Friday, November 30, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

by Reuters: Ed Stoddard

Thanks to Phil Tindall for the link.

Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin

By Ed Stoddard

DALLAS (Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.

It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.

It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.

The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.

It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.

Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research.

Only 42 percent of those surveyed said they believed in Darwin's theory which largely informs how biology and related sciences are approached. While often referred to as evolution it is in fact the 19th century British intellectual's theory of "natural selection."

There are unsurprising differences among religious groups.

"Born-again Christians are more likely to believe in the traditional elements of Christianity than are Catholics or Protestants. For example, 95 percent believe in miracles, compared to 87 percent and 89 percent among Catholics and Protestants," according to the poll.

"On the other hand only 16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin's theory of evolution."

What is perhaps surprising is that substantial minorities in America apparently believe in ghosts, UFOs, witches, astrology and reincarnation.

The survey, which has a sampling error of plus or minus two percent, found that 35 percent of the respondents believed in UFOs and 31 percent in witches.

More born-again Christians -- a term which usually refers to evangelical Protestants who place great emphasis on the conversion experience -- believed in witches at 37 percent than mainline Protestants or Catholics, both at 32 percent.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, November 30, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 64 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #92285 by FSM? on November 30, 2007 at 8:21 am

Very disturbing findings, but unfortunately not a surprise. How can more rational thinking become a part of the US mainstream...?

Although I'm very glad to see the efforts of freethinkers and rationalists building quite a momentum lately, the task of relegating superstition to our past is obviously going to be a massive undertaking in the US, let alone in other parts of the world.

Other Comments by FSM?

2. Comment #92286 by NormanDoering on November 30, 2007 at 8:22 am

Of course they do, if anyone else here bothered to watch the most recent Republican debate you already know how bad it is. They had questions from average Americans and one guy waved around a Bible saying, I paraphrase from memory: "...how you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you. Do you believe every word of this book? ... This book that I am holding in my hand, do you believe this book?"

Every Repug candidate said they believed the Bible (which Bible?) was the word of God. They know nothing of the books real history.

This is one of the reasons Huckabee, a pastor, is on the rise:

Rove's Frankenstein

Other Comments by NormanDoering

3. Comment #92288 by al-rawandi on November 30, 2007 at 8:35 am

George Bush said that the "jury was out on evolution". Apparently that is the same jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson.

The fundmental problem is that the educated in the US (college educated, advanced degrees) are having one or maybe two children. The slack jawed yokel Baptists are having a baker's dozen.

This may have something to do with not being smart enough to use a condom, as compared to a religious issue.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

4. Comment #92291 by NormanDoering on November 30, 2007 at 8:41 am

al-rawandi wrote:

George Bush said that the "jury was out on evolution".

Huckabee, along with Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo, was one of the three Republicans who raised their hands during the debate where they were asked if they don't believe in evolution. As for what should be taught in public schools, Huckabee said he wants "schools to acknowledge that there are views that are different than evolution."

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/11/roves-frankenstein.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering

5. Comment #92292 by wagnerpe on November 30, 2007 at 8:41 am

Every Repug candidate said they believed the Bible (which Bible?) was the word of God. They know nothing of the books real history.

I agree. I think if the Republican candidates choose to make bold statements like this they should be able to defend them. We should ask them questions about the history of the Bible and Christianity. I bet that would reveal that most of them are just pandering to the religious right and don't actually know anything about the religion with which they claim to be affiliated.

Other Comments by wagnerpe

6. Comment #92295 by hungarianelephant on November 30, 2007 at 8:47 am

George Bush said that the "jury was out on evolution". Apparently that is the same jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson.

I'd have been on the latter jury too. It's a matter of evidence.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

7. Comment #92298 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 8:51 am

i wonder where that puts the US in terms of a superstition leaugue table, on par with Haiti perhaps? its funny how an technologically advanced environment doesnt necessarily correspond with an equivalent leap in rationalism or progressive thought.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

8. Comment #92299 by albacore on November 30, 2007 at 8:52 am

Is anyone else uncomfortable with the phrase "believe in evolution"? It makes it seem like an alternative belief rather than a scientific theory - I would no more believe in evolution than believe in gravity. I have no problem with evolution - in fact I've always found the idea of natural selection fascinating (favourite Dawkins book is The Ancestor's Tale), and I have never had a religious faith: perhaps that is why the idea of "belief" doesn't feel right.

