Only 39% of Americans believe in Evolution!

C

CanadianKid

New member
From NBC's Mark Murray
Today it's not only Abraham Lincoln's birthday; it's also Charles Darwin's.

And a brand-new Gallup poll tied to Darwin's birthday finds that just 39% of Americans believe in evolution.

As expected, Gallup notes, education plays a big role here: 74% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in evolution. That's compared with only 21% of high school grads (or those with less education) who believe in the theory.

Ditto religion: 55% who don't attend church believe in evolution, versus 24% of weekly churchgoers who believe in it.


Wow what a bunch of dumb fucken morons.... I never expected it to be this low.... even though I know americans are pretty stupid i couldnt believe it was under 50% the percentage of people who believed in evolution....

CK
 
Angus Reid Poll: Canadians Believe Human Beings Evolved Over Millions of Years

[VANCOUVER – Aug. 5, 2008] – A majority of Canadians believe in the theory of evolution while roughly one-in-five accept creationism, a new Angus Reid Strategies poll reveals.

In the online survey of a representative national sample, 58 per cent of respondents believe that human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years. In turn, 22 per cent say God created humans in their present form in the past 10,000 years.

Canadian poll as a comparison....
 
CanadianKid said:
Angus Reid Poll: Canadians Believe Human Beings Evolved Over Millions of Years

[VANCOUVER – Aug. 5, 2008] – A majority of Canadians believe in the theory of evolution while roughly one-in-five accept creationism, a new Angus Reid Strategies poll reveals.

In the online survey of a representative national sample, 58 per cent of respondents believe that human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years. In turn, 22 per cent say God created humans in their present form in the past 10,000 years.

Canadian poll as a comparison....
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'm surprised that the creationism percentage is so high in Canada. Guess I just was exposed to a different group of people for all my life there. Growing up I attended UCC and we were taught that the genesis story was simply allegorical, designed for people who at the time were unable to understand anything more complex.
 
Solitary said:
Maybe someone said that humans evolved from monkeys, but Darwin didn't.
Click to expand...

Darwin's Natural Selection and modern Evolutionary theory are very different. Most reject what Darwin actually put forward, and only celebrate because he got the ball rolling (like Freud, who has been even more pwned by modern psychology).
 
They aired a great NOVA about this on Monday or Tuesday.

Basically, if you don't subscribe to evolutionary theory you're a fucking retard.
 
Thorn said:
Frankly, I'm surprised that the creationism percentage is so high in Canada. Guess I just was exposed to a different group of people for all my life there. Growing up I attended UCC and we were taught that the genesis story was simply allegorical, designed for people who at the time were unable to understand anything more complex.
Click to expand...

I know here in Mississippi, probably about 20% or so believe in evolution, but the majority is so obsessive that we just never speak up about it because they'll mob us. The teachers who taught biology ALWAYS had an exclaimer about it "just being a theory" before every lesson that involved evolution.

It's just ridiculously unpopular. The percentage of people who are nonreligious in Mississippi is, of course, about 3%. Southern Baptists make up a majority of the population... let's not even get into the total number of evangelicals.
 
Threedee said:
Darwin's Natural Selection and modern Evolutionary theory are very different. Most reject what Darwin actually put forward, and only celebrate because he got the ball rolling (like Freud, who has been even more pwned by modern psychology).
Click to expand...

We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a less evolved state of ourselves which monkeys also evolved from. Monkeys are not a "less evolved" form of human. They are equally evolved. It's impossible for one form of life to be "more evolved" than another, since they've all been evolving for the exact same amount of time.

And yeah, Freud is basically pseudoscience. My teacher told me that everything they taught about Freud in psychology, they only taught it so that they could tell them why that opinion was wrong (she thought it was stupid that they even mentioned him outside of the history section). Darwin is much more respectable a scientist than Freud.
 
Watermark said:
We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a less evolved state of ourselves which monkeys also evolved from. Monkeys are not a "less evolved" form of human. They are equally evolved. It's impossible for one form of life to be "more evolved" than another, since they've all been evolving for the exact same amount of time.

