From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Level of support for evolution
The level of support for evolution among
scientists, the public and other groups is a
topic that frequently arises in the creation-
evolution controversy and touches on educa-
tional, religious, philosophical, scientific and
political issues. The subject is primarily con-
tentious in the United States. However, it is
also important in other countries where cre-
ationists advocate the teaching of creation-
ism as a valid alternative to evolution, or por-
tray the modern evolutionary synthesis as an
inadequate scientific paradigm.
Although in the scientific community there
is essentially universal agreement that the
evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and
the scientific consensus supporting the mod-
ern evolutionary synthesis is nearly abso-
lute,[1][2] creationists have asserted that
there is a significant scientific controversy
and disagreement over the validity of evolu-
tion.[3][4][5]
The Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent
design lobby group located in the United
States, also claims that because there is a
significant lack of public support for evolu-
tion, that public schools should, as their cam-
paign states, "Teach the Controversy". Nearly
every scientific society, representing hun-
dreds of thousands of scientists, has issued
official statements disputing this claim[2] and
a petition supporting the teaching of evolu-
tionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel
Prize winners.[6] Additionally, US courts have
ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science
classrooms, and against teaching creation-
ism, in numerous cases.
Creationists have had some successes in
the political realm in the US and other coun-
tries.[7][8][9][10][11][12] The most prominent
organization behind this movement has been
the Discovery Institute, the driving force be-
hind the intelligent design movement.
Through its Center for Science and Culture,
the Institute conducts a number of related
public relations and lobbying campaigns
aimed at influencing the public and policy
makers in order to advance its position in
academia, which it claims is dogmatic and
hidebound.
1
Level of support for evolution
Many claims in the creation-evolution con-
troversy rest on whether or not evolution is
genuinely disputed by those in scientific
circles, the public’s acceptance of the theory
of evolution and religious and educational or-
ganizations and both sides of the dispute ex-
hibit interest in evaluating the level of popu-
lar and scientific support for evolution.
Several publications discuss the sub-
ject,[13][14] including a document produced
by the United States National Academy of
Sciences.[15]
Scientific support
The vast majority of the scientific community
and academia supports evolutionary theory
as the only explanation that can fully account
for observations in the fields of biology, pale-
ontology, anthropology, and oth-
ers. [16][17][18][19][20] One 1987 estimate
found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of
480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give
credence to creation-science".[21] An expert
in the evolution-creationism controversy, pro-
fessor and author Brian Alters states that
"99.9 percent of scientists accept evolu-
tion".[22] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans
found that about 5% of scientists (including
those with training outside biology) identified
themselves as creationists.[23][24]
Additionally, the scientific community con-
siders intelligent design, a neo-creationist
offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudos-
cience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The
U.S. National Academy of Sciences has
stated that intelligent design "and other
claims of supernatural intervention in the ori-
gin of life" are not science because they can-
not be tested by experiment, do not generate
any predictions, and propose no new hypo-
theses of their own.[30] In September 2005,
38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying
"Intelligent design is fundamentally un-
scientific; it cannot be tested as scientific
theory because its central conclusion is
based on belief in the intervention of a super-
natural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coali-
tion representing more than 70,000 Australi-
an scientists and science teachers issued a
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
statement saying "intelligent design is not
science" and calling on "all schools not to
teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, be-
cause it fails to qualify on every count as a
scientific theory".[32]
In 1986, an amicus curiae brief asking the
US Supreme Court to reject a Louisiana state
law requiring the teaching of creationism in
the case Edwards v. Aguillard[33] was signed
by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state
academies of science and 7 other scientific
societies.[6] This was the largest collection of
Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to
that point.[20] The amicus curiae brief also
clearly described why evolution was science,
not religion, and why creationism is not
science.