Other Comments by albacore

9. Comment #92301 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 8:54 am

albacore, i dont use the word believe for evo, i use the word 'accept'. heres a useful link:

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm

Other Comments by phasmagigas

10. Comment #92303 by scottishgeologist on November 30, 2007 at 8:59 am

The terminology in this is confusing. It makes out that there are 3 subsets of Christians - BAC's, Protestants and Catholics. And then it goes on to say that BACs are a subset of evangelical Protestants.

Of course, as far as the real BAC fundies are concerned, "cathylicks" (thanks to landover for that one!) are not real Christians. Mind you I did hear an evangie refer to a RC woman she knew as a "Catholic Christian"

Neither would liberal protestants be considered christians either.

In fact in my own experience, among evangelical types here in Scotland, unless you are a BAC, then you are not "saved" and are not really a Christian either. OK, they might claim you are a "nominal" Christian, but you're not "truly saved" They talk pish about "having that blessed assurance" and "being converted" or "coming to know the Lord"

I reember being quite shocked the first time I heard an evangie say that his "minister was definitely a Christian". FFS. Apparently there are a lot that arent.... (Kinda like being an MP, but not being a politician?!?). Fundies say the darndest things....

I know quite a few evangie types who are into this "satan" crap and who think that when they have misfortune in their lives , its because they are "under attack" and need to be "prayed for", that there are evil spirits out there and all this woo-woo crap.

Mind you, on the other hand, if you believe that tere is a big angry fairy in the sky and a big eternal hot fire that he's got for you, and that there is such a thing as a "supernatural realm" then it kinda behoves you to believe in all the other ghosts and ghouls and woo-woo stuff....

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

11. Comment #92313 by bruce on November 30, 2007 at 9:13 am

USA! USA! #1! #1!

OK, I keed.

Seriously, I have a co-worker who pulled his daughter out of public school and went the home school route recently. Bet you can't guess why?

Yep, they're born-agains and didn't like what the school was teaching in science class. I hope the poor girl can overcome her miseducation someday (and possibly the religious brainwashing too).

Other Comments by bruce

12. Comment #92314 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 9:16 am

"On the other hand only 16 percent of born-again Christians, compared to 43 percent of Catholics and 30 percent of Protestants, believe in Darwin's theory of evolution."

What I'd like to know is what percentage of these believe that the Theory of Evolution is the devil?

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

13. Comment #92323 by devolve on November 30, 2007 at 9:40 am

This story makes me unable to decide whether to laugh or cry.

I wonder how many "believe in" gravitation theory?

Other Comments by devolve

14. Comment #92325 by annabanana on November 30, 2007 at 9:47 am

Ok, I'm well aware that statistical data can be strongly manipulated and that this "sample" of the population could be an erroneous sampling for various reasons...BUT...it still makes me want to cry!

Does anyone over there in the U.K. want to put me up while I find a job and place to live? I don't think I can stand this country any longer.

Other Comments by annabanana

15. Comment #92339 by arogop on November 30, 2007 at 10:11 am

11. Comment #92313 by bruce on November 30, 2007 at 9:13 am

USA! USA! #1! #1!

----------------------

When I read this I blew snot on my computer!! Always good to number one.

For those of us in the US:

If you do not like what you saw in the Republican Primary then please help us all by voting in the Republican primary and make sure that the "sky fairy lovers" do not make it through. There are candidates out there that are not as bad.

Andrew
"Atheist Republican"

Other Comments by arogop

16. Comment #92341 by oxytocin on November 30, 2007 at 10:16 am

devolve, yes, using the word "accept" is a whole lot better than "believe". No one has to profess belief in gravitation, quantum mechanics, or number theory. We simply accept them.

Annabanana, Canada's a little closer than the UK, so you may want to start here! Although we have our loons as well, I rarely encounter any discussion of religion in public discourse.

We have a lot of work ahead of us...

Other Comments by oxytocin

17. Comment #92342 by NormanDoering on November 30, 2007 at 10:16 am

If you do not like what you saw in the Republican Primary then please help us all by voting in the Republican primary and make sure that the "sky fairy lovers" do not make it through. There are candidates out there that are not as bad.

Name one.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

18. Comment #92345 by hopeful on November 30, 2007 at 10:22 am

What they really need to do is to find out how many people correctly understand evolution.

I would be willing to bet that 100% of those that don't "believe" in evolution don't have a correct understanding of it.

Other Comments by hopeful

19. Comment #92348 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 10:26 am

What they really need to do is to find out how many people correctly understand evolution.

