Forty Percent of Americans (and Most Republicans) Don't Believe in Evolution

[DivineBronco]

http://gawker.com/5715072/forty-percent-of-americans-and-most-republicans-dont-believe-in-evolution


people can at least argue about evolution there are some things yet to be understood there...but 52 percent of Republicans—believe "God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years ummmmmmmm that isn't even defensible

[mhgaffney]

There may be intelligent life in the universe --

but you'd never know it from the human race -- especially the rightards and other assorted A-holes on the OM.

[Requiem]

EEC for the LULZ.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Evolution is a difficult and relatively new concept. It will take time to set in...and thats okay. Its the natural course of things.

Imagine how few people believe in evolution in places like Africa, South America, Central America, and the middle east.

The Galapagos Islands are off of Ecuador, and I'm pretty sure that Ecuadoreans are probably on average less educated on the subject than Americans.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://gawker.com/5715072/forty-percent-of-americans-and-most-republicans-dont-believe-in-evolution


people can at least argue about evolution there are some things yet to be understood there...but 52 percent of Republicans—believe "God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years ummmmmmmm that isn't even defensible

These are probably the same knuckle draggers who believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11, eh?

http://www.bartcop.com/tax-xmas-past.jpg

[Rohirrim]

Since 911, the right wing in America has pursued safety by retreating into a mythological past. It's the kind of mind-set that erodes great countries.

[DenverBrit]

http://gawker.com/5715072/forty-percent-of-americans-and-most-republicans-dont-believe-in-evolution


people can at least argue about evolution there are some things yet to be understood there...but 52 percent of Republicans—believe "God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years ummmmmmmm that isn't even defensible

Obviously they haven't 'evolved' into intelligent life forms.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Since 911, the right wing in America has pursued safety by retreating into a mythological past. It's the kind of mind-set that erodes great countries.

Its as though you live in a padded room.

[Pony Boy]

http://gawker.com/5715072/forty-percent-of-americans-and-most-republicans-dont-believe-in-evolution


people can at least argue about evolution there are some things yet to be understood there...but 52 percent of Republicans—believe "God created humans in present form within the last 10,000 years ummmmmmmm that isn't even defensible

What's your point and give us all the facts, what is the percent of Democrats?

[DenverBrit]

What's your point and give us all the facts, what is the percent of Democrats?

34%, just click the link.

[Garcia Bronco]

Macro Evolution has never, ever been proven.

[Smiling Assassin27]

And yet 100% of Democrats believe that unemployment benefits are economic stimulus. At least evolution still has gaping holes in its hypothesis.

Regardless, who gives a crap? A person's view on evolution could be affected by the level of education they have or even the depth (or lack thereof) of their theological/faith life. Does that make them stupid? No. It makes them uninformed on that particular issue, at worst. What it makes those who gratuitously post this crap to make themselves feel smarter than others is a pompous, elitist, douche with an undying need to go to sleep at night believing that they reside in the upper intellectual echelon, yet ignorantly fail to realize that their striving for the wrong thing altogether. I hope your fragile self esteem gets a boost from that poll, man.

[Rohirrim]

Macro Evolution has never, ever been proven.

Is the world populated by the same plants and animals it was populated with a million years ago?

[Rohirrim]

And yet 100% of Democrats believe that unemployment benefits are economic stimulus. At least evolution still has gaping holes in its hypothesis.



That is indisputable.

[DenverBrit]

Is the world populated by the same plants and animals it was populated with a million years ago?

10,000 years ago they were, when man suddenly appeared; apparently the Earth didn't exist a million years ago. ;)

[baja]

Looks more like devolution to me.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Looks more like devolution to me.

Evolution does not necessitate directionality.

The "change" in evolution refers to only a change, not necessarily a change toward something more intelligent. Evolution is not directional. There are only outcomes that are refined through natural selection. Whether or not those end up in traits that lead to greater average intelligence is dependent on the conditions that selected advantageous traits in previous generations.

[Rigs11]

And yet 100% of Democrats believe that unemployment benefits are economic stimulus. At least evolution still has gaping holes in its hypothesis.

Regardless, who gives a crap? A person's view on evolution could be affected by the level of education they have or even the depth (or lack thereof) of their theological/faith life. Does that make them stupid? No. It makes them uninformed on that particular issue, at worst. What it makes those who gratuitously post this crap to make themselves feel smarter than others is a pompous, elitist, douche with an undying need to go to sleep at night believing that they reside in the upper intellectual echelon, yet ignorantly fail to realize that their striving for the wrong thing altogether. I hope your fragile self esteem gets a boost from that poll, man.

Yeah because people don't spend money when they have benefits coming in. Seriously dude you're embarrassing yourself again.

