Increasing acceptance of biological evolution in the US

[lpetrich]

Research Shows a Rise in the Public Acceptance of Evolution Over the Last Decade by Hemant Mehta

Descent with modification, of course.

The most recent Gallup poll on the matter, from 2019, found something a little more optimistic. Only 22% of Americans correctly said that humans developed over millions of years with God playing no role in the process. But another 33% of Americans agreed on the "developed over millions of years" bit; they just felt God guided the process. Still, that's 55% of Americans who accepted evolution.

That's a very low rate of acceptance of reality. But... yay for being a majority?

40% of Americans Believe in Creationism

What they asked about:

1. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process;
2. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process;
3. God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so

Their numbers start in 1982, with specially created at 44%, evolution guided by God at 38%, and unguided evolution at 9%. The first two options stayed neck-and-neck the whole time, being 40% and 33% in 2019. The third one changed quite a bit. It was roughly constant until around 2000, and then it slowly increased to 15% in 2012, and then to 22% in 2019.

We can now add one more useful piece of data to this collection. According to a new paper published in the journal Public Understanding of Science, researchers looked at national surveys collected over the past 35 years to see what the acceptance of evolution looked like over that time. What they found was that the acceptance of evolution "increased substantially in the last decade."

The surveys they used asked the same question over that entire period of time: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." (They didn't ask about God's role.) They found that, over the past decade, the percentage of Americans who agreed with that sentence rose from 40% to 54%.

Public acceptance of evolution in the United States, 1985–2020 - Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, Mark S. Ackerman, Belén Laspra, Glenn Branch, Carmelo Polino, Jordan S. Huffaker, 2021

Acceptance and rejection were close over 1985 - 2006, going from near 45% to near 40% over that time. "Don't know" increased from 7% in 1985 to 22% in 2006. Then by 2016, acceptance increased to about 50%, rejection decreased to about 35%, and "don't know" decreased to 10%. They have stayed approximately constant to 2020, the most recent date.


I suspect that this is related to the rise of the "Nones" or unaffiliated. They would have much less reason to believe in theological creationism, and since the main alternative in our society is evolution, they'd accept that.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What they asked about:

1. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process;
2. Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process;
3. God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so

I note that, as written, each of these options presupposes the existence of God.

 

[lpetrich]

The demographics of evolution acceptance is interesting.

Examining data over 35 years, the study consistently identified aspects of education civic science literacy, taking college courses in science and having a college degree as the strongest factors leading to the acceptance of evolution.

"Almost twice as many Americans held a college degree in 2018 as in 1988," said co-author Mark Ackerman, a researcher at Michigan Engineering, the U-M School of Information and Michigan Medicine. "It's hard to earn a college degree without acquiring at least a little respect for the success of science."

In particular,

Completion of one or more college science courses was the strongest predictor of adult acceptance of evolution among the demographic variables...

There was a positive correlation with college education and a negative correlation with age, much like there is for being religiously unaffiliated.

Then this odd demographic variable: having children.

Finally, another family demographic of interest is the number of minor children in the respondent's home. Although we often think of adults as transmitting science information to their children, research in recent decades has shown that many parents learn new science information through helping their children with homework, assisting with science fair projects, and answering questions that occur during science museum visits or the viewing of science-related events on television.

 

[lpetrich]

Types of Creation Myths and this thread: What's in a creation story -- disturbance, secretion, building, poofing

Marta Weigle in "Creation and Procreation: Feminist Reflections on Mythologies of Cosmogony and Parturition" identified nine kinds of creation-story motifs:

1. Disturbance of primordial material. 2. Secretion. 3. Sacrifice. 4. Cosmic-egg hatching or earth-sky separation. 5. Earth diver. 6. Emergence from another world. 7. Two creators. 8. Manufacture from existing raw materials. 9. Commanding or otherwise poofing into existing.

Biological evolution is clearly a form of (2).

 

[untermensche]

Acceptance is meaningless without understanding.

Many accept evolution but have no clue about it's nondirectionality.

