lab coat’ what else could it possibly be?
      Darwin himself was an intelligent design believer when he boarded the Beagle. His observations convinced him that ID could not be the creative force. His book “on The Origin of Species” continually addressed the problem with design theory and was in a way a book which debunked ID.
      To assert that Darwin had doubts about evolutionary mechanisms in higher taxonomic forms is a misreading of him. The very reason he demonstrated human selection to domesticate animals is to show that selection can occur and that it occurs easily in higher taxonomic forms and could occur in nature also over vast periods of time. Darwin did not doubt that natural selection worked on higher taxonomic orders but he had difficulty explaining it and the reason for his difficulty is that he had insufficient genetic science. Darwin’s theory could not have addressed theories of Ribosome formation etc., and he could not know every operative nuance of his theory in 1859.
      To say evolutionary theory is incomplete is not a charge against it anymore than it is against any scientific position, none of which is entirely complete. In saying evolutionary theory is far from complete, the introduction od the word ‘far’ is nothing more than a poison word disingenuously meant to give the impression that natural selection is a loosey goosey, faddish notion, full of glaring inconsistancies and holes. For the vast majority of scientists, It is far from that.

    2. Bob C1 year ago

      I remember your name Mr. Bowman. You’re a professional science denier.

  31. Kristof Vandommele2 years ago

    Looking at the comments, it’s actually a miracle there are still scientists willing to work & live in the US.

  32. Diane2 years ago

    With all the knowledge we have today…we still don’t know where we came from. We just believe. That works for me. People have always created stories about things they could not understand. Creation is what’s best for me.

  33. Carol2 years ago

    It is a well known fact that the AAAS has long enforced a strict anti-Creation/anti-ID policy on the “scientists” they employ. Still, a whopping 2% were brave and honest enough to admit they did not believe we “evolved over time”. I don’t suppose the Pew Research Center would consider putting their bias on the back burner long enough to perform a proper survey that isn’t rigged to reflect their desired results, would they? “Science”, after all, by it’s very definition, is SUPPOSED to be about “the pursuit of truth”!

    I’d appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience, thanks.

    1. Daria Blase2 years ago

      33% of AAAS scientists believe in God in a 2009 survey.

    2. Daria Blase2 years ago

      Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive.

  34. Dave Ouellette2 years ago

    I still dont understand why there even is a debate over this. There has never been in the history of mankind, any absolute evidence of any god or supreme being, ever.. As far as I can tell, anything religious has been created by the minds of man! If you “mentally” live in this world of religion, then that is your choice, which all of us, respect (and should respect). If it helps you get through life in good/moral driven manor, that is a good thing!

    But you cant deny “hold it in your hand” scientific evidence, in which you can physically “See and touch” (in many cases) If we could peel back the layers of our planet, Im very confident there would be alot of physical evidence supporting evolution. Yet all most of us can see, is whats right in front of our eyes, which makes seeing and understanding evolution slightly difficult.

    1 Point I’d like to hear from creationism, how is it, that when god “drowned” our planet, that somehow (without evolution) we ended up with species of fish that live in fresh water only? The entire planet covered in salt water- also, can someone ask god, why he gave us tail bones? what purpose does it serve, other then to drive pain upwards when sledding and hitting some big bump- :>

    1. Chris Alexander2 years ago

      Dave- I would be more than happy to answer your questions. And I think the fish question is a good one. There are two possible explanations. Either freshwater fish were preserved in freshwater on the ark, or freshwater fish have adapted to live in freshwater. Many creationists are probably ok with the idea that things evolve (change) within their own species over time. What we have serious doubts about is the idea that one species can change into another. Nothing is the fossil record indicates that. There is no evidence of Darwin’s theory being factual. Secondly, humans don’t have tailbones. The coccyx is simply the tip of the spinal column.

      I do have a question for you. Throughout the last several centuries, archeologists have been uncovering findings that confirm Biblical accounts of cities, people, and events. Nothing that archeologist have found have disproven the Bible. Don’t you think that if the Bible was just a bunch of fairy tales, after 3000 years someone would have been able to disprove it?

