Evolution Poll Results

A few weeks ago I debunked a Christian’s view of Evolution and started a poll to see what percentage of readers believed Evolution. I predicted that the vast majority of atheists would believe in Evolution, although some might not for various reasons. I also predicted that the majority of theists would believe in Evolution, although not quite as much as atheists.

The results pretty much matched my expectations.

A total of 203 people have voted so far; 182 were atheists, 21 were theists.
94.6% of those people (192) believe in Evolution.
97.8% of atheists believe in Evolution.
66.7% (13) of theists also believe in Evolution.

It is good to see a healthy number of theists believing in (and presumably understanding) Evolution, but what I’d really like to research more is the number of atheists who do not believe. If you are such an atheist, please leave a comment outlining what you believe, or why you don’t believe Evolution.

Matt posted a comment on the poll

I actually don’t like to say I believe in evolution. I accept it.

I agree with Matt, saying “I believe” often seems to imply that it isn’t a fact and could be wrong. However every knowledge implies a belief, and likewise, everything we “accept” implies that we believe it as well. You cannot accept gravity without already believing that it exists, and the same goes for Evolution. I doubt the results of the poll would have differed anyway.

Possibly Related Posts:

Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read! - View blog reactions

Written by Adrian Hayter

August 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Posted in atheism, belief, evolution, science

Tagged with atheism, belief, evolution, polls, science, theism

0 Blogs linking to this article »

Comments to “Evolution Poll Results”

vjack Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm (GMT)

I agree with Matt too. When I am asked whether I believe in evolution, I often point out that it really doesn’t matter what I believe about it - it is still true.

Matt Says:
August 13th, 2008 at 6:40 pm (GMT)

I agree with Matt also. In fact i agree with him about most things.

fabrulana Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 9:49 am (GMT)

Make no mistake I have great respect for Darwin and Dawkins, but I can’t get round the theory of evolution. As a theory I prefer it to be taught to my children at the moment (rather than the fairy tales of creationism or intelligent design). But personally some stuff just doesn’t make sense. Although there is a lot of theoretical descriptions round (macro) evolution, there is no real evidence supporting it. There is evidence of micro evolution in that the same kind of birds in different places on the world will have different type of beaks depending on their diet; but otherwise their still the same kind of birds. Now I am not saying I have another brilliant theory to replace this, all I am saying is that the theory needs more proof. Maybe I am a natural sceptic, as I also have problems like the Big Bang theory, relativity laws etc. as well. But being a big science fan I like to see the meat if I am supposed to consume it. However as I said I do prefer these theories over others though and will stand to support them over other nonsensical theories. But do I really believe in them like others do in God, as a fact ? No.

Adrian Hayter Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 3:23 pm (GMT)

Interesting. I’m in no way an expert on Evolution, and I certainly used to see it the way you do. The evidence for macro evolution is amazing though. Comparing the DNA of Chimps to Humans shows the amazing likeness our DNA has. 95% of the DNA matches up perfectly, and we explain the changes with mutation and natural selection.

There are several resources on talkorigins.org, as well as some great videos on Evolution at YouTube. I may have to compile a resource list on the blog.

fabrulana Says:
August 15th, 2008 at 8:05 am (GMT)

Ah yes, the DNA thing. My problem is that there is no evidence of intermediaries between stages. Why is chimps still around if they supposed to have evolved. I am sure there is reasoning around this from sources, but none that will satisfy my scientific brain. One can see also if you look at the embrio’s of most things in life -there is definitely a resemblance to to the human embrio though as well. My best guess is there that we all originate from the same type of cells and there is a little “magic thing” (mumbling here) that happens to derive the specific type of being. But to say that one day we suddenly saw the light and stood upright and combed our hair just doesn’t gel with me. I will welcome any scientific proof that will convince me though - as I have a very open mind and try to keep my ego out of my fact finding…

Adrian Hayter Says:
August 15th, 2008 at 1:36 pm (GMT)

Ah, I see where you are coming from, and it is a popular misconception. Humans did not evolve from chimps, or monkeys, or any of our modern day creatures. Instead, humans, monkeys, chimps, etc all have a common ancestor. Millions of years ago there was an ape-like being who evolved along several different paths (as is very common with Evolution). Some of them evolved longer arms, perfect for swinging from branches (monkeys), others developed a better physique for living on the ground (chimpanzees). Humans developed a better backbone and smaller hips, eventually making us walk upright.

