Talk:Level of support for evolution/rewrite

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article draft[edit]

This article is about the level of popular support for evolution among the scientists, the general population, and other groups. For the scientific evidence supporting evolution, see Evidence of evolution.

The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises as part of the creation-evolution controversy. This dispute is primarily an American phenomenon, but there are some foreign venues in which this controversy appears.[1]

There is no scientific controversy about evolution because there is undeniable evidence of evolution and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute.[2][3] In spite of this, some creationists and intelligent design advocates,[4] have asserted that there is a significant scientific dispute and disagreement over the validity of evolution.[5][6]

The Origin of Species, the book written by Charles Darwin


Moreover, because the American public level of support for evolution is much lower than the support for evolution among scientists, U.S. creationists claim that public schools should "teach the controversy"; that is, creationists advocate the teaching of creationism as science in American public schools. Similar efforts have been made, with varying degrees of success, by creationists in other countries as well. By contrast, nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, has issued official statements disputing this claim[3] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolution was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners. Additionally, U.S. courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases. In spite of this, creationists have made substantial inroads in the political sphere, probably benefitting from politicians hoping to capitalize on the public level of support for evolution.

Determining the level of support[edit]

Many claims in the creation-evolution controversy rest on whether or not evolution is genuinely disputed by those in scientific circles, and on the acceptance of evolution by the public, as well as religious and educational organizations. Therefore, gauging the level of support and scientific consensus in favor of evolution is of interest in evaluating assertions made by all sides of the controversy. Publications that examine these issues include McCollister and Asimov (1989),[7] Matsumura (1998),[8] and the book Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, released by the US National Academy of Sciences in 1998.[9]

For many years, the main participants in the creation-evolution controversy have tried to demonstrate that they each have an edge in support among scientists, the public or other groups. Survey data, signed statements, petitions and lists are used, as well as proclamations and press releases by various organizations. In addition, public debates and court battles are used by various players to try advance their arguments and agendas. Although interesting, none of this is directly connected with the reason that scientists overwhelmingly accept the theory of evolution as a viable theory; that is, the scientific evidence.

Support among scientists[edit]

Creationists claim that there is a significant scientific disagreement among scientists about the theory of evolution. The scientific community disputes these claims, and has tried to demonstrate that the acceptance of evolution among scientists is almost universal, using petitions, survey results, and declarations by scientific organizations. In response, creationists have produced petitions signed by scientists who are opposed to the theory of evolution, and lists of scientists that disagree with evolution.

Major petitions and lists of scientists[edit]

Petitions signed by scientists and lists of scientists that support or dissent from evolution are an important method used by all sides of the creation-evolution controversy to champion their views. Sometimes clergy or other nonscientists are included in these petitions and lists.

One of the earliest efforts to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize Winner and German biologist, Hermann J. Muller, in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May of 1966:

There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its “tree of life,” that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.

This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists, including Nobel Prize Winner George G. Simpson of Harvard, Carl Sagan of Cornell, John Tyler Bonner of Princeton, Nobel Prize Winner George Beadle, President of the University of Chicago, and Donald F. Kennedy of Stanford University, formerly head of the United States Food and Drug Administration.[10]

The Creation of Adam

Creationists strongly dispute the fact that there is overwhelming support for evolution in the science community. One of the first attempts to provide evidence that there was a substantial number of scientists who disagreed with evolution was a pamphlet produced by the Institute for Creation Research in 1971 entitled "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation"[11] This pamphlet has been reprinted several times. Skeptics have claimed that this list of 21 creation supporters is misleading since it includes 3 people with PhD's in education, 2 in theology, 5 in engineering, 1 in physics, 1 in chemistry, 1 in hydrology, 1 in entomology, 1 in psycholinguistics, 1 in food science technology, 2 in biochemistry, 1 in ecology, 1 in physiology and 1 in geophysics, and therefore most of their backgrounds might not give them much authority in evolutionary biology.[12][13]

Nobel Prize medal

Over the years, there have been repeated petitions presented by both pro-evolution and anti-evolution elements. Nobel Prizewinners, physicians, clergymen, biologists, archaeologists, physicists, geologists have signed statements proclaiming their support of evolution. Also, scientists and others have signed petitions expressing their objections to evolution. Creationists have also compiled lists of people who are purportedly scientists and do not accept the theory of evolution. None of these lists or petitions demonstrate anything conclusively, although.

A chronological list of various major petitions and lists produced by both of the main sides in the dispute appears below. Rows in the table that are unshaded belong to pro-evolution efforts. Shaded rows represent anti-evolution petitions and lists.

Support (unshaded) and dissent (shaded)
Active Dates Name Organization Claimed Prof. cred.[14] Rel. No. (est.)[15]
Petitions[16]
1966 "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?"[17][10] Hermann J. Muller 177 177 biologists 177
1971 "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation"[11] Inst. for Creation Research 21 ~7 scientists[18][19] ~0-3[18]
1971-pres.[20]. List of Creation Scientists[21][22] Inst. for Creation Research 80[23][24] 20 phys+26 bio sci PhD[24] 20
1977 "A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science"[25] American Humanist Assoc.[26] 183 146 sci, 6 clergy[27] 137
1986 "Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates"[28] Caplin & Drysdale[29] 72[30] 72 scientists ?
2001-pres. "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" Discovery Institute >700[23] ~175 biol sci[31] ?
2003-pres. "Project Steve" NCSE 818[23] ~545 biologists[32] ?
2005 "A Scientific Support for Darwinism" R. Joe Brandon 7733 4066 PhD sci.[33] ?
2005 "Nobel Laureates Initiative"."[34] Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity 38 33 scientists ?
2006-pres. "Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism" PSSI 252[23] M.D., D.O., D.D.S., D.M.D., D.V.M., or equiv.[35] ?
Creationist Lists[36]
1979-pres.[37] "Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation"[38][39] Creation Ministries Int. 210[23] 128 48
1995 21 great scientists who believed the Bible[40] Anne Lamont 21 <21 0-1[41]
1999 In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation[42] John F. Ashton 50 ? ?
1999-pres.[43] "Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE"[44] Christian Answers 94[23] ~73 sci; also MDs, clergy, eng ~24
2001-pres.[45] "Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation"[46][47] Answers in Genesis 194[23][48] 113 sci. 32

A large part of the difficulty in evaluating these petitions and lists is the problem of deciding who is and is not a "scientist." There has been a long-standing tradition of including people with all kinds of degrees and backgrounds on these tabulations and calling them "scientists". For example, similar lists of "scientists" have included people with philosophy degrees, education degrees, history degrees, English degrees, as well as dentists, optometrists, engineers, mathematicians, theologians or even people with degrees from diploma mills or bible colleges, as well as people who are deceased. This can pad a list considerably, making it very difficult to know how much value to ascribe to such a list.

