TED Conversations

K H
  • K H
  • Mercer Island, WA
  • United States

This conversation is closed.

According to a Pew Research Poll published on Dec. 30, 2013, only 43% of Republicans believe humans evolved over time. Why is this?

More than 60% of Independents and Democrats believe evolution. However fewer Republicans believe evolution than before. Republican belief in evolution has dropped from 54% in 2009 to 43% in 2013. I agree when the article claims that: " Differences in the racial and ethnic composition of Democrats and Republicans or differences in their levels of religious commitment do not wholly explain partisan differences in beliefs about evolution."
Here is the article: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

What is your opinion about this trend? What factors do you think are causing it? Do you expect this trend to continue?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 31 2013: At least we now recognise we are dealing with a 'belief', rather than the scientific fact as espoused by the more anxious adherents to evolution.

    :-)
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2014: Jimmy, this is just a very long list of people who "believe" in evolution.
        Millions of folks believe Jesus is God; that doesn't make it true. Now; if there was "evidence" that he rose from the grave, then we may have something. Faith is still required, but not blind faith.
        There is an amount of evidence for evolution, most however has alternative explanations, so it comes down to what an individual deems the most likely. Personally I put no faith in the popular vote; after all most folks run Windows.

        :-)
      • thumb
        Jan 1 2014: There is no dissension on gravity. The evidence is compelling & there are no counter theories. Most folk believe in gravity. Straw man.

        :-)
        • thumb

          K H

          • 0
          Jan 3 2014: The consensus on evolution is not far behind gravity. It spans every field of the natural sciences. There are hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed articles that corroborate the basic evolution hypothesis. How many peer-reviewed articles written by credentialed scientists question it?
      • thumb
        Jan 3 2014: Hi KH
        Many scientists have found that 'coming out' against Darwin costs them dearly in reputation amongst the mainstream scientific community. Peer review among a hostile peer group obviously won't work too well, even so some have succeeded.
        There is considerable dissent however, eg
        http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org & others.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Jan 4 2014: Gee, I wonder why it costs them greatly, maybe because they've ridden themselves of all credibility when it comes to biological science!?

          What you provided Peter, was JUST a long list of names who did not support the theory of evolution. What I provided before was at least more then simply a list of names.

          Every single one of these professors either is or has had a creationist upbringing.

          Are you even trying to listening to the mainstream science or are you just such a hipster that you chose to believe what other's don't?

          Give me some HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Peter and we shall discuss your perspective.

          Bible is not science or evidence.
      • thumb
        Jan 4 2014: Most of these guys are just working away as normal. What they believe is irrelevant to their job, but they lose their job because of what they believe. What is taking place in the scientific arena today may well take place in the political arena tomorrow. Many regimes have banned beliefs, I would rather not live in one. Thankfully (for me) it is not so prevelant in the UK as in the USA, but the danger exists, largely unchallenged. At any rate, a scientific establishment that bans thinking outside the box is in a dead end street as far as new discoveries goes.
        Hard Scientific Evidence.
        I love this stuff. Fossils are predominantly creatures buried rapidly. If they weren't then they would rot before they fossilised. Rock strata typically have smooth transitions from one layer to another. There is typically no weathering or erosion to suggest a long period from one layer to another. Just to emphasise this fact, there are many fossils running through more than one layer.
        Question :- If the fossil bearing layers, & the layer transitions, are rapidly deposited, then why would we think that the layers took billions of years to form ?

        :-)
      • thumb
        Jan 9 2014: Somehow I thought you'd say that, :-)
    • thumb
      Jan 2 2014: belief and science and especially facts need not be in opposition nor do they have to disagree. So I lean towards those theories that embrace science, fact and belief together rather than any one over the other.
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2014: Well argued!

        But you should be very aware that Peter is a Young Earth Creationist. So he does not share this viewpoint.
        • thumb
          Jan 2 2014: Alas, as a Harry Nielson song opines "we see what we want to see and we hear what we want to hear".

          I try to resist reasoning with the unreasonable preferring to direct my energies towards more fulfilling endeavours
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2014: Hi William.
        Just for the record YEC's do embrace science, they sometimes just have different interpretations of results. Eg. Fossils exist in rock layers that is scientific, there are two possibilities as to how they got there. 1) Slowly over millions of years, 2) Rapidly during a worldwide flood. Neither 1, nor 2 can be scientifically verified, so both are opinion. 1 does not become scientific because it has more adherents.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Jan 2 2014: It is true Peter that ad populum is not a good argument.

          But science is and there's a science called Geochronology and one called Chronostratigraphy that perfectly explain the age of the earth to be about 4.6 billion years. Or do you have other sciences that would be a better alternative than Geochronology and Chronostratigraphy?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geochronology
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostratigraphic

          None of them show any evidence of YEC's perspective.
        • thumb
          Jan 2 2014: Also, since we're on the topic of science.

          There's no plausible explanation to how the whole world would have flooded, sure massive floods occur but they are regional, not global. The water amount itself for a world flooding does not exist as is shown by sea levels.

          And to continue, lets take things like Radiocarbon dating into account, it can date back to about 60'000 years, and radioactive decay is very easy to prove and measure. So there goes your YEC perspective again.

          You do understand that I could continue this for a while I think. But I'll let you respond first.
        • thumb

          K H

          • +1
          Jan 3 2014: Jimmy, well said. The evidence supporting geochronology and chronostratigraphy is overwhelming.
      • thumb
        Jan 2 2014: Having complex names for studying science is no indicator of truth either. The actual science is what matters. Much of it is just common sense aka
        http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3PY0zzh8G3c&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3PY0zzh8G3c
        I don't expect you to be convinced, but many of us are.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Jan 2 2014: I'm sorry for the complex names, I did not name the sciences.

          I guess "rock studies" was already taken and they didn't think that it described what they were actually doing.

          But you do know about Carbon dating right?? It's used in forensics (is that also a complex name?) all the time for example.

          You spoke of science, so I argued with science, please do the same back!
      • thumb
        Jan 3 2014: Hi Jimmy,
        You obviously haven't studied the Flood Hypothesis. Popular highlights as follows :-
        1) there was one landmass, probably low lying, & one Ocean.
        2) Rapid tectonic action released subterranean water which overwhelmed the splitting landmass.
        3) The thicker parts of the crust rose up & the thinner parts were pushed down by the weight of water.
        4) massive runoff formed features like monument valley, & continental shelves.
        5) Tectonic activity continues, but has all but exhausted it's energy.
        Interesting assides :-
        If the earth was smooth the global water depth would be over a mile & a half.
        Erosion at current rates will reduce the continents to sea level in 12-15million years.

        C14 dating is a bit much to go at here, however I have thought about it.
        Eg. http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/new-answers-dvds/carbon-14-disprove-bible

        YECs are just folks who've looked carefully at both sides of the argument & formed a contrary opinion. I find many advocates of Darwin have little idea of the contrary arguments & believe the Redneck Bible-Thumping stereotypes. You may be right & I may be wrong, but this subject is too important to dismiss without a thorough examination of both sides.

        :-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.