      1. Boyan Levchev2 years ago

        Truly, the Bible is based in the real world, with real-life places. Truly, the stories of the Bible are likely inspired by real-world calamities, such as the great flood. But all myths are inspired by mankind’s real-life struggle, so seeing the real mixed with the fantasy is unsurprising, and doesn’t prove that the myth is any less of a myth.

        For instance, there is a credible theory that the legend of the great flood comes from peoples who used to live in the Black Sea Valley (before the Black Sea existed), but were then wiped out when the Bosphorus broke and millions upon millions of tons of sea water spilled into the basin from the Aegean.

        Interestingly, which you may want to also consider, this story actually appears in the oldest known religious text, the epic Gilgamesh, and it is almost entirely certain that the Biblical great flood is a retelling of one and the same legend told in the Gilgamesh. (This is the magic of the human oral tradition, and well, the Gilgamesh and the Old Testament were actually created in almost exactly the same region.)

        Physical landmarks aside, one thing that nobody has proven from the Bible, however, and I daresay it’s the most crucial aspect, is the existence of God and, frankly, even Jesus Christ. Yes, there is some mention of his name and of the fact that he was crucified by some Roman historian, BUT, Jesus’s real life is a complete mystery, from his birth up until the moment he became a threat to unity of the Roman empire and was crucified, we only have the stories of people who lived hundreds of years after his death. And just like how the epic flood of the Gilgamesh turned into the great flood of the Bible, so too the reality of Jesus’s life will have been lost over the years of oral traditions between his death and the writings of his life. Something like broken telephone.

        If I can make a comparison, Harry Potter very much takes place in the real world, where J.K. Rowling even describes real places, such as King’s Cross. Thus, J.K. Rowling’s mythic stories have an element of realism, which make her stories all the more believable and amazing. But I’m sure we can all agree that magic does not exist. What I’m trying to say is that, the existence of real places in the Bible does not suddenly make the entire Bible any less of a fantasy. Jesus was real, his mother was likely not a virgin. Gomorra existed, God did not destroy it with his own two hands. Etc.

        Accept Jesus’s teachings with your heart, not your mind. “Logic” is just as subjective as one’s religious beliefs. You will die one day, and like how Christianity did not exist 3,000 years ago, 3,000 years from now Christianity may not exist. It is yet another evolution in the collective human conscience, no more or less important than any other marvel of the human mind. (And yes, note my use of the word evolution – human concepts evolve in much the same way that animals have evolved, and in much the same way the universe evolves.)

        1. Boyan Levchev2 years ago

          (Sorry it’s such a long comment, and sorry if you feel confronted by my view.)

      2. Bob C1 year ago

        “Either freshwater fish were preserved in freshwater on the ark”
        You’re joking, right? Please tell me you’re just pretending you believe in the Noah’s Ark genocide myth.

  35. Tyke Morris2 years ago

    A poll that simply pits “Evolution” versus “Creationism” is typical, but it neglects to tell the exciting true story of this public debate. Fortunately this poll attempted to break down belief in evolution into more explanatory categories. What is exciting is that there are actually three general groupings battling: Darwinian evolution, intelligent evolution and creationism. All three are fairly even in polls, but evidence supports the middle ground.

    Wording is tricky. I am strongly opposed to Darwinism and materialistic (automatonic, intelligence-denying) theories regarding life science and evolution, yet because I consider intelligent agency to be natural, I would select the natural causes option, although I am open to some type of universal intelligence as a cause. (“Supreme” is a strong word.)

  36. art2 years ago

    Number 5 is priceless: It’s not that bad, many developing countries are worse. Would a comparison to Western European countries be more applicable?