Epidemiologist

A rough evaluation of the professional qualifications of a list of purported scientists can be made by enumerating those on a given list with at least a PhD in a natural science such as physics, chemistry or biology (preferably from a major accredited institution). Unfortunately, this excludes some who do science but are trained in other fields, or who have other kinds of degrees, and includes some nonscientists as well.

File:Paleontologist chipping.jpg
Paleontologist

Another approximate measure for the "worth" of a given list can be determined by counting the number of individuals that have some level of professional qualification in a relevant field. For example, it is not useful to survey doctors when trying to forecast the weather, and not useful to get medical diagnoses from meteorologists or from pre-med students. In the case of probing the creationism-evolution controversy, those who are most relevant are those with doctoral-level training and expertise in biological evolution, such as biologists and paleontologists.

Polls and surveys[edit]

Another method that is often used to gauge the level of support for evolution among scientists or other groups is a poll or survey. Since the vast majority of those in the scientific community and academia support the theory of evolution as the only explanation that can fully explain observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others,[49][50] this often amounts to trying to estimate a very small quantity. As in the case of petitions and lists, the question of what constitutes science and what scientific fields are relevant to judge the validity of evolution also arises in the evaluating survey results.

Human evolution

One 1987 estimate found that more than 99.84% of almost 500,000 US scientists in the earth and life sciences supported evolution over creation science.[51] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, is quoted as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" in a National Institutes of Health publication.[52] A 1991 Gallup Poll of Americans found that only about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[53][54] A more careful study of the level of support for evolution among scientists would include careful definitions of who is a scientist, and divide up the responses among those with training and background in different fields of science.

Resolutions[edit]

Another common method of demonstrating their commitment to evolution is for societies and organizations to make pronouncements to affirm their acceptance of certain core principles and beliefs.

Support (unshaded) and dissent (shaded)
Date Name Organization Number Represented
Petitions[55]
1981 [56] American Geological Institute
2002 firmly rejects ID. American Association for the Advancement of Science 120,000
2005 condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. Australian scientists and educators 70,000
2005 National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush[57] National Science Teachers Association 55,000
1986 Amicus Curiae Brief [58] was signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies.[28] Caplin & Drysdale


5 There is also a long list of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism that has been compiled by the National Center for Science Education.



8 9 "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.

10 Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism. Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.


11 The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[59]

In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[60]


There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[61][62][63][64] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[65] The prestigious US National Academy of Sciences that provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.[66][67]





Shortly thereafter, the AAAS passed another resolution supporting evolution and disparaging efforts to teach creationism in science classes.[68]


This was followed by the passing of a resolution by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the fall of 1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of creation... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories".[69]

The United States National Academy of Sciences also passed a similar resolution in the fall of 1972.[69]

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[70]

Support by religious bodies[edit]

Many creationists act as evangelists and preachers and other clergy, and their organizations are registered as tax-free religious organizations.[71] Some Christian creationists have claimed that they represent the beliefs of true Christians, and that acceptance of evolution is associated with atheism.[72][73][74] In addition, Islamic creationists and Hindu creationists oppose evolution as being incompatible with their faiths or as an avenue for polluting their cultures with Western ideas and values.

Saint Anthony's Church in Oberá, Argentina

However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, there are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools.[75] Also, the Roman Catholic Church made major official declarations in support of evolution in 1950, 1996 and 2004.[76] In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued a statement in support of evolution in 2006.[77] The Clergy Letter Project was started in 2004, and produced a statement signed by 10,793 American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism.[78]

Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).[79] These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.[80][81]

Science writer Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October, 2006 that evolution supports concepts like "family values", fidelity, moral codes, the rule of law, and avoiding lies. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.[82]

On the other hand, in the U.S., many Protestant denominations promote creationism, preach against evolution from the pulpits, and sponsor lectures and debates on the subject. A list of denominations that explicitly advocate creationism instead of "Darwinism" or evolution include the Assemblies of God,[83] the Evangelical Presbyterian Church,[84] the Free Methodist Church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod,[85] Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day Adventist Churches,[86] Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed Church, and the Pentecostal Oneness churches.[87]

Support by the medical community and industry[edit]

A common complaint of creationists is that evolution is of no value, has never been used for anything, and will never be of any use. According to many creationists, nothing would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and science and industry might even benefit.[88][89][90] In addition, the organization Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity maintains a list known as "Physicians and Surgeons who Dissent from Darwinism", consisting of medical doctors and similar professionals who disagree that evolution can account for the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22, 2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 others from other countries that had signed a statement disputing "Darwinism". This represents about 0.02% of the US medical community. However, this figure should be expected to rise, based on a poll of 1472 US physicians conducted by the "Louis Finkelstein Institute for Social and Religious Research" at the Jewish Theological Seminary and HCD Research in Flemington, New Jersey, from May 13-15, 2005. This study showed that 34% of physician respondents felt more comfortable with intelligent design than evolution.[91][92]

By contrast, the Discovery Institute's Access Research Network claims that this same poll shows that 60 percent of physicians are skeptical of macroevolution:[93] These are the figures quoted by the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and Views:

Jewish doctors: 32% reject Darwinism.

Protestant doctors (largest group of U.S. doctors): 81% reject Darwinism.
Catholic doctors: 78% reject Darwinism.
Orthodox Christian doctors: 72% reject Darwinism.
Hindu doctors: 54% reject Darwinism.
Buddhist doctors: 43% reject Darwinism (compared to 36% who accepted it)
Muslim doctors: 86% reject Darwinism.
Atheist doctors: 2% reject Darwinism.
"Spiritual but no organized religion": 48% reject Darwinism.

