Only 40% of Americans believe in evolution?

[aein]

We're boned.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9786-why-doesnt-america-believe-in-evolution.html

"Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals: true or false? This simple question is splitting America apart, with a growing proportion thinking that we did not descend from an ancestral ape. A survey of 32 European countries, the US and Japan has revealed that only Turkey is less willing than the US to accept evolution as fact."
<...>
"Even though the average American has more years of education than when Miller began his surveys 20 years ago, the percentage of people in the country who accept the idea of evolution has declined from 45 in 1985 to 40 in 2005 (Science, vol 313, p 765)"

[The2ndWheel]

1. Only 40% know it to be a fact

Far fewer than that actually believe in it.

[aein]

29. false semantic distinction....imho

[The2ndWheel]

39. Whatever you wish to call it

Very few of us believe in evolution. Either we deny it in all of its forms, or we actively attempt to stop it. We don't live for an average of 75 years because we believe in evolution. There aren't 6.5 billion people because we believe in evolution. We know it exists, it even happens as we try to contain it. However, we don't like it. We don't believe in the process of evolution. It's messy, it's dirty, it can cause a lot of stress. If I'm not using the word believe right, fine. We're the only species that we know of that knows about evolution, and we dislike it. We don't want it to happen. I'm not trying to sound semantic. I've never been good at explaining myself anyway. Human beings don't like evolution, at least the kind that we can't control.

[Turbineguy]

2. Obviously we need

more alien autopsies.

[Bandit]

13. More people believe in Aliens than evolution.

:shrug:

[paparush]

75. Damn X-Files!

[Democrats_win]

3. American idiots won't even take a vacation. Should we be surprised?

[bryant69]

4. I think these polls are wordered poorly often.

And of course people bring baggage with them to the poll. For example if I saw a poll that asked "Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in a creating God?" I would get the wrong answer, I presume. And I think that's the question a lot of poeple thinkg they are answering.

On the other hand if you asked me if I believed in Natural Selection as the principle cause for biological diversity - I would answer correctly.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[marmar]

5. Dumb as a bag of religious-dogmatized rocks...

:dunce: :dunce:

[Selatius]

6. People are not perfect, but people are generally good, I hope

They just need a little push and nudge in the right direction, but that can't happen when you instill the fear of God, the fear of terrorism, and the fear of knowledge into them. Scaring people is not going to help anybody but those who stand to gain from the fear. Ignorance can be fought with knowledge, but it is so difficult if the environment is full of fear of the unknown rather than curiosity of the unknown.

[Crankie Avalon]

7. While 60% believe in angels...

...OK, I just made that up, but I'll bet if a survey was done on how many believe in that it would be a really high number (maybe even more than 60%).

[Atman]

8. I'd have to see much more info, but the question implies education

Think of "the heartland," or maybe a poorly- or little-educated inner city dweller, perhaps. Do they necessarily believe that we just appeared -- *poof* -- one day, as per Genisis? No, it doesn't say that. But a surprising number of people are quite offended at the idea of being called an "animal." They'd never agree to such a question as "are you a decendant of an earlier species of animal? HELL NO! Did the researchers ask these people if they people if they believe the human form has evolved since its introduction? Some people may take offense to the question without being opposed to the idea of evolution in general. Much of the problem, much of what is splitting America apart, as this article states, is the reliance on over-simplistic, black & white presentations of every issue. The compacting everything into a sound bite and subsequent poll question, with no underlying education expected on the part of those being asked.

I'm just playing Devil's advocate; it is a shameful statistic, but I don't believe it is a very accurate one.

[yellowcanine]

9. I guess they haven't looked closely at * or they would have no problem

believing it.

edited to insert evidence of chimpy ancestry of *
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1952887

[jmowreader]

73. Now come on. You know that's completely untrue.

Dubya Bush is like a shark or a possum: at some point in time, and for some unknown reason, he just stopped evolving.

Bush isn't evolved from a chimpanzee, he is one.

[Jacobin]

10. When I was a teenager, I asked my dad whether he

"believed in evolution".

He looked at me oddly and then said: "Its not a matter of whether you 'believe in evolution'...its whether you accept it as a fact".

