According to a recent Gallup poll, 46% of Americans  believe that "God" created humans as told in the bible story.  That compares to 44% in 1982.   Add to that, believers in Intelligent Design came in 2nd at 32%, and believers in actual evolution were 3rd at 15%.  


There was also a somewhat expected split between Republicans and Democrats -  Among Repubs, 60% were creationist, but among Dems 41% were creationist (Does that average out to 46% of all Americans?  Maybe Independents and Apathetics skew the averages)


Disappointing.  I thought we were evolving faster than that.  Inability to evolve is not a good long term strategy.

dodo bird 1626

Views: 416

Replies to This Discussion

There was also a somewhat expected split between Republicans and Democrats -  Among Repubs, 60% were creationist, but among Dems 41% were creationist (Does that average out to 46% of all Americans?  Maybe Independents and Apathetics skew the averages)

There's a large independent segment, yes.  Also, there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans, right now.  The Tea Party assholes have driven off a lot of the moderate Republicans.  The only way that the Republicans will win the presidency for the next 8 or 10 years is if they win damned near all of the independents or if all of the Democrats stay home.  Alas, the Democrats are a lot less rabid and less likely to vote as a percentage.

Must be the Indies.  Repub/Dem looks almost equal - not quite but not dramatically democratl.  or here.  - graph below, scale makes them look wider apart than they are.


Party Identification, Yearly Averages, Gallup Polls, 1988-2011


Another way  of looking at it here.

Also, if people identify as belonging to a party or philosophy, but don't vote, do they exist?  If they exist, do they matter?  Once the ballots are counted, it's the winner who won.  Except in Florida and Ohio.


Dude, in a political election, 4% is HUGE.  Obama won with a landslide victory.  Something like 8 points.  A 2% difference in the popular vote is more typical.


And yeah, if they can be coaxed out to the polls, they matter.  The Democrats just haven't had anyone to inspire people to come out and vote, for a while.  Gore and Kerry were both stiffs.

That's why Romney is most likely going to lose.  His own party's base doesn't like him.  Of course you had other problems with Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, and Bachman.  Any of them would have sent something like 75% of the independent vote running screaming to Obama.


I'm currently registered independent, because you can pick either party in the primary, if you're registered independent.  I've voted straight-ticket Democrat for at least the past 10 years.  I went for some third-party people before that, but it's been a while.

Independent here, or as my registration says, unaffiliated, actually it says UNA... :)

Maybe the numbers haven't change with respect to belief, but those who are "enlightened" and reality-based are now more open about it?

It's pathetic, isn't it?

I agree with you Jonathan. The fact that Americans aren't educated in science and instead believe in fairy tales does cause America to be a struggling society.

I'm not so sure most Americans are being educated in science in public school systems, in our school we had a coach who taught football, life sciences and driver's education and I remember him complaining that he had to teach science when he didn't go to college to teach that subject...

"Communism was a joke compared to The Fundies"   How true, how true.

Why are people so afraid to evolve.... Or except the overwhelming amount of evidence for it.  They will just keep getting their wisdom teeth and appendixes removed and never question why they have too...

i've been arguing with idiots at about this all morning.  the comments are so stupid and misinformed.  it's shows either:

a.  a complete failure of our educational system to teach Science

b.  a complete failure of Christianity to allow their constituents to think critically

i'm thinking it's B. 


You are right in a sense, there is evidence that an individual's brain does change with time - increase in synapses; and there are external factors that influence synapse formation.  such as here, from Massachusetts General Hospital "Stud­ies sug­gest that neu­rons that are adversely affected by fac­tors such as stress, lack of stim­u­la­tion, or neu­ro­tox­ins may be ham­pered in their abil­ity to form new pat­terns of con­nec­tiv­ity and may lose synap­tic connections. It is gen­er­ally agreed that learn­ing occurs when the acqui­si­tion of new infor­ma­tion causes synap­tic changes, but sci­en­tists are not yet cer­tain pre­cisely how these changes come about."

So, it's thought, that the less you think, the more you lose the ability think.


However, that change is not passed on to the next generation - a term called Lamarkism.


The word "evolution" has more than one meaning - see definition here - including "any kind of gradual change".  A person's thoughts can evolve without any chance whatsoever of passing that change on to another generation, and even John D is evolving. John D has chosen to claim to know the one and only definition for evolution, regardless of the actual meaning and accepted uses of the word, or the somewhat dry tongue-in-cheek title of this post (ie, the joke that people have not "evolved" on "evolution").


From the wikipedia definition,

"The term evolution (from its literal meaning of "unfolding" of something into its true or explicit form) carries a connotation of gradual improvement or directionality from a beginning to an end point. This contrasts with the more general development, which can indicate change in any direction, or revolution, which implies recurring, periodic change."


As for directionality of evolutionary change you have a point - although again, there is that definition.  When a species is ideally suited for its niche, it can remain essentially unchanged for a very long time.  That actually makes the species less robust genetically, meaning that if there is invasion of exotic species or change in the ecosystem, the formerly unchanging species can go extinct.   By introducing random changes in a species' DNA (genotype) that are then expressed as changes in an individual's anatomy, biochemistry, or behavior, if those changes improve ability to survive and pass on DNA, then although mutation is random and without "intent" the effect of evolution is directional.  For neutral changes - it's anyone's guess.  For detrimental changes, which happen much more than beneficial changes, the ability to survive is decreased, and often those changes are lost as "dead end".  Often but not always.


There is also social evolution, in which societies change and take on different characteristics, which is also the point of this post, but don't say it too loud or John's head might explode, ruling out any further evolution on his part.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service