And yeah, Freud is basically pseudoscience. My teacher told me that everything they taught about Freud in psychology, they only taught it so that they could tell them why that opinion was wrong (she thought it was stupid that they even mentioned him outside of the history section). Darwin is much more respectable a scientist than Freud.
Click to expand...

I had a similar view of Freud until a professor explained his genuine contributions to the field. Freud's best known theories were flawed at best and based on little more than personal conjecture steeped in the society of his time, but he made three significant contributions:

1. He was the first in his profession, apparently, to consider "normal" psychology, as opposed to pathology which was the focus of his contemporaries.

2. He initiated the view that children developed psychologically over time, that there was a developmental process and that they were not simply miniature adults.

3. He was the first to propose a biological basis for psychopathology.


As to Darwin, his insights were truly groundbreaking, and extremely well thought out, based on his astute observations during his travels. For those who did not know this, the notion of "Survival of the Fittest" did not come from Darwin, but somewhat later from Herbert Spencer, who espoused Darwin's theory. I'm not clear on just what "fittest" actually was supposed to mean; it can take several forms.
 
Spencers social Darwinism was a truly absurd idea, which I believe contradicted itself. If the fittest truly did rise to the top, they'd be at the top now, making sure everyone has their basic and that we have a functioning and healthy society (although conservatives keep us from realizing this, because they still accept social darwinism). The idea that if force ourselves to refrain from altruism everything will be better off was idiotic.

And evolution doesn't always produce the best possible path anyway - it just works in a general positive direciton.
 
Watermark said:
Spencers social Darwinism was a truly absurd idea, which I believe contradicted itself. If the fittest truly did rise to the top, they'd be at the top now, making sure everyone has their basic and that we have a functioning and healthy society (although conservatives keep us from realizing this, because they still accept social darwinism). The idea that if force ourselves to refrain from altruism everything will be better off was idiotic.

And evolution doesn't always produce the best possible path anyway - it just works in a general positive direciton.
Click to expand...

Do you ever think a species can devolve? Sort of like auto-protection against natural feeling of ease of life (perhaps as overpopulation protection)?
When a species calls for sacrifice, lowers standards of what it accepts either physically or mentally and seeks to pawn off responsibility off themselves so they deprive themselves of skills or the need to use skilled problem solving are they not devolving?
When you look at what Liberalism is, it is calling for sacrifice in the green movement, lowering standards in education, and strength for that matter, and seeking to push responsibility away from the individual, how can one not believe the 2 are tied together?
Perhaps Liberalism is a defence against overpopulation, but it's unneeded because it would be dangerous for humans to fall out of being the highest creature and population numbers are not going to all of a sudden fall from overhunting or overgathering of food, because of farming and human knowhow.
 
Watermark said:
Spencers social Darwinism was a truly absurd idea, which I believe contradicted itself. If the fittest truly did rise to the top, they'd be at the top now, making sure everyone has their basic and that we have a functioning and healthy society (although conservatives keep us from realizing this, because they still accept social darwinism). The idea that if force ourselves to refrain from altruism everything will be better off was idiotic.

And evolution doesn't always produce the best possible path anyway - it just works in a general positive direciton.
Click to expand...

I agree, it was simplistic at best, and never was well explained. Simply put, the "fittest" might be the most physically strong in the wild; those that prevailed in conflicts would be the victors in mating, etc. and their progeny would carry the species forth. That doesn't address the "fitness" concept in more complex species, and this was never well considered and hence poorly if at all defined.
 
Thorn said:
I agree, it was simplistic at best, and never was well explained. Simply put, the "fittest" might be the most physically strong in the wild; those that prevailed in conflicts would be the victors in mating, etc. and their progeny would carry the species forth. That doesn't address the "fitness" concept in more complex species, and this was never well considered and hence poorly if at all defined.
Click to expand...

The fittest are... the richest? The ones who are most devious and willing to do anything to get their way?

I mean, there are just so many factors. It's ridiculous to say that evolution justifies lack of altruism. Altruism is one of the best features of our species (right up there with our desire to communicate with each other), and it was put there for a reason.

And sorry for throwing the random political thing in there, but I like trolling dano. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top