There are many scientific and scholarly or-
ganizations from around the world that have
issued statements in support of the theory of
evolution.[34][35][36][37] The American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of Science, the
world’s largest general scientific society with
more than 130,000 members and over 262 af-
filiated societies and academies of science in-
cluding over 10 million individuals, has made
several statements and issued several press
releases in support of evolution.[19] The pres-
tigious United States National Academy of
Sciences that provides science advice to the
nation, has published several books support-
ing evolution and denouncing creationism
and intelligent design.[38][39]
Votes, resolutions and state-
ments of scientists before 1985
One of the earliest resolutions in support of
evolution was issued by the American Associ-
ation for the Advancement of Science in
1922, and readopted in 1929.[40][41]
Another early effort to express support for
evolution by scientists was organized by No-
bel Prize Winner German biologist Hermann
J. Muller in 1966. Muller circulated a petition
entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of
Nature that has been well established by
Science?" in May of 1966:
There are no hypotheses, alternative
to the principle of evolution with its
“tree of life,” that any competent
biologist of today takes seriously.
Moreover, the principle is so import-
ant for an understanding of the
world we live in and of ourselves
2
Level of support for evolution
that the public in general, including
students taking biology in high
school, should be made aware of it,
and of the fact that it is firmly estab-
lished, even as the rotundity of the
earth is firmly established.[42]
This manifesto was signed by 177 of the lead-
ing American biologists, including Nobel Pr-
ize Winner George G. Simpson of Harvard
University, Nobel Prize Winner Peter Agre of
Duke University, Carl Sagan of Cornell, John
Tyler Bonner of Princeton, Nobel Prize Win-
ner George Beadle, President of the
University of Chicago, and Donald F.
Kennedy of Stanford University, formerly
head of the United States Food and Drug Ad-
ministration.[43]
This was followed by the passing of a res-
olution by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) in the fall of
1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of cre-
ation ... is neither scientifically grounded nor
capable of performing the rules required of
science theories".[44] The United States Na-
tional Academy of Sciences also passed a
similar resolution in the fall of 1972.[44] A
statement on evolution called "A Statement
Affirming Evolution as a Principle of
Science." was signed by Nobel Prize Winner
Linus Pauling, Isaac Asimov, Nobel Prize
Winner George G. Simpson, Caltech Biology
Professor Norman H. Horowitz, Ernst Mayr,
and others, and published in 1977.[45] The
governing board of the American Geological
Institute issued a statement supporting resol-
ution in November 1981.[46] Shortly there-
after, the AAAS passed another resolution
supporting evolution and disparaging efforts
to teach creationism in science classes.[47]
Creationist disputes over the
scientific support for evolution
Creationists strongly dispute the fact that
there is overwhelming support for evolution
in the science community.[48] One of the first
attempts to provide evidence that there were
substantial number of scientists who dis-
agreed with evolution was a pamphlet pro-
duced by the Institute for Creation Research
in 1971 entitled "21 Scientists Who Believe in
Creation"[49] This pamphlet has been reprin-
ted several times. Skeptics have claimed that
this list of 21 creation supporters is mislead-
ing since it includes five people with PhDs in
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
engineering, three in education, two in theo-
logy, two in biochemistry, one in physics, one
in chemistry, one in hydrology, one in ento-
mology, one in psycholinguistics, one in food
science technology, one in ecology, one in
physiology and one in geophysics; and there-
fore only a small minority had qualifications
related to evolutionary biology.[50][51]
Similarly, chemist John F. Ashton edited a
book first published in 1999 with essays from
50 scientists describing why they believed in
creationism.[52] Ann Lamont wrote a book de-
scribing 21 famous scientists, such as Jo-
hannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton,
Carolus Linnaeus, Leonhard Euler, Michael
Faraday, Charles Babbage, James Prescott
Joule, Louis Pasteur, Kelvin, James Clerk
Maxwell, and Wernher von Braun, who she
claimed believed in biblical literalism.[53]
However, many of these scientists lived be-
fore much of the evidence against biblical lit-
eralism emerged. Of the previous list, only
aerospace engineer Wernher von Braun was
alive when evolution was firmly established
and the geological evidence against Noah’s
Ark had clearly emerged. It is also not clear
what "believing in the Bible" means, since
there is a wide range of beliefs in the Bible,
although von Braun did write about his sup-
port for creationist ideas on the grounds of
design. It should be noted that there is a vast
difference between "believing in the bible"
and subscribing to biblical literalism. Also, of
the scientists listed above, only Linnaeus and
Pasteur were trained in and worked in a field
relevant to biology.