Nothing that arises is planned or could be known about ahead of time.

It is all an expression of random change.

 

[Bomb#20]

Acceptance is meaningless without understanding.

Many accept evolution but have no clue about it's nondirectionality.

Nothing that arises is planned or could be known about ahead of time.

It is all an expression of random change.

All sorts of things arise in evolution that could be, and have been, known about ahead of time. Painfully obvious example: the arising of Covid variants more transmissible than the original.

 

[Aesthete]

I am interested in the growth of the 3rd group, young earth creation, which is what I believe. The notion of God using evolution is really silly. I don't see theistic evolution making any sense. It seems more people by 2019 have figured out that the old earth idea is false and unscientific.

 

[lpetrich]

I am interested in the growth of the 3rd group, young earth creation, which is what I believe. The notion of God using evolution is really silly. I don't see theistic evolution making any sense. It seems more people by 2019 have figured out that the old earth idea is false and unscientific.

Any reason for that?

Contrarianness is not much of an argument.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am interested in the growth of the 3rd group, young earth creation, which is what I believe. The notion of God using evolution is really silly. I don't see theistic evolution making any sense. It seems more people by 2019 have figured out that the old earth idea is false and unscientific.

Accepting evolutionary evidence and ascribing it to woo makes more sense than denying evolutionary evidence in the name of loyalty to woo.

 

[lpetrich]

The OP's linked-to page has a helpful document that gives the numbers in full detail.

Not only for over the years, but also a demographic breakdown. I summarize the options as "God evolved", "God absent", and "God poofed".

That document has numbers for 1982, then starting in 1993, about one poll every two years. I then fit a line to all the numbers for 1993 and after. I found these numbers:

Option	Slope (%/yr)	prd.	act. 1993	prd.	act. 2019
God poofed	-0.28	47	47	40	40
God evolved	-0.17	39	35	34	33
God absent	+0.45	8	11	20	22

Looking at demographics, the two sexes were about equal in God evolving (men ahead by 1), but men were about 8% ahead on God absent and women 10% ahead on God poofing.

By race, whites and nonwhites were the same on God evolving, but whites were ahead by 10% on God absent and nonwhites ahead by 11% on God poofing.

In age, younger people were farther in the directions of the time trends, but more accelerated for younger ones (18-34 vs. 35-54 and 55+). God evolved: 35 - 34 - 30, God absent: 15 - 20 - 34, God poofed: 44 - 40 - 34.

In education, the more educated people reversed the God-evolved direction, but followed the other two time trends (HS Grad or Less, Some College, College Grad). God evolved: 29 - 32 - 40, God absent: 14 - 19 - 33, God poofed: 51 - 45 - 23.

In party affiliation, Independents were closer to Democrats than to Republicans (R - I - D). God evolved: 32 - 35 - 33, God absent: 10 - 24 - 30, God poofed: 55 - 34 - 34

In ideology, there was a God-evolved hump for moderates, but otherwise monotonic trends (conservative, moderate, liberal): God evolved: 31 - 30 - 30, God absent: 11 - 22 - 38, God poofed: 54 - 35 - 29

 

[Aesthete]

I am interested in the growth of the 3rd group, young earth creation, which is what I believe. The notion of God using evolution is really silly. I don't see theistic evolution making any sense. It seems more people by 2019 have figured out that the old earth idea is false and unscientific.

Any reason for that?

Contrarianness is not much of an argument.

You mean the age of the earth? I think what stands out the most for me is the fact that if you look at every one of the objects in the solar system, there are major reasons each one cannot be old. The explanations that old earthers offer are just rescuing devices, rather than scientific theories. For example, comets cannot be billions of years old, so the Oort Cloud (whose existence has not be shown) is invented as a rescuing device for that theory. Then there are things like the sun rotating too slowly, violating the conservation of angular momentum, if the secular model of the solar system's formation were true. Creationist Spike Psarris has compiled many of these lines of evidence.