He was a scientist and engineer and couldn't understand why people thought science was based on 'faith' instead of methodical observation.

I miss him a lot

[hfojvt]

45. there is not alot of difference there

if any. "Accepting it as fact" is the same as "believing it is fact". OTOH, do I "believe" the pythagorean theorem is fact? No, because I can prove it from two postulates both of which I can measure. Same with the acceleration of gravity - I can measure that. Same with F = ma. Math, physics and chemistry can be proven and demonstrated. Some economics principles, like the invalidity of the Laffer curve, can also be conclusively measured. Evolutionary adaptation of species has been thoroughly demonstrated. However, demonstrating that one species can evolve into another is alot trickier. Proving that it did happen is logically impossible. Most people who believe it, that it can, and did happen, cannot do the proof, but trust in Richard Dawkins and others ability to prove it. They accept it on faith in scientists and academic integrity.

[Jacobin]

51. dna

end of message

[hfojvt]

53. Does Not Attempt

AAA?

[Jacobin]

56. evolution can be traced through dna

[ChicagoRonin]

11. Inherit the Wind

More people should be made to watch one of the movie versions of this play, or maybe the play itself. The arguments between faith and science in the dialogue are amazingly well thought-out: not anti-religion, but pro-open mindedness.
A great dramatization of the historic Scope trial involving the teaching of evolution in a Tenessee school, for those unfamiliar.

[man4allcats]

12. A painfully true testament to

the state of education in America. :-(

[durrrty libby]

14. Yep...sad but true

It took me a long time to see it,

but an enormous % of Americans are stupid,
ignorant or as incurious as their putrid leader.

:freak: :dunce:

[slackmaster]

22. I partly agree but there is another side to that line of thinking

Our education system should not be in the business of molding peoples' beliefs.

In my experience, most people who don't accept the truth of evolution are ignorant about it. They parrot fallacious talking points, the most simplistic being "It's just a theory". For that failure to teach what science is and how it works, we can hold the education system accountable.

I have no problem with a person who has been given all the right information then decides to believe something else.

[BuhByeChimp]

24. Explain the truth of evolution to me in your own words.

I'm curious to see why I should accept it. I'm not a creationist either, but I've seen no more evidence to support evolution as the origin of species than I have for creationism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. how about the DNA evidence...

tracing back the split between chimps and humans? Along with every other organism on the planet.

[slackmaster]

62. Evidence from several scientific disciplines all cross-foots

It started to come together for me when I was 10 years old. While looking at a globe I received as a gift I noticed that the east coast of South America, west coast of Africa, and the mid-Atlantic ridge were similar in shape. I started asking questions and reading about plate tectonics. The year was 1968 and a lot of people still hadn't heard of it. The spreading of the Atlantic sea floor has been observed directly, plus evidence from deep ocean sediments and magnetometers all point to the process having been in place for hundreds of millions of years. To my mind that totally destroys any notion that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Case closed, game over for the young Earthers. There are still those who question the evidence for an Earth that is billions of years old. However, on close scrutiny they are sorely lacking in academic credentials. As a Christian enrolled in Sunday school that realization seemed to present a conflict with the Biblical account of creation. Luckily (IMO) I had a teacher who was able to explain the concept of allegory, and our church was absolutely not set on taking everything in the Bible as literally true..

In those ocean sediments are microfossils of oceanic plankton. The association of various types of microfossils with specific sediment depths, i.e. ages past, is stong enough that engineers drilling for oil and gas use them as markers to tell what depth they have reached in the sediments. Sediments on land, from lakes and rivers and wind-blown material, follow similar patterns and can be studied in much the same way. It's consistent and repeatable. You just don't find types of plankton that were around 500 million years ago in sediments 100 million years old or vice-versa.

The likelihood of a particular large animal becoming fossilized when it dies is low. But there are enough cases of types of animals showing gradual change over time, e.g. horses and whales, that the relatively sketchy remains of primates still present a compelling case that hominids descended from essentially apes. Apes with the ability to make tools and reason their way through problems like glaciation. In our situation, a superior intellect was apparently the key to survival.