We didn’t decide to do it, natural selection chose the mutations that were best, and we have to make do with them.

As for intermediary stages, I would like to know what you think would stand as evidence. Are you looking for a half-ape half human? If so, how would you define a half-ape half human? Such an animal probably never existed since that is not how Evolution works. Evolution is the combination of a lot of small changes. At some point these changes make it impossible for the creature to breed successfully with its ancestor creatures, defining it as a new species.

The nearest we can say the “transitional form” is going to get is the earliest form of human, which was the first form of ape that couldn’t breed with its relatives (speaking as a species, not immediate family).

The reason the DNA is so important is that it shows that at some point we had a common ancestor, and our DNA has mutated differently from that point than our primate cousins.

The “magic thing” you speak of is pretty accurate actually. Sperm and Eggs do start off as simple cells. The magic that tells them what to grow is our DNA. A simple sentence of letters that separates us from every other creature.

If you want the scientific evidence behind these ideas, you would really have to go to talkorigins.org, read Wikipedia, or read an Evolution blog. I am far from the best teacher on this subject, and what I do know comes from various student friends of mine who are doing genetics or evolutionary biology.

fabrulana Says:
August 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm (GMT)

Ok I stand corrected, although I knew that theory as well. Although it doesn’t change the argument.

Yes that is exactly what I would expect to find is a a half-ape half-human… if you think about it even in small changes you will have to go through the that phase as well. There is also no evidence of any fossils with small changes. Not even in dinosaurs.

The reason the DNA is so important is that it shows that at some point we had a common ancestor, and our DNA has mutated differently from that point than our primate cousins.

There is no evidence of voluntary mutations that I know of. If you look just back in the last 2000 to 3000 years (I’d assume that is long enough at least for a minor change) in what we have our DNA mutated or evolved into ?

No, that is not what I mean, the DNA is only the remote - the buttons that are pushed. But what is the programmer. What makes a dolphin a dolphin and human a human. Why do we have superior intelligence (as we’d like to believe) and an animal not ?

No sure, if I’d wanted to read about it and try and find more evidence, I would. I will as time allow, but I am just debating it with probably someone at the same level as me… I prefer it that way cause otherwise I would have to spend too much time breaking down preconceptions in someone who has based their whole life on it. You see my problem with the theories on evolution, big bang and relativity is that all the theories are built on unsound foundations. But that is typical of the die hard science community - that is what makes it so hard for someone to discover a new theory and then also get it known and then also common knowledge. An example is the theory of the electric universe (http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm) These guys has been shouting into the wind on their theories so long it is not even funny. They are slowly getting more well known for they portray the happenings in the universe by explaining it from the view that has better knowledge of electromagnetism. A lot of the things not well understood by science can be better understood by their theories.

fabrulana Says:
August 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm (GMT)

PS Here is an interesting blog also that I have been following : http://beyondevolutionistheregodafterdawkins.blogspot.com/

Adrian Hayter Says:
August 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm (GMT)

Yes that is exactly what I would expect to find is a a half-ape half-human… if you think about it even in small changes you will have to go through the that phase as well. There is also no evidence of any fossils with small changes. Not even in dinosaurs.

You still need to define what constitutes “half ape half human”. Until you do that I cannot even begin to give examples. As for the evidence of fossils with small changes, there are plenty. On talk origins there is a page listing a load of skulls from human evolution. You can plainly see the small variations in skull shape, size, etc.