Nevertheless, I am not sure if I can ascribe most of the growth in YEC to such things. I would wish they were more widely known, because these are some pretty persuasive reason for an age of the earth that conforms to a biblical timeframe. For someone who already believes the Bible is true, I really can't fathom why they would stick to old earth and theistic evolution. But for someone who does not believe the Bible is true, I think they will continue to believe the rescuing devices for evolution and an old earth.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, all astronomers, planetary scientists, and geologists are liars but this one creationist is telling the truth?

 

[ideologyhunter]

As always, nothin' beats acquiring your knowledge of geology and astronomy and biology from a book that has talking animals plus genetic traits conveyed by means of notched sticks. Any book of mythology from old-time Palestine just gots to be the truth. (Personal testimony: my grandmother always told me that her mother had a pet dinosaur growing up. It was an allosaurus named Misty, and they fed it scraps of chicken. It ate my great-great aunt Betty Lou.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

if you look at every one of the objects in the solar system, there are major reasons each one cannot be old.

Major obstacles to the accepted model, huh? Such as?

The explanations that old earthers offer are just rescuing devices, rather than scientific theories.

well, it would be a hypothesis offered to fill an apparent gap.
Then investigated, producing observations and experiments that either conform to, or disprove the hypothesis.
Then, if the hypothesis is supported, and peer review confirms, the surviving result would, indeed, be a scientific theory.

For example, comets cannot be billions of years old,

...because...?

so the Oort Cloud (whose existence has not be shown) is invented as a rescuing device for that theory.

Isn't this how most science comes to be?
We have an observation.
The dominant theory cannot explain this observation.
Someone suggests how it might either add to or destroy the dominant theory. (Hypothesis)
Experiments.
Observations.
Theory. At least until anotghrr observation comes along....

So, you describe science. As a reason to (checks notes) dismiss the Science.

Then there are things like the sun rotating too slowly, violating the conservation of angular momentum, if the secular model of the solar system's formation were true.

Have you asked an actual cosmologist if this is actually what the theory would have us conclude?

Too often it seems like creationists cherry-pick from the theory and a single observation JUST enough to make it appear weak. But never actually inquire if a real scientist can jusit0fy the observation eithin the theory....

Creationist Spike Psarris has compiled many of these lines of evidence.

and has anyone refuted his evidence?

Nevertheless, I am not sure if I can ascribe most of the growth in YEC to such things. I would wish they were more widely known, because these are some pretty persuasive reason for an age of the earth that conforms to a biblical timeframe.

what exactly is the biblical time frame and how do you know it?

 

[lpetrich]

You mean the age of the earth? I think what stands out the most for me is the fact that if you look at every one of the objects in the solar system, there are major reasons each one cannot be old. ... Creationist Spike Psarris has compiled many of these lines of evidence.

It's good that you listed your source.

Nevertheless, I am not sure if I can ascribe most of the growth in YEC to such things.

Growth??? One would have to be living in an ideological bubble to believe something like that.

I would wish they were more widely known, because these are some pretty persuasive reason for an age of the earth that conforms to a biblical timeframe. For someone who already believes the Bible is true, I really can't fathom why they would stick to old earth and theistic evolution. But for someone who does not believe the Bible is true, I think they will continue to believe the rescuing devices for evolution and an old earth.

What do you mean by the Bible being "true"? Do you mean that it is a perfect documentary? Meaning that one could go back in a time machine and watch everything in it happen as described in it. I don't think that time machines are feasible, but they make good thought experiments.

Like watch Jesus Christ discover a fig tree that had no figs, watch him say "No one will eat figs from you anymore!", and watch the tree wither.

 

[atrib]

I am interested in the growth of the 3rd group, young earth creation, which is what I believe.

What you believe is irrelevant. What you can demonstrate with facts and reason is the only thing that matters.

 

[atrib]

I am interested in the growth of the 3rd group, young earth creation, which is what I believe. The notion of God using evolution is really silly. I don't see theistic evolution making any sense. It seems more people by 2019 have figured out that the old earth idea is false and unscientific.