  37. Robert2 years ago

    “…98% of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science say they believe that humans evolved over time, only two-thirds (66%) of Americans overall perceive that scientists generally agree about evolution.” Denial in America has deep roots, so many of them must think they have something to do with our “advanced society” that their opinion must be right! Guess they are fans of Steely Dan’s “Pretzel Logic”.

    1. Chris Alexander2 years ago

      98% of scientists before Columbus’ time believed that the earth was flat! The Bible called the earth a sphere or circle (depending on the version) in the book of Isaiah, written over 500 years before Christ.

      1. ta erog1 year ago

        You got that wrong BTW. People knew it was round and even figured out the diameter long before Columbus. Where do you get your history?

  38. DANIEL LEACH2 years ago

    You can live a safe, productive life by “acting as if” evolution is true. You will live an unsafe, less productive and probably shorter life if you act as if it were untrue. Living your life embracing creationism as truth while embracing other truths based upon evolution is indefensible. What is gained by placing creationism on a pedestal as fact only to turn to evolution to get the job done? The only benefit to believing creationism is the warm embrace and knowing smiles of other superstitious Wiseman who blamed 911 on feminazis and the Katrina devastation on homosexuals. You’re not making yourselves look faithful to your religion. You’re making your religion look stupid.

    1. Chris Alexander2 years ago

      Daniel- You missed the mark by a long shot. True Creationists don’t turn to evolution or science for ANY answers. All scientific facts, like gravity and other physical laws, are just discoveries of what God created. Science doesn’t create anything. It only discovers what God has done. The “theory” of evolution supposes and is completely based upon the assumption that something came from nothing. That matter came from non-matter. That’s just as ridiculous an assumption as assuming that one species can evolve into another species. Creation is far more plausible than Darwinian evolution!

  39. maliamungu habib2 years ago

    There is nothing like evolution in human history other wise by now we would be at another level of human development, if I may ask again why has the process of evolution of man stopped?

    1. Tom Sathre2 years ago

      I refer you to volume 312 #1, cover article of “Scientific American” magazine (www.sciam.com) for an evidence-based review of the facts, complete with photographs. This article asserts that humans are “still evolving”.

      1. Chris Alexander2 years ago

        Humans are evolving. Apes are evolving. But the idea that one species evolved from another is a giant leap of faith. It’s easier to accept the truth. God created the heaven and the earth.

      2. Anonymous5 months ago

        Don’t forget for a very long time Humans evolved in a positive direction for the most part. The problem why some people can’t see the constant evolution of Humans is there is a great percentage of Humans evolving negatively now. I mean people are actually becoming less intelligent and closed minded. Survival of the fittest is going away because our fittest are saving the people who should be killing themselves off therefore not procreating more ignorant unintelligent Humans. (Ex.herion overdoses) Although Darwin is rolling in his coffin with Humanity’s move toward what seems to be a striking similarity to the movie “Idiocracy” I assure you we’re are evolving everyday.

  40. Lucretius2 years ago

    AAAS includes disciplines outside biology. Why does a psychologist’s opinion on biology mean anything to me? It’s about as valuable as any Joe’s opinion on biology I find on the street.

    AAAS is not a “science fellowship” group, but an advocacy group. In other words, there are political ideologies that need to be taken into account.

    I went to AAAS’s website, and found out that a non-scientist like me can join AAAS. Anyone who wishes to pony up the cash can join. Not really a good group to classify as “scientists.” Furthermore, the word “scientist” is never defined. What a physicist does and a sociologist does is much different (in fact, what a physicist does and a biologist does is different). In the strictest sense, physics and chemistry are the only “pure” sciences.

    Pax et Caritas,


    1. Haipule2 years ago

      I know I’m nuts but, Angels(Sons of God) had sex with human females in Genesis 6:2 and their offspring is called, “Nephilim” in Genesis 6:4. Therefore, Angel semen can cross species and create supers. So, what if Angel semen was inseminated into a fish creating a superfish and also into a herding animal creating a super: then their offspring could be a dolphin–eventually! Not harmed by the flood of Noah’s day.