"Other": 54% reject Darwinism.[94]

The reason for the apparent discrepancy is because of the way the questions were phrased, and the lumping of the largest group of respondents, those who subscribe to theistic evolution, in with the group rejecting "Darwinism".

On the other hand, evolution is being put to practical use in medicine, genetics and industry.[95][96][52][97] Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products.[96]

DNA sequencers

Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of corporations. In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry.[98] Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warned that the US risks falling behind in the biotechnology race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution.[99] James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter also points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology depended on the use of evolutionary theory.[100]

A book review by Jerry Cohn in 2006 of the book The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David Mindell[97] suggests that some of this enthusiasm might be excessive:

"To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on [natural] evolution at all."[101]

Support by educational organizations[edit]

Main article: Creation and evolution in public education

There are also many educational organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution. For example, the American National Association of Science Teachers, National Association of Biology Teachers, and National Education Association have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[102] The Australian Science Teachers Association joined with other educational and scientific organizations in endorsing a letter in support of evolution in 2005.[103]

Support by the judiciary[edit]

Creationists and intelligent design advocates have repeatedly lost suits in US courts.[104] Some important court cases in which creationists have suffered setbacks include:

United States Supreme Court
  1. 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States Supreme Court[105]
  2. 1981 Segraves v. State of California, Supreme Court of California[106]
  3. 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, U.S. Federal Court[107]
  4. 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States Supreme Court[108]
  5. 1990 Webster v. New Lennox School District, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals[109]
  6. 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals[110]
  7. 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana[111]
  8. 2000 Rodney LeVake v. Independent School District 656, et al., District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota[112]
  9. 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, US Federal Court[113]
  10. 2006 Hurst v. Newman, US District Court, Eastern District of California[114]

Support by politicians[edit]

Main article: Intelligent design in politics

Politicians sometimes allow creationists to make inroads in the political realm in the U.S. and other countries.[115][116][117][118][119][120] The most prominent organization behind this movement has been the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the intelligent design movement. Through its Center for Science and Culture, the Institute conducts a number of related public relations and lobbying campaigns aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to force its beliefs into academia, which it claims is dogmatic and hidebound.

Support by the public[edit]

Creationists often claim that public support of creationism is a sign of creationism's validity as a scientific theory.[121] In some countries, creationist beliefs have made substantial inroads with the public, even garnering the majority of public opinion. Given the political power this public support represents, it is likely that there will be more conflict and controversy in the future.

A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution from the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution is most prevalent in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden at 80% of the population.[122][123]

United Kingdom[edit]

A 2006 UK poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different perspectives on the origin of life: 22% chose creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design, 48% selected evolution theory and the rest did not know. As the poll lacked nuanced survey techniques and equivocated on origin definitions as well as forced participants to make choices as though there were only three options, its results do not necessarily indicate the all possible views of the general public concerning mainstream science or religious alternatives.[124][125]

United States[edit]

1997 Gallup Poll Results[126]
US Group Young Earth Creationism Belief in God-guided Evolution Belief in Evolution without God
Public 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

There have been numerous public surveys to try to ascertain levels of belief in evolution. The results of these polls are not the same in all countries that are surveyed. The US has one of the highest levels among industrialized countries of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origin of the diversity of life forms on earth.[127]

According to a 2007 Gallup poll,[128] about 43% of American believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll.[129] Only 14% believe that "humans being have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."[128] Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; of those with post-graduate degrees, only 22% believe in strict creationism.[129]A poll in November of 1999 done for People for the American Way found that 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[130]

Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1998 published the results of a survey of the members of the US National Academy of Science showing that 93% of those survey respondents did not believe in a personal God.[131]

Political identification % Creationist[132] % do no believe in evolution[133] % belief in evolution[133] % belief in evolution[132]
Republican 60 68 30 11
Democrat 29 40 57 44
Independant 37 61

A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70 percent of evangelical Christians felt that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32 percent of mainline Protestants had the same opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll estimated that 63 percent of liberals and 37 percent of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.[134][82]

Examining public support[edit]

It is illuminating to examine public support of evolution and other principles in greater detail. A study by Miller et al (1997) felt fewer than 20% of Americans possessed basic scientific literacy.[135] A 1999 poll done for People for the American Way found only 48% of the people polled could choose the correct definition of evolution from a list.[130]

Polls were conducted by Bryan Farha at Oklahoma City University and Gary Steward of the University of Central Oklahoma in 2006, and compared to the results of a Gallup poll in 2001.[136] They found results that were consistent with the Gallup poll statistics.

Percentage of Americans polled
belief not sure belief not sure
Farha-Steward Gallup
psychic/spiritual healing 56 26 54 19
ESP 28 39 50 20
haunted houses 40 25 42 16
demonic possession 40 28 41 16
ghosts/spirits of the dead 39 27 38 17
telepathy 24 34 36 26
extraterrestrials visited Earth in the past 17 34 33 27
clairvoyance and prophecy 24 33 32 23
communication with the dead 16 29 28 26
astrology 17 26 28 18
witches 26 19 26 15
reincarnation 14 28 25 20
channeling 10 29 15 21

Other surveys by different organizations at different times have found very similar results. A 2001 Gallup Poll found that the general public embraced the following: 54% of people believed in psychic/spiritual healing, 42% believed in haunted houses, 41% believed in satanic possession, 36% in telepathy, 25% in reincarnation, and 15% in channeling.[137] A survey by Jeffrey S. Levin, associate professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk found that over 2/3 of the U.S. population reported having at least one mystical experience.[138][136]

Putative Unidentified Flying Object

A 1996 Gallup poll estimated that 71% of the people in the United States believed that the government was covering up information about UFOs. A 2002 Roper poll conducted for the Sci Fi channel reported that 56% thought UFOs were real craft and 48% that aliens had visited the Earth.[136]

A 2001 National Science Foundation survey found that 9 percent of people polled thought astrology was very scientific, and 31 percent thought it was somewhat scientific. About 32% of Americans surveyed stated that some numbers were lucky, while 46% of Europeans agreed with that claim. About 60% of all people polled believed in some form of Extra-sensory perception and 30% thought that UFOs were "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations."[139] New Scientist reported in 2006 that almost 2/3 of Americans believe they share less than half their genes with "monkeys", when in fact the figure is much closer to 95-99%, depending on the primates involved and the study used.[140]