In continuing attempts to counter the
charge that there are no scientists who dis-
agree with the principles of evolution, cre-
ationist organizations have gathered lists of
hundreds of scientists who disagree with
evolution and support creationism. Some
prominent creationist organizations that have
produced these kinds of lists include the Dis-
covery Institute’s "A Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism",[54] the Institute for Creation Re-
search,[55] Answers in Genesis,[56] Creation
Ministries International.[57] and Christian An-
swers.[58] The Institute for Creation Re-
search website includes the following
statement:
Today there are thousands of scient-
ists who are creationists and who re-
pudiate any form of evolution in
their analysis and use of scientific
3
Level of support for evolution
data. Creationist scientists can now
be found in literally every discipline
of science and their numbers are in-
creasing rapidly. In the Creation Re-
search Society (2717 Cranbrook Rd.,
Ann Arbor, MI 48104) alone there
are over 650 scientist members with
either doctor’s or master’s degrees
in some field of natural science.
Among the additional 2,000 + sus-
taining members of the Society,
many are also scientists with bachel-
or’s degrees, in addition to numer-
ous social scientists and other highly
educated people with postgraduate
degrees in their own fields. Evolu-
tionists are finding it increasingly
difficult to maintain the fiction that
evolution is "science" and creation is
"religion." When news media person-
nel and others make such state-
ments today, they merely reveal
their own liberal social philo-
sophies—not their awareness of sci-
entific facts![3]
To date however, there are no scientifically
peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim
evolution listed in the scientific and medical
journal search engine Pubmed.
Project Steve
The National Center for Science Education
has produced a "light-hearted" petition called
"Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only
scientists named "Steve" or some variation
(such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are
eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to
be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of
alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting
creationist principles that creationist organ-
izations produce.[59][60]
According to the United States Census,
about 1.6% of males and 0.4% of females
have a first name that would qualify them to
sign the petition. Therefore, about 1% of all
people in the United States are called Steve
or some name that is close to Steve. There-
fore, if one can get N scientists named Steve
or something similar to endorse the petition,
one might expect that roughly 100xN scient-
ists with all kinds of names would endorse
the petition. As of March 26, 2009, 1080 sci-
entists named Steve had endorsed the peti-
tion, suggesting that if all scientists were
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Level of support for evolution

allowed to endorse the petition, about several religious organizations that have is-
108,000 scientists would have signed.[61] sued statements advocating the teaching of
In comparison, the Discovery Institute an- evolution in public schools.[70] In addition,
nounced that over 700 scientists had ex- the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan
pressed support for intelligent design as of Williams, issued statements in support of
February 8, 2007[62][63], which at face value evolution in 2006.[71] The Clergy Letter Pro-
indicates a broad consensus of at least 99% ject is a signed statement by 11,111 (as of 22
of scientists supporting the biological theory December 2007) American Christian clergy
of evolution. of different denominations rejecting creation-
ism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura
Support for evolution by of the National Center for Science Education
found, of Americans in the twelve largest
religious bodies Christian denominations, at least 77% belong
to churches that support evolution education
Religious Differences on the (and that at one point, this figure was as high
Question of Evolution (United as 89.6%).[72] These churches include the
States) United Methodist Church, National Baptist
Percentage who agree that evolution is Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, Presbyterian Church
the best explanation for the origin of hu-
(USA), National Baptist Convention of Amer-
man life on earth ica, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the
Buddhist 81% Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal
Hindu 80% Church, and others.[73][74] A figure closer to
Jewish 77% about 71% is presented by the analysis of
Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck.[75]
Unaffiliated 72%
Michael Shermer argued in Scientific
Catholic 58%
American in October 2006 that evolution sup-
Orthodox 54% ports concepts like family values, avoiding
Mainline 51% lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law.