I would be willing to bet that 100% of those that don't "believe" in evolution don't have a correct understanding of it.

thats an understatement, most of them wont have a clue over and above something like 'its that thing that says we come from slime, and that means we's all act like monkeys' and unfortunately thats about as far as youd get from maybe 90% of those that dont 'believe' it, which offers some hope as of course we dont all act like monkeys, but we do act as apes.

when somebody bring it up as an argument i will ask them something like 'so, irrespective of your acceptence of it or not, just what do scientists mean by evolution?'

Its a good starting point as immediately you will get an idea of what you are dealing with and it also makes them realise that they know very little.

Ive found the best way to deal with creationists is to let them ask questions(and they will have a lot, remember they usually know sweet FA), i dont ask them questions if possible.

they will ask things like 'how come theres no half creatures' and 'how come theres monkeys still' what i then do to the best of my ability is literally draw out quick family trees and say 'this is what the theory shows, and evidence includes....' i never get into a shouting match, theres no need, and as for me not asking questions, well what would i ask 'so how did god decide upon where to put which kind', 'why did god give spiders 8 legs and insects 6' , the best question i will throw is 'i wonder why god gave us and chimps such a lot of shared dna? there must be a good reason'

Other Comments by phasmagigas

20. Comment #92350 by sidfaiwu on November 30, 2007 at 10:28 am

If you do not like what you saw in the Republican Primary then please help us all by voting in the Republican primary and make sure that the "sky fairy lovers" do not make it through.

Sorry, I live in a State where registered Democrats cannot vote in the Republican primary.

Incidentally, this is part of why US politics are so loopy. Since only Republicans vote (and only the hard-core ones in general) in their primaries, they select the most conservative one. That's one reason why all the candidates are trying to out-conservatize one another with all this God-talk.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

21. Comment #92355 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 30, 2007 at 10:41 am

Others have already beaten me to it, but I want to say it again.
Evolution is not to be believed - it is to be understood.
At this juncture I'd like to propose a change in the marketing of atheists as "Brights" which is an idea that is still floating around.
Firstly, in parody of The Flat Earth Society we should be The Flat Fish Society, with the ugly, assymetric mug of a Flounder or Plaice or Dab as our mascot, representing evolution at work.
Following on from that, we should call ourselves "Dabs" instead of "Brights", a Dab being an evolved, assymetric-faced flat fish, and also slang for being adept or good at something.
And if that isn't enough, check out this internet definition of dab that actually invokes Dawkins, although not in a way one would expect:
http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Grose-VulgarTongue/d/dab.html
It states: "An adept; a dab at any feat or exercise. Dab, quoth Dawkins, when he hit his wife on the a-se with a pound of butter." It was meant to be....
In addition, here's a link explaining the phrase "dab hand":
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-dab1.htm
In this definition, "dab" is stated from a 1698-99 definition as ""an exquisite expert" in some form of roguery" - I like it!
I apologize for the partial hijack of this thread - now back to normal programming.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

22. Comment #92360 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 30, 2007 at 10:45 am

P.S. please give my previous message a high ranking if you think we should be called Dabs.
Top 20, here we come...

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

23. Comment #92366 by Arcturus on November 30, 2007 at 10:57 am

Well ... with a minority of people understanding and accepting the theory of evolution, we can safely say that US of A is an ignorant country.

Other Comments by Arcturus

24. Comment #92369 by thelogogryph on November 30, 2007 at 10:59 am

oxytocin:

Canada's not doing as well as you might hope. For instance, a 2007 poll found that 42 percent of Canadians believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, while 21 percent weren't 'sure.' Twenty-two percent believed in young-earth creationism while another 19 percent were undecided.

(See http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16178 )

There's a tendency in Canada to think that these sorts of issues are only being dealt with in the US, but the numbers increasingly cast doubt over that assumption. Several of Stephen Harper's top brass have publicly avowed a disbelief in evolution. It's not inconceivable that just as the Republicans have been able to use 'cultural politics' to prop up their less popular economic and political reforms, Canadian parties will soon be able to carve out a niche for themselves along similar lines. Canadians have to be very cautious about assuming the secular nature of the country is assured for posterity.

As to the article, I'm always surprised at the numbers that come out of the States. I've met many Americans, but very few of them (not even 31 percent) believed in witches or a young earth.

Other Comments by thelogogryph

25. Comment #92375 by Matt7895 on November 30, 2007 at 11:20 am

"It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world."

"Darwin's theory of evolution met a far more skeptical audience which might surprise some outsiders as the United States is renowned for its excellence in scientific research."