Adaptations of animals and plants to changing conditions, through selective survival of specimens best suited to the changed conditions, has been observed and caused to happen experimentally many times. I should note here that change over time is NOT always in the direction of increasing complexity, an error often committed by creationists when discussing the topic. And an organism becoming increasingly complex in no way violates Newton's second law. On the contrary, the bigger and more complex an animal becomes the better it gets at moving heat from warm places to colder ones. Like a growing flame or gathering storm we are agents of Entropy, not combatatants against it.

Add to that mix the studies of morphology and genetics of plants and animals that all support evolutionary theory, and you have IMO a very strong case. It can and should get criticized from every direction at all times, but Charles Darwin's basic ideas have held up very well. Details vary but nobody has come up with a better explanation of everything.

As for the idea that an omnipotent being waved its appendage and simply willed everything into existence, I don't see any hard evidence to support that or any other traditional creation myth. That is not to say that the geological and biological and climatic changes we study through the scientific method were NOT put into place by an omnipotent being, but ultimate questions about the purpose and meaning of life and existence are not within the realm of science.

I hope that helps you understand my POV.

[jerry611]

15. Evolution is just another theory...

We cannot scientifically prove for a fact that we evolved from primates.

And we do not know what lead to the creation of life on this planet.

[Phx_Dem]

18. right--and we don't know what gravity is either

or fire, or electricity.

edit: FYI--science never "proves" anything, they disprove alternate hypothesis.

[brentspeak]

64. We can see and experiment with fire and electricity

But we can only speculate on the nature of evolution, given fossils, etc. As the previous poster correctly pointed out, evolution (as we conceive of it) is really just a theory. There probably aren't two evolutionary biologists in the entire world who see completely eye-to-eye on their chosen field of study -- and those are the scientists who most insist that evolution is an irrefutable fact.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Right, like the theory that "germs" cause disease.

As opposed to demon posession and imbalanced humors.

[jerry611]

26. You are being silly now....

Many parts of Darwin's natrual selection theory has been proved true. But we have no conclusive evidence to declare what created life on Earth. There are about 4 leading scientific theories. Evolution is just one of them...

Go up to any biologist and ask what created life on this planet. He'll give you an answer. Then go to another scientist and guess what...you get a different answer.

We just don't know...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. jerry611, evolution is a simple and obvious fact...

to any literate person who's ever bothered to crack open a book on biology.

There are plenty of ideas about the technicalities of abiogenesis, every one them using evolution as a cornerstone.

[jerry611]

35. I've taken several biology courses in college....

...And I have had several biology professors. Every single one of them referred to evolution as a "leading theory of creation." Not a fact of science. In fact, in my Biology textbook I used in college I am looking at right now...it states evolution as "a theory."

Just like with the "big bang" it is a theory because it cannot be proven true. It cannot be tested.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. That's a shame.

Because you got evolution confused with abiogenesis. That's the kind of mistake I'd expect teenagers who haven't taken biology yet to make.

Not to mention your confusion with the definition of the word "theory."

[jerry611]

41. You are more closed-minded than most religious people

Whose to say that bacteria didn't arrive here from an asteroid?

Whose to say that god or some other higher power didn't have a hand in evolution?

Unless you have a time machine that can go back 3.6 billion years....we just don't know.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Not at all.

I base my beliefs on facts and evidence.

Oh, and I never said god couldn't have had a hand in it. Of course, that would reduce God to a "God of the Gaps" which has some negative theological implications. But that's not hard science.

No, we haven't got a time machine. But fortunately we've got the fossil record and DNA analysis, so we don't need one.

[immoderate]

66. jerry, looks like your professors let you down.

A theory, as the word is used in science, is a set of principles that accounts for observed phenomena. For example, the atomic theory proposes that things are made of atoms. No one has ever "seen" an atom, but it explains behavior of matter that we observe. Theories become modified and extended as observational abilities become more sophisticated. If observed phenomena contradict a theory, it is discarded. Your confusion is caused by the fact that "theory" has several other meanings in the vernacular. Another method of confirmation is to predict phenomena based on the theory and verify their existence. For instance, the "Big Bang" implies that there would be an artifact background radiation with certain characteristics. This radiation has been observed and adds credence to the theory.