      The book of Job indicates that Angels preexisted the universe and also states they witnessed its creation. Genesis 1:1, in Hebrew, says. “universe(science–14.5Byrs old) and-then the earth(science–4.5Byrs old)” What were the Angels doing?

      Well then, an evolutionary selection process took place that was anything but natural. Rather, very unnatural. Well, that explains everything including Pan(flute playing man-goat).

      That’s my theory of “unnatural selection”.

      What you think? Pre Adam and Eve; pre ice age: the Angels were doing some monkey loving? 🙂

      The rest, since Adam and Eve, is history! Prior: 14.5Byrs of Angelic failure–except for dolphins!

      1. Lucretius2 years ago

        Your post is irrelevant. To continue with the pattern of the other post, why should I care about the theological opinion of a non-theologian? Should I listen to a theologian’s opinion on biology?

        Pax et Cartias,


  41. Christopher R Weiss2 years ago

    It is amazing to me that evolution is still considered a topic worthy of debate. The data is unassailable but very disappointing. We can see the effects of these policies when Scott Walker was embarrassed in London by not wholeheartedly endorsing evolution.

    The US will continue to be a source of great amusement for many countries until these statistics change more dramatically.

    1. Lucretius2 years ago

      Evolution is a fact (I would say an obvious fact). Natural selection is a theory.

      Pax et Caritas,


    2. Tyke Morris2 years ago

      Christopher, did you not read #5 in the article? Other countries, on average are more anti-evolution than the US.

      I agree with Lucretius. Evolution is an obvious fact.

      Darwinism is a hopeless fallacy and a disgrace to science. Life is intelligent.

      1. Lucretius2 years ago

        I would argue that our discovery of evolution came by a Christian worldview, one where the world progresses linearly towards an end (the Greeks thought that the world was eternal, and thus a species were eternal. The Christian thought God created the world over time, and thus species can about over time. And where could they have come from? Other species!).

        Natural selection seems to be part of what happens, but it is CERTAINLY not the whole story. We now know that the evolution of Angiosperms was not caused by a random mutation! So, I wonder when Biology will come out of the 19 century and start to look for other causes, instead of worshiping Charles Darwin?

        Pax et Caritas,


  42. Paul S. Lyon2 years ago

    It is refreshing to see scientific observations catching up with what the Bible has been telling us for several thousand years.

  43. Kevin2 years ago

    As an Atheist from Tennessee, I feel so fortunate to have made it out of the fog of the southern-baptist church. Life is sooo comfortable in there, with an answer for every question, and kind-people that rally around other people in need. It is hard to turn-away from kindness. Shame it’s all mythical b.s. It seems to bring forth our best attributes.

  44. Elmer2 years ago

    Did you know that Darwin was racist?

    The original title of his book was:

    On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life


  45. Graham Dull2 years ago

    How times have changed!

    When I was a child, I remember family conversations that went something like this.
    “My goodness, doesn’t she look like her Grandmother… Look at her eyes, her bright blue eyes — guess where she got those…”

    Nowadays things are different. On a recent BBC documentary, David Attenborough expressed it this way.

    While he was holding a newborn baby in his arms, he said, “[This baby’s] ancestry like that of all of us stretches back over 500 million years to a tiny little worm-like creature swimming in the bottom of the sea.”

    Continuing to refer to the child, he said, “His backbone and jaw came from the early fish, his limbs and lungs from amphibians. The reptiles gave him his watertight skin. Tiny nocturnal mammals donated a bigger brain, sharper senses, and the manner in which he was born. His hands and colour vision came from the fruit-eating primates; and his larger brain and greater intelligence from the first humans.”

    Here is Attenborough’s grand conclusion. “So all our features of our body can be traced back to our ancient ancestors.”

    Rise Of Animals: Triumph Of The Vertebrates
    Written & Presented by
    David Attenborough
    BBC Documentary 2013
    © Atlantic Productions Ltd. MMXIII

    Life from God .com

  46. JAMES ROBBINS2 years ago

    why has man stopped evolving ????