Depressing.

Other Comments by Matt7895

26. Comment #92378 by annabanana on November 30, 2007 at 11:39 am

Thanks for the suggestion oxytocin, but I think I'd be a bit too cold in Canada. I also think the same might be true for the UK, but I may consider it.

Also, Phasmagigas, I think you're being very harsh with the stereotype you're creating in your hypothetical dialogue. I can think of two people right off the top of my head who are creationists, but pretty intelligent (other than the creationist part, of course). One is a veterinarian and the other one of the brightest electrical engineers I've ever met. Both of them are armed with the argument that radiometric dating can't be counted on, etc. These arguments hold slightly more water than those like "the Bible says so". If everyone that were a creationist were simply undereducated, our problem would be far simpler, but unfortunately there are a good many of that percentage that are actually educated. How do we change their minds?

Other Comments by annabanana

27. Comment #92381 by monoape on November 30, 2007 at 11:46 am

Doesn't the phrasing or 'tone' of a question contribute to the answer received?

Imagine asking "do you believe in a literal hell?" in a sincere-eye-contact-very-concerned-look way, as opposed to the you-cannot-possibly-think-that's-a-possibility-wide-eyed-smirking way.

Lies. Damned lies. Statistics.

Other Comments by monoape

28. Comment #92388 by JFHalsey on November 30, 2007 at 12:06 pm

I like this line:

It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.

I'd also like to know what section of the US was polled. If those couple thousand were from the southeast then, "no duh," obviously they don't "believe" in "evilution." But I find it very surprising and disheartening if this was a fair, evenly selected poll from across the country...

Other Comments by JFHalsey

29. Comment #92393 by erosado on November 30, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Regarding "Intelligent" people not believing in evolution. I would not give more weight to someone's opinion on this just because they are a doctor or a math professor. There are so many variables in the world that will turn one baby into a doctor and another into something else. I believe there are many more types of intelligence than we can currently measure with a test.

I just dont think we know enough about our brains yet to answer exactly what is it that make some of us able to see evolution as clear as day; yet prevent others who may seem intelligent in every other aspect from seeing it.

Other Comments by erosado

30. Comment #92414 by Rtambree on November 30, 2007 at 1:00 pm

The USA is still stuck in the early 19th century, and not just about evolution. Old Europe? What about Old USA?

Other Comments by Rtambree

31. Comment #92441 by quill on November 30, 2007 at 1:58 pm

While disheartening, the results from the poll are not as bad as the article makes it seem. You can read the rest of it from Harrisonline.com, and while it's true that only 42% said they believed in "Darwin's theory of evolution", a smaller number, 31%, said they did not believe in it. Also, only 39% said they believed in "Creationism".

Additionally, only 35% said that both the Old and New Testaments were the "Word of God", so it's not likely that the percentage who believe in creationism will ever rise higher than that level.

And finally, according to Table 5, almost 40% of the respondents of the poll seem to have identified themselves as either "Atheist" or "Agnostic".

Other Comments by quill

32. Comment #92444 by quill on November 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Comment #92381 by monoape on November 30, 2007 at 11:46 am

Doesn't the phrasing or 'tone' of a question contribute to the answer received?

Imagine asking "do you believe in a literal hell?" in a sincere-eye-contact-very-concerned-look way, as opposed to the you-cannot-possibly-think-that's-a-possibility-wide-eyed-smirking way.

Lies. Damned lies. Statistics.

None of that would have played a part in this poll, since it was conducted online in questionairre format. You might read into it before dismissing it like that.

Other Comments by quill

33. Comment #92459 by Mr DArcy on November 30, 2007 at 2:43 pm

Does anyone over there in the U.K. want to put me up while I find a job and place to live? I don't think I can stand this country any longer.

anna thinks that the grass is greener elsewhere. Whilst she is welcome in London, (which really isn't that cold, just dreary), there must be loads of other places to consider if weather is a consideration. In Britain our religios are just more subtle and slimy than the variety that appears so common in the USA.

When I was a student in the USA, more years ago than I care to admit, I was struck by the number of people who asked me my star sign and on being given a response would then decide upon my character. Often they were given the wrong star sign by me, and it was interesting to see the interpretations that the various star signs gave upon the same person. I had never before come accross this in Britain. My peer group and myself, had always assumed that horoscopes were a load of nonsense, and it was quite a shock to find young people my own age took it seriously. I don't know if current university students in the USA still ask each other their star signs, if they don't then the USA has grown up, or if they still do then the USA still has a long way to go.