Words like "fact" and "proof" are anathema to scientific study, though they are used informally. The "Big Bang" Theory accounts for what we see. Based on red shifts, first observed by Edwin Hubble, it displaced the "Steady State" and other theories that could not account for these shifts.

Cells, atoms, electrons, gravity, relativity, and evolution are all products of their respective theories, and are ideas supported by observation and experimentation. One has to do some crippling mental gymnastics to claim these things don't exist.

--IMM

[Arugula Latte]

77. Um, Jerry? Evolution has been OBSERVED.

People have WITNESSED evolution in action. A classic example: a town in England that had a preponderance of white-winged butterflies (a camoflauge technique to blend in with the whitish tree bark there). Along comes the industrial revolution. Trees and much of the rest of the town get sooty. White butterflies are picked off by birds easily against dark backgrounds. Butterflies that had some black mottling survive and pass their genes down. Pretty soon, the vast majority of butterflies are black. Same species. But they changed in order to survive. That's evolution. It's documented. It's a fact. Deal with it.

[aein]

27. lets not get into a philosophical discussion of "fact" and "truth"

As we commonly understand it, evolution is a "truth." All livings things evolved from things before it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. Yeah, I hate that.

Everytime there's a discussion people bring up silly philosophical notions that do nothing but muddy the conversation. They don't do that on other subjects.

:shrug:

[charlie]

37. We *are* primates n/t

[Avalux]

83. What are the other valid scientific theories?

I'd really like to know, and if you can provide a link, that would be helpful.

[JitterbugPerfume]

16. Jacobin hit the nail on its head

It is NOT a matter of belief , evolution is a matter of FACT


You can believe anything you want to --it will not change the fact of evolution

[WI_DEM]

17. This is not exactly surprising. This country is by and large

to the right of center.

[BuhByeChimp]

19. I think its the origin of species that is unbelievable.

Seriously, I have no reason to believe we evolved from a pool of water that was hit by lightning.

I can see the logic in evolution, but it has not been proved either though. I find it odd that people claim it to be a fact without any experimental evidence to back them up.

[aein]

25. I don't believe the theory of evolution says that

actually, scientist are still not exactly sure how life came to be

water being struck by lightning is not a currently accepted theory

[Tesha]

32. There are literally tons of experiments proving evolution is a fact.

> I can see the logic in evolution, but it has not been proved
> either though. I find it odd that people claim it to be a fact
> without any experimental evidence to back them up.

There are literally tons of experiments (measured in
the amount of paper representing all of the experimental
reports) proving evolution is a fact.

The mere existsence of MRSA is a rather-elegant proof
of evolution in action, much to our chagrin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus

Tesha

[BuhByeChimp]

38. lol, I did a senior research paper on this very issue.

It in no way proves evolution as in origin of species. Nor does any other experiment.

I have no problem with species adapting in regards to evolution, it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is to just blindly say we evolved from monkeys or any other species. I've seen no evidence to show that to be the case, nor has anyone else.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Your ignorance of evolution...

sort of undermines your claims of "research," "paper," "senior," and "did."

[BuhByeChimp]

42. Then show me the light!!!

Its that simple. The truth is the truth and you have done nothing to relieve me of my ignorance.

Honestly, just show me how evolution is a fact. If your response is going to be more assinine rhetoric, don't even bother. I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in the truth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Here's a fact...

biologists have never claimed that humans descended from monkeys.

I mean, that's a early 1920's Tennessee hillbilly level of misinformation.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

46. "Early 1920's Tennessee hillbilly level of misinformation"

Do you mind if I use this in the future? I can think of literally hundreds of uses for that phrase.

:D

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Be my guest...

:D

Although technically I suppose that people who haven't figured out evolution by now are closer to 160 years behind the times.

[Tesha]

48. (Grades and degrees aren't worth what they used to be...)

(Grades and degrees aren't worth what they used to be
when we were reality-based rather than faith-based.)

Tesha

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. LOL.

I don't know if I'd say that. Although I would say claims to such on internet message boards in the light of contrary evidence are worth about as much as claims of "I once caught a fish this big..."