There is no evidence of voluntary mutations that I know of. If you look just back in the last 2000 to 3000 years (I’d assume that is long enough at least for a minor change) in what we have our DNA mutated or evolved into?

An interesting (but very very complex read) from a nature website indicates a high level of variation in 10 isolated island populations of Croatia. The DNA of these island populations are very varied as they evolved to suit their habitat. If you want a widely used and even mroe verified example, you could go with the popular “lizards on the island” one. It is an example of rapid evolution and is a breakthrough since it was an experiment left to natural selection, which was then tested after 30 years. The results could not be more amazing.

No, that is not what I mean, the DNA is only the remote - the buttons that are pushed. But what is the programmer. What makes a dolphin a dolphin and human a human. Why do we have superior intelligence (as we’d like to believe) and an animal not ?

What makes a dolphin a dolphin and a human a human is DNA. The code makes us what we are. The programmer is simply natural selection, selecting the mutations that are beneficial. Mutations occur naturally, we have observed them many times. The mutation is on a DNA level, so it might change the code that defines arm length. An arm might grow longer because of this. Arm length is beneificial to species such as monkeys, so when that monkey breeds, it passes on the mutation to its offspring. This of course happens on a large scale, with many mutations across the species, and if natural selection chooses those with longer arms, eventually the longer armed monkey population will overtake the shorter armed monkey population. They might be able to get more food, or escape from predators easily. Survival of the fittest eventually makes them the dominant species.

As for the electric universe theories, if you look up the actual methods they use you will find incredible leaps of faith and assumptions. David Talbott’s wikipedia page has a long list of criticisms based on his ideas. The reason the science community is so ‘die-hard’ as you put it, is because they have very strict ways of going about research. Nothing can just be assumed and everyone must remain skeptical.

I also object to your way of defining how we should understand things accoridng to science. Yes, I am sure a load of things can be better understood through electric universe theory than through current scientific thinking, but how does that make them correct? I would argue that the explanation that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is keeping us held to the Earth with his noodley appendages is a much better explanation (certainly easier to understand) than the theories of Gravity. It doesn’t make it correct though. The only way to be sure of something (or as sure as you can be) is through research and evidence. Gravity has plenty, the Electric Universe has none that has been objectively analysed.

fabrulana Says:
August 15th, 2008 at 7:20 pm (GMT)

Geez what a conversation we are having today. But I must say I enjoy it. Me and another 2 atheists at work has also been discussing it. Just to let you know that their opinion is the same as yours so I have been getting quite the opposition in my own circle :)

Please do provide me with the listing as previously said - I am totally open minded. I might have a resolution as well. Apparently my one friend who is very science minded as well, has read an article that actually displayed the evolution in a worm. I will post it as soon as he gives it to me. Who knows maybe I will “convert”.

“lizards on the island”

Please do post the link.

What makes a dolphin a dolphin and a human a human is DNA. The code makes us what we are. The programmer is simply natural selection, selecting the mutations that are beneficial.

But then natural selection is… what god ? There must be intelligence behind it. (Please
note : I am an atheist)

The reason the science community is so ‘die-hard’ as you put it, is because they have very strict ways of going about research.

But then again you must be aware that some of the die hard science is based on logical assumptions of science members. And dare I mention Einstein here, that had a problem with his own relativity theories at the end of his life. Not unlike Mother Theresa had at the end of her life about God.

I also object to your way of defining how we should understand things accoridng to science.

Note: not wanting to highlight this for you but as soon as you object to something - it means you belief in something. Which does not constitute atheism. Sorry just playing devil’s advocate [sic] here. :)

Yes, I am sure a load of things can be better understood through electric universe theory than through current scientific thinking, but how does that make them correct?

Well suppose if someone said this about the flat earth theory ? Everything is relative [sic]

I would argue that the explanation that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is keeping us held to the Earth with his noodley appendages is a much better explanation (certainly easier to understand) than the theories of Gravity. It doesn’t make it correct though.