[orinjkrush]

earth-centric evolution is one of several models to explain how species change.

other models are also probably valid.

[Pony Boy]

34%, just click the link.

Clicking on the link doesn't tell me what point this moron is trying to make. I believe a very high percentage of blacks believe that God created humans. So is he poking fun at republicans and blacks? Does he put JFK and Jimmy Carter on that level also?

I haven't been inside a church except for a funeral or a wedding in 30 years, does that make me an intelligent democrat? Again "What's the ****ing point".

[frerottenextelway]

Macro Evolution has never, ever been proven.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract

[cutthemdown]

Who cares? The religion they worship teaches them different. It's not like you have to believe in evolution to be a success or even be intelligent. Evolution knowledge does nothing to really help you in business or making money.

I know some religious people who are also scientific so they have to believe in evolution. They just say there is a question as to whether a yr in the bible is a yr in the modern world. They did say people lived to be 300 right? So obviously there is some problems with the time structure.

Then they would say God never said he gave us all the information and some things are there to challenge us to have faith.

But going around harping on people, hating on them, because they choose to be religious is lame.

[cutthemdown]

All of the best people I know are religious. All the ones who travel to africa to help kids, who will be done serving food on xmas at the mission, who put other people in front of them on a daily basis, are all religious.

Many of you so called atheists are selfish.

[epicSocialism4tw]

All of the best people I know are religious. All the ones who travel to africa to help kids, who will be done serving food on xmas at the mission, who put other people in front of them on a daily basis, are all religious.

Many of you so called atheists are selfish.

If atheism doesn't help a person live a good life, or even to be able to define things as simple as good and evil, then what is it worth to the average person?

Not much.

[frerottenextelway]

All of the best people I know are religious. All the ones who travel to africa to help kids, who will be done serving food on xmas at the mission, who put other people in front of them on a daily basis, are all religious.

Many of you so called atheists are selfish.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Thats quite a brilliant and basic philosophical suggestion you have paraphrased there.

What can you offer me from the best minds in atheism that would provide equivalent moral teaching?

[cutthemdown]

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Not saying non religious selfish just says in my opinion a higher % then non religious. But then I would also say no one has proved unselfish makes you better then the guy who is a martyr all the time. Only different.

But I will also say I don't think religion has to be true to have value. Some of it rooted in things that can't be proven. I mean mysterious powerful god impossible to prove.

IMO and most it's a proven fact the Earth is really old. I believe science when they say a bone is this old, this is that old, give or take a few hundred thousand yrs sometimes I guess but whatever. No way the dinasour bones down at the museum are only 10 thousand yrs old. I would think a better explanation from the religious perspective would be the devil has fooled science LOL.

Whatever though i judge a cultures religion by what it adds to the country or peoples. I feel we have some religions that add a lot and I support that. They have a right to try and influence govt just like other groups do.

Just my opinion though not a religious person or someone arrogant enough to think I know if there is a god or not.

[TailgateNut]

All of the best people I know are religious. All the ones who travel to africa to help kids, who will be done serving food on xmas at the mission, who put other people in front of them on a daily basis, are all religious.

Many of you so called atheists are selfish.

Like the old religious ****er who introduced himself and boasted of his trips to Nicaragua to help kids when I moved into the neighborhood. I accepted him as being a "nice guy". Funny thing happened "on the way to the farm". My neighbor who works for the school district found out he's a registered/ convicted child molester, and thankfully made me aware of that fact because he used to be "real friendly" with both of or daughters. Nice guy, EH?

Take your pompous ass attitude and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

...and I love how you categorize atheists as being selfish. I tend to accept people until they proove they aren't worthy of being my friends, and for your information, I'm a very open and giving person who volunteers and gives freely without expecting the recipients to believe in what I believe. Ring a bell?

[atomicbloke]

Who cares? The religion they worship teaches them different. It's not like you have to believe in evolution to be a success or even be intelligent. Evolution knowledge does nothing to really help you in business or making money.



Exactly.

You do realize that the US is the only country where the evolution vs creationism is such a hot button political issue. How come both beliefs co-exist in other first world advanced modern countries without become a point of heated political debates? Its not as if Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand are full of atheists.

Both can coexist if evolution is taught in science classes and creationism is taught in religion classes. The problem starts when one group insists that creationism also be taught in science classes.

[cutthemdown]

Like the old religious ****er who introduced himself and boasted of his trips to Nicaragua to help kids when I moved into the neighborhood. I accepted him as being a "nice guy". Funny thing happened "on the way to the farm". My neighbor who works for the school district found out he's a registered/ convicted child molester, and thankfully made me aware of that fact because he used to be "real friendly" with both of or daughters. Nice guy, EH?