Also, as Steve Sailer points out, it is also not clear how firmly held the public beliefs in creationism are.[141] Most creationist claims require a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy. However, not all Americans seem to subscribe to biblical literalism. For example, among the 15% that are evangelical Protestants, only 47.8% believe that the Bible is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the Bible is an ancient book full of history and legends. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true, and only 9% of Jews believe the Torah is literally true. About 20% of Catholics and Protestants reported that the Bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of Jewish respondents felt the same about the Torah. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of Christians and Jews do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt many creationist principles wholeheartedly.[142]

There are other difficulties in interpreting these results because many of the survey questions are not well designed. For example, the 2005 Harris poll results included the following:

Table 5. Where humans come from[134] %
Human beings evolved from earlier species. 22
Human beings were created directly by God. 64
Human beings are so complex that they required a
powerful force or intelligent being to help create them. 		10
Not sure/Decline to answer 4

Unfortunately, the answering options are not mutually exclusive, yet the respondent must choose only one option, not a collection of options. Since most Americans probably hold a combination of the first and second options, which correspond to theistic evolution, this creates a difficulty. People who support creationism might want to choose a combination of the second and third options. It is also conceivable that some respondents would want to choose a combination of 3 of the 4 options, or even all 4 options. Therefore, it is very difficult to interpret the poll results.

From these results, it appears to be difficult to ascertain the validity or usefulness of estimated public levels of belief.

Support trends[edit]

The level of assent that evolution garners has changed with time. The trends in acceptance of evolution can be estimated.

Early impact of Darwin's theory[edit]

The level of support for evolution in different communities has varied with time. Darwin's theory had convinced almost every naturalist within 20 years of its publication in 1858, and was making serious inroads with the public and the more liberal clergy. It had reached such extremes, that by 1880, one American religious weekly publication estimated that "perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half of the educated ministers in our leading Evangelical denominations" felt "that the story of the creation and fall of man, told in Genesis, is no more the record of actual occurrences than is the parable of the Prodigal Son."[143]

By the late 1800s, many of the most conservative Christians accepted an ancient earth, and life on earth before Eden. Victorian era creationists were more akin to people who subscribe to theistic evolution today. Even fervent anti-evolutionist Scopes Trial prosecutor William Jennings Bryan interpreted the "days" of Genesis as ages of the earth, and acknowledged that biochemical evolution took place, drawing the line only at the story of Adam and Eve's creation. Prominent pre-World War II creationist Harry Rimmer allowed an Old Earth by slipping millions of years into putative gaps in the Genesis account, and claimed that the Noachian Flood was only a local phenomenon.[143]

In the decades of the 1900s, George Macready Price and a tiny group of Seventh-day Adventist followers were the among the very few believers in a Young Earth and a worldwide flood, which Price championed in his "new catastrophism" theories. It was not until the publication of John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris’s book Genesis Flood in 1961 that Price's idea was revived. In the last few decades, many creationists have adopted Price's beliefs, becoming progressively more strict biblical literalists.[143]

Recent public beliefs[edit]

In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US population, and 25% of college graduates agreed with the statement, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Fourteen years later, in 2005, Gallup found that 53 percent of Americans expressed the belief that "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." About 2/3 (65.5%) of those surveyed thought that creationism was definitely or probably true. In 2005 a Newsweek poll discovered that 80 percent of the American public thought that "God created the universe," and the Pew Research Center reported that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools." Even more surprising was the level of support among high school biology teachers, from 30% in Illinois to 69% in Kentucky.[143]

The National Center for Science Education reports that from 1985 to 2005, the number of Americans unsure about evolution increased from 7% to 21%, while the number rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%.[140][122] Jon Miller of Michigan State University, working with Eugenie Scott and Shinji Okamoto, has found in his polls that the number of Americans who accept evolution has declined from 45% to 40% from 1985 to 2005.[144]

In light of these somewhat contradictory results, it is difficult to know for sure what is happening to public opinion on evolution in the US. It does not appear that either side is making unequivocal progress. It does appear that uncertainty about the issue is increasing, however.

Anecdotal evidence is that creationism is becoming more of an issue in the UK as well. One report in 2006 was that UK students are increasingly arriving ill-prepared to participate in medical studies or other advanced education.[145]

Recent scientific trends[edit]

The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[51] representing about 0.158% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that it had secured the endorsements of about 600 scientists after several years' effort.

The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.[146]

Therefore, the increase in biological science graduates, in addition to the net immigration of scientists from foreign countries to the US, would be expected to increase the total number of biological scientists in the US. Again NSF statistics demonstrate that this is correct. The National Science Foundation Science Resources Statistics Division estimates that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.[147] If the trends in the NSF statistics continued until 2007, there were even more biological scientists in the US in 2007.

Therefore, the 700 Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.063% of the roughly 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists that existed in the US in 1999.

However, these figures might be an overestimate:

  • A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters are mathematicians, physicists, engineers and others who never deal with evolution, or even biology, professionally. Ken Chang of the New York Times found that in February of 2006, about 75.1% of the Darwin Dissenters were not biologists.[148] Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.
  • It is likely that there were more biologists and earth scientists in the US in 2007 than there were in 1999. The number of people graduating in biology and the net increase in biologists through immigration have probably continued to increase, so that the figure of 955,000 is likely an underestimate of the number of US biologists in 2007.
  • The list of Darwin Dissenters includes many foreign scientists, which also results in an overestimate of the percentage of scientists that do not accept evolution.

It should also be noted that the statement signed by the Darwin Dissenters merely expresses skepticism about evolution, and is not a ringing endorsement of supernatural intervention in the natural world.

Although these figures are only estimates, they do seem to indicate that while public support for creationism and intelligent design is increasing, scientific support for it appears to be steadily decreasing.