[brentspeak]

72. Please complete the following expression:

"C-O-N-D-E-S-C-E-N-D-I-?-G
E-L-I-T-?-S-T"

[Tesha]

81. I believe the missing letters are "F" and "U". (NT)

[Tesha]

50. Hint: Study the genomes of closely-related species.

Hint: Study the genomes of closely-related species, for
example, the great apes (*NOT* monkeys!) and homo sapiens.

Look at the mutations.

Pay particular attention to the rate of mitochondrial
DNA mutation versus nuclear DNA mutation.

Then come back and we'll discuss how there's no
proof of evolution in action nor the possibility
that today's species diverged from common ancestors.

Tesha

[BuhByeChimp]

59. Its been awhile since I've done anything on this subject.

I'm curious to what you are getting at, inform me please.

All I can recall off the top of my head is that mito and nuc dna evolve seperately. I vaguely remember reading something about the two in regards to dna tests, but not much at after that.

Either way, I've no qualms on natural selection. I do have a problem with people claiming fact to either it or a common ancestor. It especially irritates me when people can't back up there claims reasonably. I'm not accusing you of this, because you have at least put forth some type of evidence.

[Tesha]

61. The point I'm making...

The point I'm making is that we're starting to have enough
"high fidelity" dumps of the genomes of enough primates
that we can start to compare the genomes gene by gene,
spotting the individual mutations that make us different
than chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, etc.

We have also (relatively recently) starting thinking about
mitochondrial DNA and its separate evolution (from nuclear
DNA). Because the mitochondrial DNA is almost entirely
inherited from the female and not mixed as a result of
sex, it tends to evolve much more slowly, making it a
nice "clock" with which to measure time on evolutionary
time scales.

By comparing the various mutations in nuclear DNA, and
by setting them to the much slower timeclock established
by mitochondrial DNA, we are starting to get a pretty
accurate handle on exactly which primate relatives
separated at what points in time.

The evicence really is starting to be overwhelming that
we are closely realted to the great apes and, in fact,
the splittings of the species took place at so-and-so
many megayears in the past, etc.

The science is starting to point in a very clear direction
with relatively clear timings. You can always assume that
the whole clockwork (of planetary evolution, macro-
evolution, and micro-evolution) was all "created" by
a god in one massive creation billions of years ago, and
cosmologists and biologists still would have a hard time
presenting absolute facts to argue against *THAT*, but
its starting to get to be far tougher to swallow the
idea that the whole place was created 6,000 years ago
with all the evidence of evolution already set in place
just to fool us.

Tesha

[Arugula Latte]

79. BuhByeChimp ~

We are all part of the primate family tree. We had a common ancestor with monkeyes and apes, down the trunk. We are different branches. Scientists do not say we evolved FROM monkeys.

You need to read about some of the basics. Then come talk to us.

There are mountains of evidence on this, so much so that evolution is a major backbone of science -- just like the "theory" of gravity, or the "theory" that the world is round.

[boolean]

52. Start reading...

For your own sake, start doing some reading up on evolution before you do any more talking.

I think I've counted about 10 lies and misinformation from your posts so far.

Evolution does not say humans came from monkeys.
Evolution is not about how life on the planet began.
Evolution has TONS of evidence backing it up.
You don't know what a primate is.

etc etc etc.

[BuhByeChimp]

57. Please list these lies and misinformation.

Seriously, list them. If you are going to accuse me of this, please list them.

I found it humorous that you guys are worse than creationist when asked to simply show proof of evolution and the origin of species. At least they are consistent and say you have to have faith. You can't even do that.

I will say thank you to Tesha, you at least have studied the issue more than 99.9% of people and offer of some type of evidence even though we would differ in our interpretation of the data.

[brentspeak]

67. There's a cargo load of condescending, elitist claptrap on this thread

coming from some of the "you must believe in evolution or else you're a Philistine!" crowd. Your point about the origin of species is a valid one. The problem is that there are some people out there (like on this board) who can't grasp the idea that people who aren't creationism-believing fundies can also have doubts about evolution.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. LOL

:nopity:

You should see all those uppity heliocentric elitists in the Science forum.

[brentspeak]

65. s/del

[ComerPerro]

21. Fundies have tricked mainstream Americans into thinking that

accepting their creation myth as being of equal scientific merit to evolution makes them "open minded".


No, it makes you a moron and a fundie tool.