Sure if you put the deity’s noodles on my plate I would definitely agree. But Einstein proved that way better by letting the noodle drop to the ground and measuring it. Let’s not forget I have studied the sciences and have great respect for them - I am only studying my own view on the subject. I am sorry if you find it objectionable.

The only way to be sure of something (or as sure as you can be) is through research and evidence. Gravity has plenty, the Electric Universe has none that has been objectively analysed.</cite?

Well OK, sorry now you might just be losing any respect I have of you as an objective person. Gravity is based on electromagnetism. Before you accuse the electric universe theory of not being objective I would have thought that you would have analyzed the venue before criticizing it. It has been very objectively analyzed even more than current theories and more of its principles apply than current theories. If you are not will to appraise open minded theories what makes you different than close minded creationist individuals ? Not to say I am perfect but I never object to anything unless I have the proof to contradict it.

Adrian Hayter Says:
August 15th, 2008 at 9:36 pm (GMT)

I provided the links for the human skulls and the lizards in my last response.

But then natural selection is… what god ? There must be intelligence behind it. (Please note : I am an atheist)

Not at all. Natural selection is simply the name given to the process by which specific mutations are chosen over others. Whenever two animals breed (a very natural process), the mutations are passed onto the offspring. Over time, these mutations are spread amongst the entire population until it becomes an advantage to have the mutation, at which point the “survival of the fittest” rule comes into play, and only those animals with the mutation survive. So in a way the only “intelligence” behind it is the intelligence of the animal, although they don’t have a clue what is going on (or so we think).

Eugenics is simply a planned form of natural selection and has been practised for years as people breed dogs. The best dogs are bred and over time they become new variations. Humans use eugenics to breed better dogs, and as genetic engineering improves we may even use it to improve our own species.

But then again you must be aware that some of the die hard science is based on logical assumptions of science members. And dare I mention Einstein here, that had a problem with his own relativity theories at the end of his life. Not unlike Mother Theresa had at the end of her life about God.

Science isn’t based on what the original scientist thinks or thought at the end of his/her life. It is based on the cumulative evidence supported by many different scientists. Einstein’s theories are currently accepted as the best explanation we have. The evidence for them is very strong, but Einstein simply did not have the evidence at hand to support his theories as well. Darwin only had fossils and adaptations to go on for his theory of Evolution, and today we can back it up with genetics. Even if Darwin had recanted on his death bed (which he didn’t) it wouldn’t have changed the theory being a very accurate model of explaining the diversity of life.

Note: not wanting to highlight this for you but as soon as you object to something - it means you belief in something. Which does not constitute atheism. Sorry just playing devil’s advocate [sic] here. :)

…*speechless*. Since when did atheism mean “cannot believe in anything”??? Atheism means I do not believe in gods. The last time I checked, that didn’t cover aliens, bigfoot, or any other non-deity based mysteries. For the record, I do think (believe) there is alien life on other planets, and I do not believe in bigfoot. I object to your way of defining science as taking the easiest explanation and adhering to it. In science everything has to be challenged, nothing can be just taken for granted.

Well suppose if someone said this about the flat earth theory ? Everything is relative [sic]

If someone said that flat earth theory was a better way of understanding things, I would simply give them proof of how the Earth is not flat. Even if flat earth theory was the best way of explaining everything, it doesn’t stop it being wrong!

Before you accuse the electric universe theory of not being objective I would have thought that you would have analyzed the venue before criticizing it.

Forgive me for not wording my original paragraph correctly, I was in a hurry to finish typing it.

What I meant was, the ideas supposed in the theory have been investigated and found to be against all of known physics. It is widely regarded as a pseudo-science or an embarrassment. I provide you a link to a astronomy forum which has a long thread containing many arguments and evidence against Electric Universe:

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/28596-electric-universe-model.html

as well as a link from those forums in which a physicist debunks all points made to him by one of the theories creators, Wallace Thornhill.

Electric Universe denies the evidence that stars are giant balls of gas, even though we have so many images and data that confirms it. There is no point being open minded about something like flat earth theory or indeed electric universe theory when it has been disproved countless times.