Protestant Shermer also suggests that evolution gives
Muslim 45% more support to the notion of an omnipotent
Hist. Black 38% creator, rather than a tinkerer with limita-
Protest. tions based on a human model.[76]
Evang. 24%
Protestant Evolution and the Roman Cath-
Mormon 22% olic Church
Jehovah’s 8% Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church
Witness are compatible according to the Church. On
Total U.S. population percentage:48% the 12 August 1950, the Roman Catholic
Source: Pew Forum[64] Church accepted that the ‘doctrine of evolu-
Many creationists act as evangelists and tion’ was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by
their organizations are registered as tax-free Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Gen-
religious organizations.[65] Creationists have eris saying “research and discussions… take
claimed that they represent the interests of place with regard to the doctrine of evolu-
true Christians, and evolution is only associ- tion”. In the same encyclical the Magisterium
ated with atheism.[66][67][68] holds that a Catholic can believe in the cre-
However, not all religious organizations ation account found in sacred scripture.
find support for evolution incompatible with However, the encyclical rejects what it de-
their religious faith. For example, 12 of the scribed as some “fictitious tenets of evolu-
plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation tion”. Following this announcement Catholic
science in the influential McLean v. Arkansas schools began teaching evolution.
court case were clergy representing Method- In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message
ist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in
Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, which he said “Today, almost half a century
and Presbyterian groups.[69] There are after publication of the encyclical, new

4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
knowledge has led to the recognition of the
theory of evolution as more than a hypothes-
is.”[77]
Between 2000 and 2002 the International
Theological Commission found that “Conver-
ging evidence from many studies in the phys-
ical and biological sciences furnishes mount-
ing support for some theory of evolution to
account for the development and diversifica-
tion of life on earth, while controversy contin-
ues over the pace and mechanisms of evolu-
tion.”[78] This statement was published by
the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
who was the President of the Commission at
the time.
The Magisterium has not yet made an au-
thoritative statement on intelligent design,
and has permitted arguments on both sides
of the issue. In 2005, Cardinal Christoph
Schönborn of Vienna appeared to endorse in-
telligent design when he denounced philo-
sophically materialist interpretations of evol-
ution.[79]
In the January 16–17 2006 edition of the
official Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Ro-
mano, University of Bologna evolutionary bio-
logy Professor Fiorenzo Facchini wrote an
article agreeing with the judge’s ruling in
Kitzmiller v. Dover and stating that intelli-
gent design was unscientific.[80][81] Jesuit
Father George Coyne, former director of the
Vatican Observatory, has also denounced in-
telligent design.[82]
Evolution and the Ahmadiyya
Muslim Community
The Ahmadiyya Movement are, arguably, the
only denomination in Islam that universally
accept Evolution and actively promote it[83].
Mirza Tahir Ahmad, Fourth Caliph of the Ah-
madiyya Muslim Community has stated in his
magnum opus Revelation, Rationality, Know-
ledge & Truth that evolution did occur but
only through God being the One who brings
about it. It does not occur itself, according to
the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. The Ah-
madis do not believe in Adam as the first hu-
man on earth but merely as the first prophet
to receive revelation by God on earth.
5
Level of support for evolution
US Religious denominations
that dispute evolution
On the other hand, in the U.S., many Protest-
ant denominations promote creationism,
preach against evolution from the pulpits,
and sponsor lectures and debates on the sub-
ject. A list of denominations that explicitly ad-
vocate creationism instead of Darwinism or
evolution include the Assemblies of God,[84]
the Evangelical Presbyterian Church,[85] the
Free Methodist Church, the Jehovah’s Wit-
nesses, Lutheran Church - Missouri Syn-
od,[86] Pentecostal Churches, Seventh-day
Adventist Churches,[87] Wisconsin Evangelic-
al Lutheran Synod, Christian Reformed
Church, and the Pentecostal Oneness
churches.[88]
Support for evolution in
medicine and industry
A common complaint of creationists is that
evolution is of no value, has never been used
for anything, and will never be of any use.