Validity of polling, surveys, resolutions, etc.[edit]

In this controversy, both sides have put substantial and increasing amounts of effort to produce long lists of supporters, or signed statements or collections of resolutions. These fall in the category of "argumentum ad populum", or arguing that the strength of one's position is correct because of the force of numbers supporting it. Of course, as creationist Bert Thompson asserts, "truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote".[10]

This is definitely true in science, and the only thing in science that matters is whether the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. If they do, then the theory gains support among the scientific community. In this case, the polls do confirm that evolution is the dominantly accepted theory attempting to explain the diversity of the earth's life forms among scientists.

There is never absolute support of all scientists for any theory, however. There are always alternative theories that exist and garner support. It is also important to remember, as Guy Woods writes, "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world."[149]

Citations[edit]

  1. ^ For example, the UK, Canada, Australia, Poland, Turkey, Serbia, Russia and the Netherlands also have also had contact with this controversy recently.
  2. ^ "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution", according to Brian Alters, as quoted in Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.
  3. ^ a b Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
  4. ^ Since the Kitzmiller v. Dover court decision ruled that intelligent design is essentially creationism, similar to the assertions of most of the scientific community, intelligent design will be referred to as creationism here.
  5. ^ The ICR Scientists, Henry Morris, Impact #86, Institute for Creation Research website
  6. ^ Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton, Adler & Adler Publishing, New Ed edition, April 1986, ISBN 0917561058
  7. ^ Voices for Evolution, Betty McCollister, Isaac Asimov, National Center for Science Education (November 1989), ISBN-10: 0939873516
  8. ^ Voices for Evolution, Molleen Matsumura (Editor), National Center for Science Education; Revised edition (June 1995), ISBN-10: 0939873532
  9. ^ Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2006
  10. ^ a b c The Day the Scientists Voted, Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press: Sensible Science, 2001, originally published in Reason & Revelation, 2(3):9-11, March 1982.
  11. ^ a b "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation, 2nd edition", Henry Madison Morris, Creation-Life Publishers, 1971.
  12. ^ "Scientific" Creationism Examined, Paul Tobin, The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity
  13. ^ An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement, John W. Patterson, Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 89(2):55-58, 1982.
  14. ^ Scientists are defined, for the purposes of this table only, to be those with a doctoral degree (i.e., PhD or DSc, not an MD etc.) in the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences, astronomy). This excludes engineers and mathematicians and psychologists, who often do not engage in scientific work, although some can be scientists and are doing the work of scientists (although not usually in areas relevant to evolution and dating the earth or the universe).
  15. ^ Relevant individuals, for the purposes of this table only, are defined to be those with a doctoral degree (i.e., PhD or DSc, not an MD, etc.) in biology or geology. This excludes some who do work that is relevant to dating the earth and the universe such as physicists and astronomers, but focuses on those whose work will more often involve principles of biological evolution.
  16. ^ Petitions are statements that are signed or agreed to by the individuals appearing on them. By comparison, people appearing on lists have not necessarily agreed to appear on the list.
  17. ^ Bales, James D., Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line, Lambert, Shreveport, LA, p.71-72, no date.
  18. ^ a b "Scientific" Creationism Examined, Paul Tobin, The Rejection of Pascal's Wager: A Skeptic's Guide to Christianity
  19. ^ An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement, John W. Patterson, Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science 89(2):55-58, 1982.
  20. ^ This list is likely to have been a continuation of the original published list,"21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation, 2nd edition", by Henry Madison Morris, Creation-Life Publishers, 1971
  21. ^ List of Creation Scientists , a list of biological and physical scientists that support creationism on the Institute for Creation Research website.
  22. ^ The Institute for Creation Research website includes the following statement;"Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creationist scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science and their numbers are increasing rapidly. In the Creation Research Society (2717 Cranbrook Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48104) alone there are over 650 scientist members with either doctor's or master's degrees in some field of natural science. Among the additional 2,000 + sustaining members of the Society, many are also scientists with bachelor's degrees, in addition to numerous social scientists and other highly educated people with postgraduate degrees in their own fields. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation is "religion." When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies—not their awareness of scientific facts!"
  23. ^ a b c d e f g As of 7.28.07
  24. ^ a b At least two of these are dead.
  25. ^ The American Humanist Association: A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science, Humanist, January/February, 1977.
  26. ^ Biology Book Battles, Katherine Ching, News and Comment, Origins, 4(1):46-49 (1977).
  27. ^ Approximately 146 are natural scientists, 6 are clergy, 21 are in the humanities and social sciences, 10 belong to ethics organizations, etc. Of the natural scientists, 126 are biologists, another 6 are probably biologists, 5 are paleontologists or geologists, 6 are from fields related to biology like biochemistry, and 3 are from the physical sciences. The list was signed by Isaac Asimov, and four Nobel Prize-winning biologists; George G. Simpson, Max Delbruck, Linus Pauling, and James D. Watson (although Pauling was trained as a chemist, he did a lot of work in molecular biology as well).
  28. ^ a b AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES, 17 STATE ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE, AND 7 OTHER SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS, IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES, ROBERT A. KLAYMAN, WALTER B. SLOCOMBE, JEFFREY S. LEHMAN, BETH SHAPIRO KAUFMAN, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, One Thomas Circle, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, (202) 862-5000, Attorneys for Amici Curiae
  29. ^ Caplin & Drysdale official website
  30. ^ This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point.
  31. ^ About 25% of the signatories are biologists, according to the article Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition, Kenneth Chang, The New York Times, February 21 2006 (paid subscription required, text available at Skeptical News)
  32. ^ About 2/3 of the "Steves" are professional biologists, according to Project Steve: FAQs, National Center for Science Education website, February 16, 2003, last updated December 28, 2005
  33. ^ Results of The Four Day Petition: 7733 Scientists Agree on: A Scientific Support For Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach Intelligent Design As Science, official website
  34. ^ This statement reads, in part, "...intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." (Nobel Laureates Initiative, The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, September 9, 2005.
  35. ^ It is not clear how many of these individuals is a scientist, or has training or background in an area relevant to the theory of evolution.
  36. ^ These lists are not presented as petitions, but as lists of people that are claimed to be "creationists", according to some definition.
  37. ^ CMI's predecessor, Creation Research Foundation, started publishing lists of creation scientists associated with their magazine, Creation ex nihilo, in 1979. When the CMI website was established ca. 1997, they also included lists of creation scientists on their website.
  38. ^ Creation scientists and other specialists of interest, a list of scientists who support creationism on Creation Ministries International's website. It should be noted that Creation Ministries International was the international arm of Answers in Genesis but is now an independent organization.
  39. ^ This list includes the disclaimer "* or recently deceased". CMI also lists 11 anti-creationist scientists, similar to AiG.
  40. ^ 21 great scientists who believed the Bible, Ann Lamont, Creation Science Foundation, 1995. ISBN 0949906212