An open mind does not mean I will agree with anything put in front of me, but that I will allow anyone to give me evidence to support any kind of theory. I have research electric universe theory and for every point they make, there are countless others that disprove it.

If we could get back onto Evolution I would glady discuss it with you. I do not delve into physics as much as I do Evolutionary biology, and to be honest I find the latter far more interesting. I would suggest a better place for you to discuss notions of Electric Universe would be a science blog, not an atheist blog. Evolution is important for atheists to understand because it is the theory that allows us to explain diversity in a totally natural way.

fabrulana Says:
August 16th, 2008 at 8:34 am (GMT)

A that is a new word to me. Eugenics. A quick look at Britannica has given me the opinion that it is not an exact science.

Darwin only had fossils and adaptations to go on for his theory of Evolution, and today we can back it up with genetics. Even if Darwin had recanted on his death bed (which he didn’t) it wouldn’t have changed the theory being a very accurate model of explaining the diversity of life.

Of course it would. If I know I don’t have a sound foundation and a niggling feeling about that I missed something it would obviously affect things very much. That is why satellites are ending up way off course from where predicted. If Newtonion physics are to be applied to ending up light years from here if we manage to design lightspeed drives you wouldn’t want your calculations to be wrong. What worried Einstein is that his physics applied to macro level and not micro (quantum physics) Now it is easier to work on macro than the micro. But as any science it is better to work and understand the micro before the macro as it is an obvious building block. Unfortunately Einstein didn’t have the tools at that stage as I am sure he would have been an invaluable resource.

Now that is just not true. flat earth was proven by actually being able to move round the earth. That is a long shot away from actually proving their theories on the universe. You can keep an open mind about things that has not been physically proven. That is the benefit of being an atheist - you don’t have to belief anything until proven. Now I am not knowledgeable about the subject (although I think few people are on the actuality). But writing of another theory just because you have reverse theories that don’t suit your thinking smells too much like religion for me.

OK please state your facts. I am not interested in reading the other people’s theories as I am not discussing this with them. The universe is supposedly ruled by a divine intelligence, atheism defines it is not. I think discussing the universe is a very valid topic as it matters to what you [believe]. Discounting the rest of the universe because your only wanting to focus on the earth is like focusing on only the cheese and ignoring the fridge.

fabrulana Says:
August 16th, 2008 at 8:39 am (GMT)

I have been reading the link you gave me on the debunking of the electric universe model. And it follows actually precisely like our discussion. Interesting to note is the one user called VanderL - I pretty much agree with his comments (playing the devil’s advocate[sic])

If I may quote him :
“Sorry, but I’m not the the person who wrote the website (and I try to think for myself, so I don’t have to agree with evrything that is written about the electric model) and I’m not the guy who designs the different space programs and measurements. I may be stupid to think this model has merits, but it is certainly no religion to me. I do find it a very interesting model, and whether it’s true or not worth the trouble of discussing it. And about the electrons flowing towards the Sun, the other half of the matter, positive particles streaming away, has been shown to exist.”

fabrulana Says:
August 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am (GMT)

After reading the long discussions on your link I have decided that our embattlement on this subject is probably a futile exercise. So I don’t see the point in discussing this as all have been said on the subject. Anyways you wanted to know why somebody that have an atheist orientation would not belief in evolution and I think I have answered the question. Let us rest it at that. Here is the article on the worm I promised to post http://www.physorg.com/news9717.html

Adrian Hayter Says:
August 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pm (GMT)

I’d be happy to stop discussing it as I agree it is probably going to descend into futility.

Having said that I would like to make some final unrelated points in answer to your first reply:

A that is a new word to me. Eugenics. A quick look at Britannica has given me the opinion that it is not an exact science

Eugenics is the act of overriding natural selection and actively selecting traits that you want in the offspring.

Now that is just not true. flat earth was proven by actually being able to move round the earth.