    1. Greg Gibson2 years ago


      So I stare at the hour hand of my watch, see it is not moving and conclude time has stopped!

    2. Colleen Harper2 years ago

      We are still evolving. Over the last 5 thousand years, we have evolved to be able to read better (the invention of writing), eat better (fewer people are lactose-intolerant), and think better (scientific advancement). Belief in all things supernatural has diminished, including within mainline religions (people are more skeptical of fantastical miracles).

      1. Rowie2 years ago

        We eat better? How is McDonalds and Diet Coke healthy?
        We write better? I wouldn’t have guessed that if I read comments on Youtube Language and besides this language was more complex and had larger vocabularies in the past. Arguments like the ones you present are really ignorant.
        Belief in supernatural things has diminished? Do you know that black holes and the big bang were never proven? Do you know that many people are new agers who believe they will ascent into light beings, and that most of these people believe in evolution, which is a religeon in itself?

        1. Anonymous1 year ago

          Black holes have been proven in fact there is a big one in the center of or galaxy also the big bang theroy backs up the bible so dont know why you would discredit that

    3. Dave Ouellette2 years ago

      For the same reason, I don’t have a caveman living with me today, he has evolved into a sales rep and gieco! :>

  47. Andrew2 years ago

    Americans doubt their scientists this much.

    Epic. Simply Epic.

    1. Lucretius2 years ago

      Many people are apathetic to most things, especially Americans. How many people have read Newton too? In their normal lives, there is no need for them to think about such things.

      Pax et Caritas,


    2. Lucretius2 years ago

      Also, should the “uneducated” just mindlessly follow whatever a scientist says is correct? Was C.S. Lewis right about the new scientist oligarchy? Instead of the Church being infallible, “scientists” and “intellectuals” are infallible.

      Pax et Caritas,


  48. Bill Altland2 years ago

    what is it you find startling about your conclusions? what I find startling is, in spite of 100% of our government schools teaching evidence for “amoeba to man” evolution, only a small percentage reject creation. this might suggest that human understanding of origins is known to them instinctively rather than what government schools and scientists are telling them.
    what I find confusing about this subject is how we use the word “evolution.” when we say the word evolution most of us think of change. lets see, I have some right here in my pocket. you might laugh but that’s my point… what kind of change!
    I think the reason for the “theory of evolution through natural selection is accepted by virtually all scientists” is because when we look at, humans for example, we see changes in size, shape and color…all kinds of variation. this variation is shown to be true in all species. so yes, the majority of scientists accept natural selection or change (evolution) within a species as Darwin reported. and its here where most surveys introduce misleading results because they fail to defined what kind of evolution (change) we are considering.
    keeping un mind that 100% of our high school and college biology students are taught the difference between micro and macro evolution. for review; micro is variation within body plans, macro is new body plans and organs. sorry, you undoubtedly know this. but clearly this is the issue where not only Americans are in conflict but the scientific community. so in the interest of conscience reporting it would be refreshing to see conclusions based on surveys that truthfully communicate the word evolution. i.e.; change within kind where natural selection is working on information that exists (micro), or change from “amoeba to man” where new information is created yielding new body plans and organs (macro

    1. Tyke Morris2 years ago

      Bill, it seems as if you are misquoting the article. To say 98% of scientists accept human evolution is true, but you added “by natural selection” which the article does NOT say (I do wish they had asked). Such giants in the field of life science as Carl Woese, Lyn Margulis, James Shapiro, Luc Montagnier, John Cairnes, Barbara McClintock and Dennis Noble all reject Darwinism, but accept evolution.

  49. Pierre Ripplinger2 years ago

    Who are these 2% of scientists who believe that species always were like they are today anyway? Homeopaths? Psychanalysts?

    1. Christopher R Weiss2 years ago

      “Christian Scientists.”