  41. ^ Lamont discusses the religious views of Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Carolus Linnaeus, Leonhard Euler, Michael Faraday, Charles Babbage, James Prescott Joule, Louis Pasteur, Kelvin, James Clerk Maxwell, and Werner von Braun, who she claimed believed in the bible, by which she means biblical literalism. However, many of these scientists lived before much of the evidence against biblical literalism emerged. Of the previous list, only aerospace engineer Werner von Braun was alive when evolution was firmly established and the geological evidence against Noah's Ark had clearly emerged. It is also not clear what "believing in the bible" means, since there is a wide range of beliefs in the bible, although von Braun did write about his support for creationist ideas on the grounds of design. It should be noted that there is a vast difference between "believing in the bible" and subscribing to biblical literalism. Also, of the scientists listed above, only Pasteur was trained in and worked in a field relevant to biology.
  42. ^ In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, John F. Ashton, Master Books, January 1, 2001, ISBN 0890513414
  43. ^ The list began about September 3, 1999, with a list that included both creationists and prominent pro-evolution scientists: [1]
  44. ^ Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE, Who's who in Creation/Evolution, Christian Answers website. This is a list of 94 individuals.
  45. ^ List first appeared on the internet on April 30, 2001, and AiG website first appeared on the internet on or about December 2, 1998.
  46. ^ Creation scientists and other biographies of interest: Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation, a list of scientists that support creationism on the Answers in Genesis website.
  47. ^ AiG also lists 56 "creationist" scientists before Darwin, and 33 just after Darwin, of which 3 might be in relevant fields, and one is marked as an "old earth compromiser." AiG also lists 14 creationists in the "early modern period," (of which 4 might be relevant) and includes a disclaimer at bottom of the "modern" creationist scientists stating, "As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because we submit that they should know better." In addition, AiG includes a list of 11 anti-creationist scientists in an "enemies" list, including Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Julian Huxley, J. B. S. Haldane, Stephen Jay Gould, and Daniel Dennett.
  48. ^ Of this number, at least four are dead.
  49. ^ Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula. scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2006-11-18.
  50. ^ Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520-522.
  51. ^ a b As reported by Newsweek, "By one count there are some 700 scientists (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23
  52. ^ a b Finding the Evolution in Medicine, Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.
  53. ^ Public beliefs about evolution and creation, B. A. Robinson, 1995.
  54. ^ Many scientists see God's hand in evolution, Witham, Larry, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 17(6): 33, 1997.
  55. ^ Petitions are statements that are signed or agreed to by the individuals appearing on them. By comparison, people appearing on lists have not necessarily agreed to appear on the list.
  56. ^ AAPG Explorer, January, 1982.
  57. ^ "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom."
  58. ^ US Supreme Court Case No. 85-1513, October Term, 1986, August 18, 1986
  59. ^ National Academy of Sciences, 1999 Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition
  60. ^ Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. 20 October 2005. Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out
  61. ^ List of numerous US scientific societies that support evolution and their statements about evolution
  62. ^ List of 68 international scientific societies on the Interacademy Panel (IAP) that endorse a resolution supporting evolution and a multibillion year old earth, June 2006.
  63. ^ National Science Board letter in support of evolution 1999
  64. ^ Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, 11 Apr 2006.
  65. ^ From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
  66. ^ Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1999.
  67. ^ Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.
  68. ^ "Creation-Science" Law Is Struck Down, Raloff, J., Science News, 121[2]:20, January 9, 1982.
  69. ^ a b American Biology Teacher, January 1973.
  70. ^ See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3)
  71. ^ For a discussion about some controversy about this, see Kent Hovind.
  72. ^ Princeton University theologian Charles Hodge, in his book Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15, argues that "First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source... the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand."
  73. ^ Presupposing Naturalism: Atheism, Agnosticism and Theistic Evolution? (Rev. Curtis L. Brickley, Jr., Darwin, Design and Democracy V: Science Converges on Design - from Cosmology to Paleontology to Biology, September 24-25, 2004, Woodward Hall, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico) states that "Theistic evolution fails traditional theistic religion by not allowing for the continued intervention of a creative cause or power. Theistic evolution can get you knowledge "of God" only through faith by denying natural revelation. But without natural revelation, there can be no rational basis for belief in a God who actually reveals Himself through nature. By embracing Naturalism, and its rejection of the supernatural, theistic evolution denies a rational basis for belief in God and a basis for our faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
  74. ^ Evolution and Christianity are opposites, p. 36 of Evolution and Society, Volume 2 of Scientific Facts Against Evolution-Origin of the Universe: 3 Volume Encyclopedia states, of evolution and Christianity, "there can be no reconciliation between the two. One view stands for fighting, warfare against the supposed weaker ones, and atheism; the other is for peace, self-sacrifice for the good of others, and belief and trust in the Creator God...Even evolutionists and atheists have declared that their creeds are totally different than those of Christianity." Also in the article Evolution and the churches on pages 39-41 of the same volume, "In spite of clear-cut statements by evolutionists that "evolution IS atheism," many denominations today accept one form or another of evolutionary theory."
  75. ^ Defending the teaching of evolution in public education, Statements from Religious Organizations, National Center for Science Education website, retrieved August 8, 2007.
  76. ^ What Catholics Think of Evolution: They don't not believe in it, Keelin McDonell, Slate, Tuesday, July 12, 2005.
  77. ^ Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate, Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21 March 2006.
  78. ^ Total number of signatories of Clergy Letter is as of August 8, 2007.
  79. ^ Matsumura 1998, p. 9 notes that, "Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in Voices insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the Southern Baptist Convention, which has changed its view of evolution since McLean v Arkansas and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement")." Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled Believers: Dynamic Dozen put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the 1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. Matsurmura's calculations include the SBC based on a brief they filed in McLean v. Arkansas, where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also NCSE 2002.
  80. ^ Christianity, Evolution Not in Conflict, John Richard Schrock, Wichita Eagle, page 17A, May 17, 2005.
  81. ^ Matsumura 1998, p. 9
  82. ^ a b Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution, Michael Shermer, Scientific American, October, 2006.
  83. ^ The Doctrine of Creation, adopted by the Assemblies of God General Presbytery, August 15-17, 1977, Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, Missouri, Gospel Publishing House Catalog # 34-4177, 1977.
  84. ^ 2. What is the EPC’s view of the Bible?, Frequently Asked Questions About the EPC, Beliefs and Distinctives of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. This discussion explains the Evangelical Presbyterian Church position that Bible is "infallible".
  85. ^ What about...Creation and Evolution, A. L. Barry, p. 60-61, Unchanging Truth in Changing Times: The Complete Collection of the What About Pamphlets, Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, 2001.
  86. ^ 6. Creation, Fundamental Beliefs, Official Seventh-day Adventist belief statement advocating creationism.
  87. ^ Evolutionary Biology at Regis, a Jesuit Catholic School, Michael J. Ghedotti.
  88. ^ Evolution - Useful or Useless?, George Lindsey, Impact, #148, October 1985, Institute for Creation Research website.
  89. ^ Evolution and practical science, Carl Wieland, Creation 20(4):4, September 1998.
  90. ^ French creation Interview with French scientist Dr André Eggen, Ken Ham, Creation 20(4):17–19, September 1998.
  91. ^ Majority of Physicians Give the Nod to Evolution Over Intelligent Design, HCD Research press release, May 23, 2005