Having said that plenty of superstition still persists in Britain.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

34. Comment #92470 by phasmagigas on November 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm

annabanana

Also, Phasmagigas, I think you're being very harsh with the stereotype you're creating in your hypothetical dialogue. I can think of two people right off the top of my head who are creationists, but pretty intelligent (other than the creationist part, of course). One is a veterinarian and the other one of the brightest electrical engineers I've ever met. Both of them are armed with the argument that radiometric dating can't be counted on, etc. These arguments hold slightly more water than those like "the Bible says so". If everyone that were a creationist were simply undereducated, our problem would be far simpler, but unfortunately there are a good many of that percentage that are actually educated. How do we change their minds?

im not sure im being harsh, the majority of creationist ive met have a very poor understanding of evolution, to the point where they have no idea what it is. Sure there are intelligent creationists out there but as for any of their intelligent arguments, well, they can all be refuted. Now if they know something that most working scientist dont know about radiometric dating then they should doing research and showing how the radiometric dating is wrong (and i bet if it wasnt for the contention of evo there would be no single person questioning the valididty of radiometric dating in as far as its other uses go). education is key but that isnt enough, all kids learn some evolution in school, this debate is going to go on for centuries but luckily as the evidence and exploratory techniques increase the gaps in knowledge will decrease and only the most ignorant sufferers of congnitive dissonance will be left shouting goddidit. (I hope in the future there will be a book akin to the ancestors tale but that will be a more technical version, almost like a massive database showing a massive selection of species and how their genomes are related and giving very specific examples and evidence of divergence.)

otherwise intelligent scientists who deny evolution in favour of special creation (somewhat different than the more reasonable position of theistic evolutionists)are suffering congnitive dissonance, the science framework that they use everyday is rejected because of a few words in genesis, that is something i genuinely cannot understand. A veterinarian who sees the similarity between man, cat and dog but who rejects common descent is not doing it on the basis of evidence but adherence to scripture.

its important to note that creationists irrespective of inteligence have a vested interest in WANTING creation to be true, if its true they feel it means they also will go to heaven if they are good. I as an accepter of evolution dont WANT it to be true, in fact id be happy if there was a creator who would give me an afterlife, it just so happens that the evidence points to it being a very likely account of the development life on the planet (heck, and i dont need to tell you that) and as it stands is way more intellectually engaging than any notion of creation.

creationists need to realise that darwin didnt set out to disprove creation or seek another explanation anymore than somebody who goes out grocery shopping and finds a really great deal on a TV set in the said shop that cannot be ignored.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

35. Comment #92471 by PaulJ on November 30, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Didn't the poll ask about vampires, or voodoo? Or superstition generally - walking under ladders, touching wood, throwing salt over one's shoulder...? Seven years of bad luck for breaking a mirror? Crossing the path of a black cat?

Must go now - and put on my lucky shirt before I go out.

Other Comments by PaulJ

36. Comment #92481 by Bruno on November 30, 2007 at 3:36 pm

I have been an atheist for almost 40 years. I've seen good times (for atheism) and not so good times. The more time I spend on this website surrounded by you folks...and the more time I spend reading Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens...I begin to think that maybe there IS hope for mankind -- hope for the United States of America. Maybe major change will come. But then I read things like this latest poll and I'm right back to thinking that we are doomed. Mankind is stuck in his adolescence -- still clinging out of fear to believing in magic and superstition. When will it end?

Other Comments by Bruno

37. Comment #92484 by rev on November 30, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Bruno, dont get so hung up on this stuff.we will win or die, for our sins (lol)but i think in the end we will get there.
take heart and trust in the truth.

Other Comments by rev

38. Comment #92492 by Bruno on November 30, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Thanks, Rev.

It's just so damn depressing. But now it's Miller Time where I'm at (Colorado). Hell, I think I'll have a cocktail. A little scotch perhaps...and propose a toast to the genius of Darwin.

Other Comments by Bruno

39. Comment #92496 by rev on November 30, 2007 at 4:10 pm

fuckin A Bruno, its 12.05 past midnight here in manchester uk.
just waiting for my lovely wife to come home from her works do, as we say in the north.
just having my last freezing cold guiness, then wait for her smile. look forward to saturday night food and wine with good friends and fun.
we free thinker`s have the best of time`s. hope you agree, and take care and good luck to dennet. ollie

Other Comments by rev

40. Comment #92497 by rev on November 30, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Nad bye the way, how good would it be to share wine with the great man and others ?