Any reason for that?

Contrarianness is not much of an argument.

You mean the age of the earth? I think what stands out the most for me is the fact that if you look at every one of the objects in the solar system, there are major reasons each one cannot be old. The explanations that old earthers offer are just rescuing devices, rather than scientific theories. For example, comets cannot be billions of years old, so the Oort Cloud (whose existence has not be shown) is invented as a rescuing device for that theory. Then there are things like the sun rotating too slowly, violating the conservation of angular momentum, if the secular model of the solar system's formation were true. Creationist Spike Psarris has compiled many of these lines of evidence.

Write papers and get them published in science journals. Get back to us when you have done that.

 

[Bomb#20]

(Personal testimony: my grandmother always told me that her mother had a pet dinosaur growing up. It was an allosaurus named Misty, and they fed it scraps of chicken. It ate my great-great aunt Betty Lou.)

I wonder if she tasted like chicken...

 

[Aesthete]

Major obstacles to the accepted model, huh? Such as?

This video goes into all that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzyQbOQ0dv0

What do you mean by the Bible being "true"? Do you mean that it is a perfect documentary? Meaning that one could go back in a time machine and watch everything in it happen as described in it.

By true, I mean inspired by God. Some people who subscribe to theistic evolution believe in the inspiration of the Bible, but they typically say that things like the creation account, the flood, and the tower of Babel are not literal; however, this seems like a difficult position to defend, from the standpoint of someone who believes in the inspiration of the Bible. And it's for that reason that I can't fathom why anyone would cling to that position, when nowadays there is so much information available to show why the young earth position is intellectually sound.

What you believe is irrelevant. What you can demonstrate with facts and reason is the only thing that matters.

Absolutely!

 

[Shadowy Man]

This video goes into all that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzyQbOQ0dv0

I don't have time to watch and comment on the whole thing, but I watched the first 10 minutes and I have two comments already.

1) The speaker is an engineer not an astronomer, so he does not have the best qualifications for critiquing the current understanding of the science.

2) The first examinable claim he makes is that dust can't clump together to form planetesimals. He supports this assertion by simply pointing to some scientists stating that they don't quite yet understand how this would happen. I point out that the video is dated 2017, which is already almost five years old, and the quotes he uses are even older. One is from a book published in 1988, and another from a paper published in 2007. The field has advanced since these citations and even since his video. For example, here's a link to a paper discussing how the process is possible:

"Electrical charging overcomes the bouncing barrier in planet formation" by Steinpilzm et al., Nature Physics volume 16, pages 225–229 (2020)

Also, there's been some very nice imaging done by the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) that shows protoplanetary disks in the midst of formation. The quality of images that ALMA has taken are spectacular and only just started being observed at the time of this video. See, for example: https://www.almaobservatory.org/en/...-unprecedented-views-of-the-birth-of-planets/

I think that ten minutes (plus the time to write this response) is enough to spend on this, because my guess is that the rest of the video continues to show either a lack of understanding (or misunderstanding) of the fields of astronomy, planetary science, and geology, or out-of-date information, and I just don't have the time to research and respond to every claim he would make.

I can understand how this video and his presentation might be compelling to someone unfamiliar with the science, and someone already wanting to believe in a Biblical account of formation, and someone who doesn't like to simply believe what they are simply told (except perhaps for what the Bible tells them). I used to verbally spar with Flat Earthers on Facebook, but gave up on that for the sake of my mental well-being. They represent the extreme in the uneducated, anti-science mindset. Young Earthers are on firmer ground, but that's not really much of a comparison.

But there's a reason why there have been thousands of good, honest people studying science, performing science, sharing their results, writing papers, making observations, detailing the mathematics and physics to support their ideas, critiquing each other's ideas, etc. And there are reasons why they have come to the conclusions they have and are presenting their results in textbooks and classes. Yes, there are still areas to be developed and gaps in understanding, but there has been progress in pushing out the boundary of our understanding, even as that boundary (the 'cutting edge' of science) is a turbulent one.