  92. ^ Data from HCD and Finkelstein Institute study of physician attitudes to evolution
  93. ^ 2006 Year-end Report, Dennis Wagner, editor, ARN-Announce, Number Sixty-two, December 15, 2006.
  94. ^ New Darwin Dissent List for the 60% of U.S. Doctors Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution: List Involves No Commitment to the Theory of Intelligent Design, Evolution News and Views, Discovery Institute, May 4, 2006
  95. ^ Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, Randolph Nesse and George C. Williams, Vintage Books, New York 1996.
  96. ^ a b Claim CA215: The theory of evolution is useless, without practical application, Talkorigins website, created 2005-3-26, modified 2005-10-4, retrieved 2007-08-08.
  97. ^ a b The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life, David Mindell, Harvard University Press, 2006.
  98. ^ Region seeks high-tech jobs: "Anti-science" label may repel scientists, Jason Gertzen and Diane Stafford, The Kansas City Star, Sunday October 9, 2005.
  99. ^ Waging War on Evolution, Paul A. Hanle, Washington Post, Sunday, October 1, 2006; Page B04
  100. ^ Evolution is a Winner - for Breakthroughs and Prizes, James McCarter, St Louis Post-Dispatch, October 9, 2005.
  101. ^ Selling Darwin, Jerry Cohn, Nature, 442, 983-984, 31 August 2006.
  102. ^ Statements from Educational Organizations, National Center for Science Education website, retrieved August 8, 2007. This is a list of educational organizations that support evolution and their statements about evolution.
  103. ^ Intelligent Design Is Not Science: Scientists and teachers speak out, University of New South Wales website, 2005.
  104. ^ Appendix A: Six Significant Court Decisions Regarding Evolution And Creationism Issues, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998), National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.
  105. ^ Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97. (1968)
  106. ^ Segraves v. California, No. 278978 Sacramento Superior Court (1981)
  107. ^ McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 (1982) U.S. Law Week 2412
  108. ^ Edwards v. Aguillard, 482, U.S. 578, 55 (1987) U.S. Law Week 4860, S. CT. 2573, 96 L. Ed. 2d510
  109. ^ Webster v. New Lennox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th. Cir., 1990)
  110. ^ Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir., 1994)
  111. ^ Freiler v. Tangipahoa Board of Education, No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997)
  112. ^ Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]
  113. ^ Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District No. 04-2688 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005)
  114. ^ Hurst v. Newman (Lebec, CA) (2006), Legal issues, lawsuits, documents, trial materials, and updates, Evolution education and the law, National Center for Science Education website.
  115. ^ For example, in the US Presidential Race in 2000, both George W. Bush and Al Gore's initial political platforms included advocating the teaching of both evolution and creationism in science classes (George W. Bush, The Last Relativist, Timothy Noah, Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics, Slate, Oct. 31, 2000).
  116. ^ UK Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared to support efforts to establish schools teaching creationism in the UK (Revealed: Tony Blair's Link to Schools that Take the Creation Literally, Nicholas Pyke, The Independent, 2004-06-13).
  117. ^ In Italy, former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi wanted to retire evolution from schools in the middle level; after one week of massive protests, he reversed his opinion. (Italy Keeps Darwin in its Classrooms, Deutsche Presse-Agentur staff, DW-World.de, May 3, 2004.
  118. ^ Serbia reverses Darwin suspension, BBC News, Thursday, 9 September, 2004.
  119. ^ Poland saw a major controversy over creationism in 2006 when the deputy education minister, Mirosław Orzechowski, denounced evolution as "one of many lies" taught in Polish schools (And finally..., Warsaw Business Journal, 18 December 2006).
  120. ^ Creation commotion in Dutch Parliament, Frans Gunnink, and Philip Bell, Answers in Genesis, 7 June 2005; EVOLUTION POLITICS: Is Holland Becoming the Kansas of Europe?, Martin Enserink, Science, 3 June 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5727, p. 1394 DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b
  121. ^ No scientific issue is ever decided in this manner. The only thing that matters in science is if the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. This is called argumentum ad populum (Introduction to Logic, I.M. Copi, Macmillan, New York, 1978). As pointed out by creationist Bert Thompson, "truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote" (The Day the Scientists Voted, Bert Thompson, Reason & Revelation, March 1982, 2[3]:9-11.)
  122. ^ a b Public Acceptance of Evolution, Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, Shinji Okamoto, Science, 11 August 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5788, pp. 765 - 766, DOI: 10.1126/science.1126746.
  123. ^ A chart showing public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries. The United States ranked near the bottom, beat only by Turkey. Credit: Science, Livescience website, retrieved August 8, 2007.
  124. ^ Britons unconvinced on evolution, BBC News, Thursday, 26 January 2006.
  125. ^ BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life, Dan Young, Ipsos MORI, 30 January 2006.
  126. ^ Public beliefs about evolution and creation, B. A. Robinson, Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance, 1995-2006.
  127. ^ Third of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory Almost half of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago, Frank Newport, The Gallup Poll, November 19, 2004. This describes a 2004 Gallup poll showing about 45% of the US public believe in the biblical creation account, and only 1/3 believe in "Darwin's theory of evolution".
  128. ^ a b Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution, Frank Newport, The Gallup Poll, June 11, 2007.
  129. ^ a b See Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine Creation, Washington Times, June 8, 2006.
  130. ^ a b Evolution and Creationism in Public Education, results of poll done in 1999 for People for the American Way.
  131. ^ Leading Scientists Still Reject God, Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham, Nature, July 23, 1998.
  132. ^ a b 2005 Pew Research Center poll
  133. ^ a b Newport, Frank (2007-06-11). "Majority of Republicans doubt theory of evolution". The Gallup Poll. Retrieved 2007-06-22.
  134. ^ a b Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God, The Harris Poll® #52, July 6, 2005.
  135. ^ Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada., Miller, J. D., R. Pardo, and F. Niwa. Chicago Academy of Sciences, 1997.
  136. ^ a b c Smart People See Ghosts, Brad Steiger, Fate Magazine, April 2006 Issue, p. 52-56. An unusual thing found by Farha and Steward was that belief in the supernatural increased with education level, contrary to many other surveys. However, that aspect of their study is not being used here.
  137. ^ Skeptical Inquirer, 30, 1; 37-40
  138. ^ USA Today, January 12, 1994
  139. ^ Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding-Public Knowledge About S&T], Chapter 7 of Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, National Science Board, National Science Foundation
  140. ^ a b Why doesn't America believe in evolution?, Jeff Hecht, New Scientist, 20 August 2006.
  141. ^ A Miracle Happens Here:" Darwin's Enemies on the Right - Part I of a Two Part Series, Steve Sailer, National Post, 11/20/99.
  142. ^ American Piety in the 21st Century, Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, September 2006
  143. ^ a b c d The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, expanded edition, Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2006 ISBN 0674023390
  144. ^ Policy Forum, Science Communication: Public Acceptance of Evolution, Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, Shinji Okamoto, Science, 11 August 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5788, pp. 765 - 766 DOI: 10.1126/science.1126746
  145. ^ Academics fight rise of creationism at universities: More students believe Darwin got it wrong, Royal Society challenges "insidious problem", Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Tuesday February 21, 2006.
  146. ^ Table 42. Earth sciences degrees awarded, by degree level and sex of recipient: 1966-2001, from National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966-2001, NSF 04-311, Project Officers, Susan T. Hill and Jean M. Johnson (Arlington, VA 2004).
  147. ^ National Science Foundation/Science Resources Statistics Division, 1999 SESTAT (Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data) Table C-1
  148. ^ Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition, Kenneth Chang. The New York Times, February 21 2006 (text available without registering at Skeptical News)
  149. ^ And Be Not Conformed To This World...,, Guy N. Woods, Gospel Advocate, 124[1]:2,23, January 7, 1982.