      There are young earth creationists like John Sanford who have actually done meaningful research, but support a young earth and reject evolution. I find it amazing that there are people with PhDs in the hard sciences who hold these beliefs.

      1. Lucreitus2 years ago

        Many PhD people are Marxists, so this does not surprise me.

        Pax et Caritas,


      2. Lucretius2 years ago

        Many Americans think that “educated=smart” and “educated=correct”.

        Finally, years of ideological indoctrination has come to fruition!

        Pax et Caritas,


  50. Heather Hastie2 years ago

    I think your facts should have included that the US is BEHIND most Western countries when it comes to the acceptance of evolutionary theory.

    1. Lucretius2 years ago

      “All theories are wrong, but some are useful.”

      Pax et Caritas,


  51. Gary2 years ago

    Not surprising. Religion is myth-based not fact-based so evidence is unlikely to sway beliefs that are not rational to begin with. For better or worse many people are so desperate to believe in supernatural beings that no amount of facts will open their minds to scientific realities.

    1. Lucretius2 years ago

      “Religion”, “myth”, “fact”, “rational”, and “supernatural” are not defined. Do you even know what these words mean? “Myth”, for example, does not mean “a lie.” And the doctrine of fallen man is a very scientific observation.

      Pax et Caritas,


  52. Raulz2 years ago

    I can see the evolutionary point of view. Fossils, varying earth strata. Historical ways of life from what information is known. I can see the creationism point of view. The Bible. The millions of humans who believe. What I have here is two points of view that allows me the opportunity to see how humans think. Although this is an important topic it is my opinion that what is more important is where does the future lie for mankind. We are here right now and going through all kinds of life both good and bad as humanity has done for recorded history and possibly longer. How will we as a species move forward. What is our destiny. Can we move out into the universe away from our blue planet to find other habitats? Whatever beliefs we all hold in our hearts and our minds, it is a tool we utilize to survive and move forward. To survive and to live in this world of constant turmoil and unknown predicaments to come.

    1. Lucretius2 years ago

      It’s not about Truth, but rather about Progress(TM)! I can already see the suppression of “useless ideas.” Instead of Social Darwinism, we have Meme Darwinism, thanks to Dr. Richard Dawkins and Dr. Daniel Dennett.

      Natural Selection is a biological theory. It should stay a biological theory. When we try to apply it to other subjects, such as political philosophy (social Darwinism) or cultural philosophy (Meme Theory), all we get is what Richard Feynman calls “cargo cult science.”

      Pax et Caritas,


  53. Geodude2 years ago

    I wonder what scientific fields the 2% of AAAS non-evolutionists work in?

  54. Gina Victorino2 years ago

    In the Neanderthal world where the die hard believers that monkeys evolved into man- if that were true you would still be living to see the process of monkey to man. But when there is a future to have a past which is accepted as the present time and mankind has been going backwards in inventions such as black and white TV to color- lead gas to unleaded (unleaded cost more but the fact is they were adding the lead to the fuel- so labor wise it makes no sense) radio before TV , and the chicken or the egg, mother or the child thing – the truth is everything was put here already in progress not itemized list – so monkey and man no evolution process. The reason why they want to believe it so much is actually a backward concept. With the human world and technology so hung up on cloning, etc.
    Creating the “son of man” what mankind has done in the process is actually took man and reversed their evolution theory and created a Neanderthal type monkey. Theory is proven because look how long you have been thinking backwards. You just haven’t caught up to yourself yet. But give yourself another 5 years and the term “Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle” with be said for the first time. ✌️

    1. Greg Gibson2 years ago


      Written with the wisdom of Sarah Palin. You should run for president!

      1. Lucretius2 years ago

        How cruel. Mrs. Palin is not in any way related to this. You just uncharitably attacked her and the author of that post.

        You didn’t even try to refute the author’s post at all, but just hand waved it sarcastically. Is this what rational thought looks like today? How can I take you serious if you act like a ignorant, vicious wolf?