Other Comments by rev

41. Comment #92498 by rev on November 30, 2007 at 4:12 pm

woops, beer kicking in on the spelling.

Other Comments by rev

42. Comment #92499 by smithyboy on November 30, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Phasmagigas
I think one reason otherwise intelligent scientists can deny evolution in favour of creationism is that they also believe in a Necker (is that the right spelling? Can't remember after a couple of beers) Cube argument. Ie they think that in theory the world can be looked at in at least two ways, neither of which from one person's own perspective can be said to be correct, since both appear equally right. They think it will look one way with faith and one way without. That I think is how they rationalise their belief in creationism to themselves. At the same time, I do think that the more they get to know about evolution the more cognitive dissonance they will feel. The discomfort from that dissonance fights against all the emotional and other reasons they have to hang onto their faith, and you would hope eventually they will give in and change their minds. But for that I suppose Dawkins et al (and us) will need to keep plugging away.

Other Comments by smithyboy

43. Comment #92504 by rev on November 30, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Yes smithyboy yes

Other Comments by rev

44. Comment #92506 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 4:34 pm

We've seem figures like this before, so it's not that surprising ... but all the same. Some days, I just don't know whether to despair at all the idiocy in the world or whether to laugh. I'm in a particularly good mood at the moment so I'm shaking my head and laughing. I'll despair later.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

45. Comment #92511 by heathen2 on November 30, 2007 at 4:44 pm

My daughter just told me that a girl in her science class angrily wrote "we are not evolved from apes" in her workbook before turning it into the teacher. They have just begun studying plants and something about Darwin and natural selection was mentioned. Humans or other animals were not even discussed.

This makes me very angry. When I see the polls, I don't want to believe what they tell me. But I wonder. I also don't think level of education has that much to do with weird beliefs (just from my own experience), but it seems the resurgence of born again people might contribute to the ignorance and great value placed on blind faith.

Other Comments by heathen2

46. Comment #92521 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 5:21 pm

I have a sneaking suspicion that about 30-80% of Americans like fucking with polls.

Other Comments by Spinoza

47. Comment #92527 by BMMcArdle on November 30, 2007 at 5:34 pm

83.75% of all statistics are made up.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

48. Comment #92535 by kraut on November 30, 2007 at 5:57 pm

could the dismissal of Darwin lead to a selection pressure on the subspecies homo sapiens americanensis leading to its final demise?

Other Comments by kraut

49. Comment #92540 by RebeccaN on November 30, 2007 at 6:15 pm

I can believe these statistics from my experience in the states. I live in Los Angeles, big "educated" city, and you still get men who publicly advocate beating their wives because the Bible says they can. =/ And they do it on my public university campus too- California State University of Los Angeles I filed a complaint and was told that "free speech" was protected.
Promoting violence is not protected by free speech! But apparently quoting a book that promotes violence on a public campus is okay as long as that book is the Bible.
Gawd I hate how religious this place is.

Other Comments by RebeccaN

50. Comment #92556 by Satanburiedfossils on November 30, 2007 at 6:53 pm

If God exists and the devil exists, then why does God let the devil wander about in the first place? Why not imprison or kill the devil? Is it not truly despicable that a supposedly good and loving God -- the Heavenly Father no less -- would allow the devil to tempt His children into hell? Wouldn't this be like a father testing his child's love by employing a registered sex offender as the babysitter?

The devil as depicted in Xtianity is flawed and absurb, and is too obviously an ineffective foil for God (which lends credence to the devil being a manufactured boogeyman). A good example of this is Robert G. Ingersoll's satirical argument in his essay "The Devil" (1899):

According to Christian theologians, the Devil has always done his utmost to gain possession of the souls of men. At the time he entered into Judas, persuading him to betray Christ, he knew that if Christ was betrayed he would be crucified, and that he would make an atonement for all believers, and that, as a result, he, the Devil, would lose all the souls that Christ gained.

What interest had the Devil in defeating himself? If he could have prevented the betrayal, then Christ would not have been crucified. No atonement would have been made, and the whole world would have gone to hell. The success of the Devil would have been complete. But, according to this story, the Devil outwitted himself.

How thankful we should be to his Satanic Majesty. He opened for us the gates of Paradise and made it possible for us to obtain eternal life. Without Satan, without Judas, not a single human being could have become an angel of light. All would have been wingless devils in the prison of flame. In Jerusalem, to the extent of his power, Satan repaired the wreck and ruin he had wrought in the Garden of Eden.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/devil.html