Flat Earth wasn’t proved…ever.

That is the benefit of being an atheist - you don’t have to belief anything until proven.

Thats the definition of a skeptic, not an atheist. An atheist simply believes there are no gods. A skeptic keeps an open mind about everything. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t have to accept things. Indeed, if you go around looking for the proof for everything before accepting it, you would accept nothing. There is, in reality no such thing as scientific proof. We don’t have proof of Evolution, we have strong evidence supporting it.

I think it is an immature attitude to say you won’t believe something until proven. Its the same attitude Creationists take when they look at Evolution, they want proof and decide that until they have it they will disregard all the evidence.

fabrulana Says:
August 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm (GMT)

Flat Earth wasn’t proved…ever.

You are not serious are you, if you read the sentence I obviously meant “disproved”. There is no way to prove a flat earth theory. I can make a smart alek comment here. But I’ll refrain…

Thats the definition of a skeptic, not an atheist.

You are obviously not reading my words carefully. I was talking about a benefit. I was not doing a definition.

I think it is an immature attitude to say you won’t believe something until proven.

That my dear sir, is the whole foundation of science. The fact that we can not yet prove anything allows theories still to be debated. Defining my attitude as immature is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Adrian Hayter Says:
August 16th, 2008 at 2:23 pm (GMT)

You are not serious are you, if you read the sentence I obviously meant “disproved”.

Well obviously it wasn’t “obvious” to me. I have met so many flat earthers on the internet I never know when people are in support of the theory or are joking about it. It doesn’t hurt to be certain of something.

You are obviously not reading my words carefully. I was talking about a benefit. I was not doing a definition.

Being an atheist does not mean you automatically don’t believe anything until it is proven though. The only benefit of atheism is that we don’t blindly accept a god with no evidence. I’m an atheist and I believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe. It has never been proven and the only evidence for it is our understanding of how life starts, combined with the logical probabilities of life evolving.

That my dear sir, is the whole foundation of science. The fact that we can not yet prove anything allows theories still to be debated. Defining my attitude as immature is like the pot calling the kettle black.

The whole foundation of science is to continue researching and build upon knowledge. All scientists believe in their ideas, otherwise they would not continue. What gives them the reason to believe is that they have evidence which to them shows a different thinking to what is already believed. Theories are debated, and the one that is the strongest in light of the evidence is the one that is accepted by science. You know very little about scientific working is you think that everything has to be proved before the scientific community accept it as good science. There are no proved theories, only theories supported by evidence. To go around saying that you will not believe in any of them until they are proven is to ignore the evidence. If new evidence arises that disproves a theory, everyone can shrug their shoulders and say “well we were wrong”, and then move onto supporting the next best theory. There is no shame in being wrong, but believing in nothing rather than following the evidence is a very poor way to live.

fabrulana Says:
August 16th, 2008 at 3:49 pm (GMT)

Hmm, yYou are disagreeing on the same point we agree upon. This is were the written word loses its context and why proper debates need to be discussed in person.

Jim Says:
August 17th, 2008 at 6:35 pm (GMT)

An interesting evolution cartoon on vadlo!

matt chait Says:
September 11th, 2008 at 10:32 pm (GMT)

Matt,
If you mean, do I think that life on earth is more than six thousand years old, yes, of course. If you mean, do I think that submicroscopic pieces of adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine, by themselves,engendered all of life, consciousness, intelligence and love; don’t be ridiculous. Read my blog, beyondevolutionistheregodafterdawkins.blogspot.com then please comment AFTER you’ve read the post on EVOLUTION. Thanks.

Adrian Hayter Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:39 am (GMT)

@matt chait

This kind of attitude “don’t be ridiculous” is where you ultimately fail. Just over 100 years ago we thought heavier than air flying machines were “ridiculous”, and look where we are now.

Scientists have managed to create the building blocks of life from non-living material in labs. They have been doing it for 50 years. There is no reason to give up on reason yet.