Take your pompous ass attitude and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

...and I love how you categorize atheists as being selfish. I tend to accept people until they proove they aren't worthy of being my friends, and for your information, I'm a very open and giving person who volunteers and gives freely without expecting the recipients to believe in what I believe. Ring a bell?

My answer is simple. He wasn't actually religious or a person of god so doesn't reflect on religious people. You prove being a person of god through your actions and someone who has merly claimed to be that shouldn't get anymore trust then someone who doesn't. Because though most religious people are good people, evil people will try and fool you into believing they are. You just have to have faith god will help you sort it all out and protect you.

But if you read my post you would see my points were more to say I think true people of god are great people and an asset to the country. It wasn't so much saying athiest aren't. I was defending not attacking. This thread though full of attacks against religious people but whatever.

Also I bet the people you help share your core beliefs more then you think. We all basically want to be good and it's only the freaks who would want to do harm.

God bless, and I hope Santa brings you something even though you have been bad.

[cutthemdown]

scince always wants to say by studying the past we learn more about ourselves....LOL what a crock of **** they just like to make cool programs for Discovery Channel. Now here is the question because I love that channel. If the net neutrality goes through does that mean I will always get my discovery channel online? All I care about is that and animal planet in the offseason.

[TailgateNut]

My answer is simple. He wasn't actually religious or a person of god so doesn't reflect on religious people. You prove being a person of god through your actions and someone who has merly claimed to be that shouldn't get anymore trust then someone who doesn't. Because though most religious people are good people, evil people will try and fool you into believing they are. You just have to have faith god will help you sort it all out and protect you.

But if you read my post you would see my points were more to say I think true people of god are great people and an asset to the country. It wasn't so much saying athiest aren't. I was defending not attacking. This thread though full of attacks against religious people but whatever.

Also I bet the people you help share your core beliefs more then you think. We all basically want to be good and it's only the freaks who would want to do harm.

God bless, and I hope Santa brings you something even though you have been bad.


As my daughter would text "MKAY"!

I don't even know where to start.

1. When a religious person does something which this atheist would consider evil, the "truly religious people":spit: say "he wasn't a christian" (but yet, the church harbored hundreds, if not thousands of known child molesters for decades).
2. Christians are an asset to the country, but IYO atheists are questionable assets. (whatever your hollier than thou ass wants to believe, but this is one of those arrogant christian beliefs which shows their collective ignorance).
3. The people I help have the same beliefs as I.:spit: (I couldn't give a rats ass if they do or don't share my beliefs)

I look at people as people, not based on the core beliefs. I have friends who are religious and have friends who think religious people are fools. I can get along with both, as long as they don't forcefeed their beliefs onto others.

[cutthemdown]

Once again I am not saying atheists are bad people. You are putting words in my mouth. I only said I think a higher % of true Christians are unselfish compared to the avg atheist.

Also not defending or saying that many religious people don't do horrid things. I am only saying they didn't follow what God would want them to do or how the religion teaches them.

[cutthemdown]

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

ow do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their “civic behavior,” including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey. From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as “religious” are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call “secular” report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to “religious causes” or “non-religious charities” over the previous 12 months. Across the whole population, 81 percent gave, while 57 percent volunteered.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.




So the stats are pretty blunt. Religious people do give more time and money to charity. Without them you could basically say about 25% of the charity out there would not be without religion.

[TailgateNut]

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

ow do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their “civic behavior,” including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey. From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as “religious” are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call “secular” report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to “religious causes” or “non-religious charities” over the previous 12 months. Across the whole population, 81 percent gave, while 57 percent volunteered.
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.




So the stats are pretty blunt. Religious people do give more time and money to charity. Without them you could basically say about 25% of the charity out there would not be without religion.



I don't consider giving to ones' church as being charity. It's money to build more churches and to spread confusion!

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't consider giving to ones' church as being charity. It's money to build more churches and to spread confusion!

What a sad and bitter perspective.

[TailgateNut]

What a sad and bitter perspective.

Another classic comment from the Fairy tale peddler!

[cutthemdown]

I was only arguing that even though it seems silly to believe the earth is 10 thousand yrs old, that evolution isn't true, we are still better off as a society with religion being part of it. Not saying non religious bad, or not generous, just saying that a higher % of religious people will do for the others.

A lot of the charity churches do is missions and so forth where the do talk to people about god etc etc, but its not like they wont give food to non believers. They just feel its there duty to teach people about god. I can see why that rubs people like Tailgate the wrong way but I still think it's worth it for all the good most religious people do.

To focus on the fact some of what they believe is shrouded in mysticism seems like a foolish argument.