In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

A recent Gallup poll has shown that most Americans do not agree with the theory of evolution being the cause for life.The idea that an intelligent source is the cause for the universe is held above naturalistic processes. That is why Akron Fossils & Science Center is important. We present the flaws of uniformitarianism and discuss why intelligent design and Creation science better fit the evidence and data.

June 1, 2012 Gallup Poll

June 1, 2012 Gallup Poll

Quoting Frank Newport’s concluding remarks in Gallup’s June 1, 2012 press release of the study.

Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans’ views of the origin of the human species since 1982. The 46% of Americans who today believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years is little changed from the 44% who believed this 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question.

More broadly, some 78% of Americans today believe that God had a hand in the development of humans in some way, just slightly less than the percentage who felt this way 30 years ago.

All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins.

Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

________________

Source:
June 1, 2012, Gallup, Frank Newport, In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins: Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism, <http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx&gt;, Assessed January 16, 2013.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Commentaries and tagged , , , , by Akron Fossils & Science Center. Bookmark the permalink.

About Akron Fossils & Science Center

Akron Fossils & Science Center features hands-on tours and science activities that put knowledge directly in your hands. Our exhibits display many fossils from Ohio and around the world. In addition to our guided tours, we offer a wide variety of enriching science programs, all hands-on and designed to make science and learning fun and meaningful. We also look forward to having you enjoy our 2 1/2 acre outdoor adventure park called Truassic Park. Our park features a 9-hole mini golf course, giant slide, and 200 FT ZIP- LINE! At Akron Fossils & Science Center, participants and visitors become more than observers; they become researchers, experimenters, and even educators. Our exhibits and programs let you experience science first-hand and encourage understanding and deep, critical thought. A trip to Akron Fossils & Science Center provides more than something to do for one day; it ignites a passion for learning and exploration that lasts a lifetime.

6 thoughts on “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

  1. Josiah, I think Gallup had a better random sample of the population than Akron Fossils. It is interesting that the general trend is the more educated the more likely someone will accept macroevolution. I tend to think this is along the lines of the more often something is repeated the more likely people will accept it regardless of whether it is true or not. C. S. Lewis called macroevolution the “great Myth”. In “The Weight of Glory” he says “The obviousness or naturalness which most people seem to find in the idea of emergent evolution thus seems to be a pure hallucination”. WOW! His primary two arguments against evolution were based on the weight of evidence in favor of intelligent design and the power of logic.

    • Macro-evolution (evolution above the species level) is observed in nature and can be made to happen in the laboratory. The only creationist response to this fact I’ve heard to date is to define “macro-evolution” as something which is impossible (even according to evolution science) like a dog giving birth to a cat or a crocoduck or something ridiculous. Want some evidence for macro-evolution? Ring species, ERV’s (viruses that inject themselves into our DNA and accumulate over time in the genome that we and other primates have commonly inherited) etc. Type “ring species” site:answersingenesis.com [or whatever creationist website with lots of articles] and you will find zero rebuttals or even mentions of the evidence for macro-evolution. They claim it doesn’t exist and just don’t talk about it. But it does.

      • I think we have some issues with definitions. I would place macroevolution at the family level according to Linnaean taxonomy. I am not aware of any observed examples. I am aware of many inferred examples.

        What we do observe is microevolution, adaptation of already existing kinds of animals to their environment, but not macroevolution. For example, the canidae family, which includes dogs, wolves, and dingos, now has over 400 varieties historically observed over the past few thousands years. There is WIDE variation, BUT no formation of a new biological family like felidae. And it is not just phenotypic, but also based on internal physiology and instincts.

        Viruses that inject DNA into us and other species is NOT macroevolutionary. One, can you show any resulting complexity increase in any of the receiving species? Two, how do you know these DNA fragments were “commonly inherited”? They just as well could be commonly infected.

      • “I think we have some issues with definitions. I would place macroevolution at the family level according to Linnaean taxonomy. I am not aware of any observed examples. I am aware of many inferred examples.”

        The biological definition of macro-evolution is evolution above the species level. You are defining it higher than that only because the deveopment of entire complex groups of species would take much longer than a human lifetime and thus would by definition be unobservable. So you are, ironically demanding we see something we shouldn’t be able to see if evolution is correct and concluding that because we can’t evolution is therefore false.

        “What we do observe is microevolution, adaptation of already existing kinds of animals to their environment, but not macroevolution.”

        We observe both if you use the terms as defined in actual biology and don’t move the goalpost.

        “For example, the canidae family, which includes dogs, wolves, and dingos, now has over 400 varieties historically observed over the past few thousands years. There is WIDE variation, BUT no formation of a new biological family like felidae. And it is not just phenotypic, but also based on internal physiology and instincts.”

        We have this thing called the fossil record, it shows the gradual appearance of every major group of species and every major anatomical trait that is preserved by fossilization.

        “Viruses that inject DNA into us and other species is NOT macroevolutionary. One, can you show any resulting complexity increase in any of the receiving species?”

        I didn’t say it caused macro-evolution, I said it was proof of macro-evolution.

        “Two, how do you know these DNA fragments were “commonly inherited”? They just as well could be commonly infected.”

        Two species with the same exact virus in their genome is unlikely, but possible. Two species with dozens of the same exact viruses injected into the exact same points down to the base pair with the exact same mutations/fragments is far beyond what would generally be considered mathematically impossible.

  2. I find it interesting that the higher the level of education of those interviewed by Gallup the more likely they were to accept the theory of evolution. One small study conducted on visitors at Akron Fossils & Science Center showed just the opposite! The later case is certainly true for the scientists that have contributed research for the the exhibits at Akron Fossils. The more they studied evolution the less convinced by it they became.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s