        Pax et Caritas,


  55. roselyn2 years ago

    Shocked some churchmen in UK when published by no means all

  56. David McDonald2 years ago

    Truth is that which can be demonstrated any time
    and every time. No faction of materialistic origin belief
    can do that so I remain firmly on the fence.

    1. Lucretius2 years ago

      Can the statement “Truth is that which can be demonstrated any time and every time.” be “demonstrated any time and every time?”

      Can the Napoleonic Wars “be demonstrated any time and every time?” Can any historical event be? Shall we throw out history as nonsense?

      Pax et Caritas,


  57. MarilynW2 years ago

    What I fail to see that should support evolution is evidence of species evolving today.

  58. Simeon Hanks2 years ago

    I’m more concerned that 2% of those “scientists” don’t believe in sound science…

    1. Rowie2 years ago

      I am concerned that you think 98% of scientists are practising sound science.

    2. some one5 months ago

      Who are those scientists who think evolution isn’t real, anyways?

  59. Jason Mitchell2 years ago

    Even if all the more technical controversy’s were resolved and a unified biology (science) propounded a version of evolution that was incontrovertiblely fact, there would still be many dissenters! For “… If you want peace of soul and pleasure then believe, but if you want to be a devotee of truth, then inquire.” (F. Nietzsche, paraphrased from a letter to his sister).

  60. Larry Pearson2 years ago

    Talk about a belief system? I would have to have more faith to believe in Darwin’s unproven hypotheses than to believe in a Supreme Being as the origin of the kosmos. Even now scientists are backing away from “Big Bang” and talking of the eternity of the universe and all it contains. These secular religionists have more faith than most creationists in that the date for the origin of man keeps receding. Many scientists are afraid to speak up out of fear of losing their standing in academia. Darwinism is another religion because you have receive it on faith! It is a religious system whether SCOTUS recognizes it or not

    1. Lucretius2 years ago

      No, cosmologist are not doing that AT ALL. Einstein thought that his insistence on an everlasting universe was his biggest error.

      I agree with you that those who bash dogma tend to be the most dogmatic. If I poke out holes in the theory of natural selection, and humbly point out that there are other forces causing species that we do not yet understand, I often get “burned at the stake” for my heresy.

      I think that Intelligent Design biologists are some of the best biologists today, because they poke out these holes. However, I don’t like how they go on and say “therefore, God!” ID people (or Darwinists for that matter) don’t seem to understand the difference between Primary and secondary causes.

      There is more to learn about evolution, so let’s stop reducing it to just natural selection please. There’s more going on here than just the theory of a 19th century English country squire.

      Pax et Caritas,


  61. Kevin Ray2 years ago

    Here is a fact for you. If you are a non-believer in Christ you are in trouble either way! If evolution is true and the Bible is a fake, then we are all hopeless and meaningless creatures. If the Bible is truth, there cannot be evolution (at least from one species to another). When the people who believe this stand before God, they are in trouble!

    1. Lucretius2 years ago

      I say that the Bible and evolution are both true. So I win 😉

      The statements:
      1) “God created the heavens and the earth”, and
      2) “Species “rolled out” from other species”, are not contradictory.

      The statements:
      1) “God is the author of the Letter to the Romans”, and
      2) “St. Paul is the author of the Letter to the Romans”, are not contradictory.

      To put it another way:
      1) Primary cause (Who is God), and
      2) Secondary cause.

      St. Augustine says that our faith will become a laughing stock if we go against what is known to be true. Let’s show the non-believers that science and Christianity are complementary. In fact, I would argue that a Christian view of time, and not an ancient view, lead to (in part) the Theory of Evolution.

      Pax et Caritas,


      1. Anonymous5 months ago


  62. Loren Haas2 years ago

    In fact, Darwin’s theory was not very controversial when it was introduced. If you read scholarly histories you will see that many naturalists were also ministers and they were largely accepting. The controversy came later when other theological issues came into play, chiefly reaction to modern interpretation of scripture.