[aein]

23. I find it strange that so many people put such a specific meaning to

the word "believe"

Oxford New American states 'believe' means
"to accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of"

[Gidney N Cloyd]

31. Scientists need to identify the missing macaca.

Then people will believe.
:)

[bamacrat]

33. Maybe they havent evolved enough yet?

They're still at an earlier stage than we.

[Radical Activist]

54. One of the first things I learned in biology class

is that one species cannot give birth to another species. I've never had anyone explain to my satisfaction how that can be reconciled with evolution. Sure, species adapt, the herd thins, some species flourish while others go extinct, but how can one species be the source of millions of wildly different species? The fact that it took millions of years doesn't sound like a plausible explanation to me. If something is impossible then it doesn't become possible just because a lot of time goes by.

[kwolf68]

55. Then do some research on...

bacteria...We have plenty of evidence of bacteria evolving in the lab. Obviously, we aren't bacteria, but the principles of cell division and mutation are pretty much the same.

[BuhByeChimp]

58. lol, tell me of these evolving bacteria.

I'm just curious as to what you have learned from these experiments. Have you done any reading on them outside of what is in an AP article? If so, what is your interpretation?

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

69. s/del

[Lethe]

74. genetic mutation coupled with environmental pressure

your biology teacher sucked.

every month there is a new story on the AP about species evolving

[Tesha]

82. You apparently mis-heard something.

Random mutations in any species' genome occur, caused by
natural background radiation, transcription errors in the
copying of the DNA, chemical damage to the DNA, etc. Most
mutations are promptly fatal and can not, therefore, be
passed along to any progeny, but some mutations don't
affect survival and a few actually have positive effects
on survival, especially in the face of changing conditions
in the environment.

Methylation is also a not-yet-well-understood source of
changes in the behavior of the genome and it may be heritable.

New species certainly do arise from existing species.

Tesha

[ck4829]

63. Then only 40% of Americans will evolve

[rug]

68. They've already started down a divergent branch.

[Clark2008]

71. I've never figured out why you can't believe in both.

The Bible never specifically says humans look like they do now - it says they were created in God's image. Does that mean they look like God or that they were created the way God imagined them?

And, who's to say that we didn't have a lot more hair back then? And didn't act as non-human animals?

I believe in both. I think a Divine hand created the environment necessary for the evolution into the humans we are today.

And it was never a stretch to do so when I grew up in the 1970s.

[Nikki Stone 1]

76. I think I've figured that out

At the heart of Christianity, regardless of its mutations, is a loving God that wants our ultimate happiness after this life.

At the heart of evolution is a brutal natural process that relies on death to "weed out" maladaptive organisms. There is no moral value to this weeding process, it is simply based on environmental conditions and how well an organism is adapted to those conditions. The classic example of the black moths/white moths in industrial 19th c. England is a case in point. There is nothing morally or even organismically superior about a black moth or a white moth. The white moths were better able to hide before the trees became covered with industrial soot, the black moths better able to hide from predators after the trees became soot covered.

The idea of evolution being a positive thing--the fittest, the best able to survive--was a rhetorical invention. There is a great discussion on this in James Herrick's "The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An introduction" (2001). Darwin had to invent a positive end for evolution because, otherwise, the process was just too brutal and just too random for 19th century modernist scholars (who believed in progress) and 19th century theologians and religious folk (who believed in a loving God and the betterment of the human soul).

I think this is one of the reasons evolution has such a knee-jerk negative response among religious and even positively minded folk. In the 20th century, evolution and evolving carried a positive connotation due to the rhetoric set up by Darwin in the 19th c.

[Tesha]

84. But if we were created in God's image, shouldn't we look like this?

[dsc]

78. In all honesty this formulation

is sort of confusing. In point of fact humans and apes have a common anscestor. If people were actually asked this formulation I can see them answering no even if they believed in evolution.

[hyphenate]

80. Yes, it's true

over half of the people in the US are dumbfucks.

[redqueen]

85. Holy crap...

I really cannot believe some of the responses on this thread.

Yes, apparently it REALLY IS this bad.

*sigh*

[TheFriedPiper]

86. religion is the antithesis to reason and accurate information

and America is infected pretty badly with it