References[edit]

See also[edit]

Links to include[edit]

Other links[edit]

[1]

[2]

[3]


[4]


[5]

|- |2004-pres. |"Clergy Letter Project" |Michael Zimmerman |10758[6] |10758 clergy[6] |?


Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church[edit]

Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church are compatible according to the Church. On the 12 August 1950, the Roman Catholic Church accepted that the ‘doctrine of evolution’ was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis saying “research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution”. In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However, the encyclical rejects what it described as some “fictitious tenets of evolution”. Following this announcement Catholic schools began teaching evolution.[citation needed]

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said “Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.”[7]

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that “Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.”[8] This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Pope Benedict XVI who was actually the President of the Commission while he was a Cardinal.

In the January 16-17 2006 edition of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, University of Bologna evolutionary biology Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelligent design was unscientific.[9][10]

Although the Magisterium has not yet made an authoritative statement on intelligent design (and it may not if intelligent design is not proven to be a science) it actively supported Jesuit Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, in his denunciation of intelligent design “Intelligent design diminishes God”.[11]


That's not a list, this is a list[edit]

Darwin skeptics[edit]

Darwin Skeptics

A Select List of Academics, Scientists and Scholars Involved in Various Creationist Movements and Intelligent Design.

Author: Jerry Bergman Ph.D. Subject: Apologetics Date: 09/11/2006 Revolution Against Evolution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filll (talk • contribs) 03:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Discovery Institute issued a press release August 19, 2003, signed by 24 Texas faculty members that stated that "in recent years, a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues that challenge various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory. Thus, we think the best science education will present students with both 'the strengths and weaknesses' of neo-Darwinian theory." An analysis of the signers demonstrates that only one was a biolgist (emeritus). The others were from other fields like military science, religious studies or journalism. A second press release September 5, 2003 was signed by 40 "scientists", many that signed the earlier press release, claiming, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. The Darwin-only lobby tries to claim there is no scientific debate over the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinism, and this proves that's just bogus. "Texas Citizens for Science Responds to Latest Discovery Institute Challenge, Steven Schafersman, September 2, 2003
  2. ^ The National Science Teachers Association's position statement on the teaching of evolution, adopted by the NSTA Board of Directors July 2003
  3. ^ IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution, a joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
  4. ^ "2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF file), a declaration of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society.
  5. ^ AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws, Ginger Pinholster, News Release, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 19 February 2006.
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Date was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Pope John Paul II, Speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 23, 1996
  8. ^ “Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God”, International Theological Commission.
  9. ^ "Intelligent design" criticized in Vatican newspaper, NCSE article, January 20, 2006
  10. ^ In "Design" vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome, Ian Fisher and Cornelia Dean, New York Times, January 19, 2006.
  11. ^ Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says, Mark Lombard, 1/30/2006, Catholic Online
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution/rewrite&oldid=1132237865"