  63. Becktemba Kazemde2 years ago

    Polling the AAAS That’s like going to the Catholic Church and asking the Clergy if they believe in God. Of course 98% of them are going to agree.

    Poll all scientist in all fields.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science for the benefit of all people.

    1. David2 years ago

      I had the same thought. I am a bit disappointed in Pew Research for not picking a more representative academic group for their survey.

  64. Becktemba Kazemde2 years ago

    No true scientist fears debate.

  65. Becktemba Kazemde2 years ago

    The Church of Evolution continues to preach.


    1. Christopher R Weiss2 years ago

      The ICR is a cult organization pushing completely absurd and unsupportable ideas.

    2. Dave Ouellette2 years ago

      of course it does, otherwise it wouldnt be a church, same can be said for all non religious school systems, keep preaching teachers! ( just keep the fairy tales out of the class rooms, please!)

  66. Heath Tate Johnson2 years ago

    It’s not the ignorance of the 31% of US adults that bothers me, it’s the 2% of scientists. How can you be a scientist and still accept creationism? O_o

    1. Ben KARLIN2 years ago

      Not all rejecting evolution buy into creationism or ‘creation science’. There is a disconnect in language between the two groups. Biblical “kinds” are not species. Adaptation by groups or individual organisms within a kind is not evolution.

      Those accepting evolution do not all understand it to be the same processes. It would be interesting to see a survey of the 98% of AAAS members as to what they believe the term means and the processes are.

  67. Jeannie Cormier Scown2 years ago

    I wish that intellectuals would stop using the word “belief” when talking about science. It is not a “belief” system, it is a classification and physiological process that is our scientific theory based on wonderful data. I do not believe in evolution, I use it because it is the most practical system for biology and biological functions that we have. Please ditch the word “believe” it is not something that we have “faith”in that we cannot see. We have tons of data that shows the progress of single cell to multi-cell development. It is a system that explains the evolution of species. In science, we always are prepared for and look forward to new discoveries that challenge what we think to be. Even our own “laws” like Newton’s laws have to be tweaked on occasion (the contraction/dilation factor used to bring Newton’s laws into agreement with Einsteins). Belief systems belong to the religious. Please correct your thinking!

    1. Lucretius2 years ago

      There is a philosophy on which science stands. So, yes, it is a belief. Please stop your false “religion vs. science” rhetoric.

      I love science, therefore I believe in science (“belief” is an old English word, equivalent to the modern English “beloved”. “Leif” –> “leives” –> “loves”).

      I think science is true, therefore I have faith in it (the old English meaning of “true” is equivalent to faith. You see this in the word “betroth” –> “be-true.” “He is a true friend”/”He is a faithful friend”).

      Pax et Caritas,


  68. Ramsez Stamper2 years ago

    That is the beauty of scientific fact. It’s True whether they choose to believe it or not.

    Those of us who are lucky enough to be educated just can’t continue to be bothered by those who are not educated and prefer to believe in fairy tales. Instead we should simply ignore them and keep moving ahead. Let them fall behind if they so choose, and where possible influence the laws to make sure progress continues to be made.

    1. Jeannie Cormier Scown2 years ago

      precisely, well said. Also see my post as soon as it is approved.

    2. Dutch2 years ago

      Facts may be true, but those who believe in special creation and other non-scientific positions can do a lot of damage when they have political power. We see evidence of this today. I’m waiting for the witch trials.

      1. Lucretius2 years ago

        Now this is unfair. Do I have to remind us of the eugenic programs and the theory of social Darwinism that were justified in the name of “science(TM)!”

        Plus, the Medieval Church was completely against Witch Burning (still is today), which is evidence that those who believe in special creation (which was and is most of humanity throughout time and space) are not as political damaging as you think.

        Pax et Caritas,


    3. Lucretius2 years ago

      Natural Selection is a theory. So…

      What is the standard to which we are progressing to?

      Pax et Caritas,


      1. some one5 months ago

        Evolution is a FACT! It is not a “theory”!