According to many creationists, nothing
would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and
science and industry might even bene-
fit.[89][90][91]
In fact, evolution is being put to practical
use in industry and widely used on a daily
basis by researchers in medicine, biochem-
istry, molecular biology, and genetics to both
formulate hypotheses about biological sys-
tems for the purposes of experimental
design, as well as to rationalise observed
data and prepare applications.[92][93][22][94]
In 2009, there were 235,740 scientific papers
in PubMed that mentioned ’evolution’. Cor-
porations such as pharmaceutical companies
utilize biological evolution in their develop-
ment of new products.[93]
Because of the perceived value of evolu-
tion in applications, there have been some
expressions of support for evolution on the
part of corporations. In Kansas, there has
been some widespread concern in the corpor-
ate and academic communities that a move
to weaken the teaching of evolution in
schools will hurt the state’s ability to recruit
the best talent, particularly in the biotech in-
dustry.[95] Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology
Institute warned that the US risks falling be-
hind in the biotechnology race with other na-
tions if it does not do a better job of teaching
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1997 Gallup Poll Results[114]
US Group Young Earth Belief in God-guided
Creationism Evolution
Public 44% 39%
Scientists 5% 40%
evolution.[96] James McCarter of Divergence
Incorporated states that the work of 2001
Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which
has substantial implications for combating
cancer relied heavily the use of evolutionary
knowledge and predictions. McCarter points
out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in
medicine or physiology also depended on the
use of evolutionary theory.[97]
The organization "Physicians and Sur-
geons for Scientific Integrity" maintains a list
of medical doctors and similar professionals
who disagree that evolution can account for
the diversity of life on earth. As of May 22,
2007, there were 224 Americans and 28 oth-
ers from other countries that had signed a
statement disputing "Darwinism".
Other support for
evolution
There are also many educational organiza-
tions that have issued statements in support
of the theory of evolution.[98]
Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent
design advocates have lost suits in US
courts.[99] Here is a list of important court
cases in which creationists have suffered
setbacks:
• 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States
Supreme Court[100]
• 1981 Segraves v. State of California,
Supreme Court of California[101]
• 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of
Education, U.S. Federal Court[102]
• 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States
Supreme Court[103]
• 1990 Webster v. New Lenox School
District, Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals[104]
• 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School
District, Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals[105]
• 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board
of Education, United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana[106]
• 2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent
School District 656, et al., District Court
6
Level of support for evolution
Belief in Evolution
without God
10%
55%
for the Third Judicial District of the State
of Minnesota[107]
• 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School
District, US Federal Court[108]
• 2006 Hurst v. Newman US District Court
Eastern District of California[109]
Public support
Creationists often claim that public support
of creationism is a sign of its validity as a sci-
entific theory.[110] In some countries, cre-
ationist beliefs (or a lack of support for evolu-
tionary theory) are relatively widespread,
even garnering a majority of public opinion.
A study published in Science compared atti-
tudes about evolution in the United States,
32 European countries (including Turkey)
and Japan. The only country where accept-
ance of evolution was lower than in the Un-
ited States was Turkey (25%). Public accept-
ance of evolution was most widespread (at
over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Den-
mark and Sweden.[111] (See the chart)
United Kingdom
A 2006 UK poll on the "origin and develop-
ment of life" asked participants to choose
between three different explanations for the
origin of life: 22% chose (Young Earth) cre-
ationism, 17% opted for intelligent design,
48% selected evolution theory (with a divine
role explicitly excluded) and the rest did not
know. However, the poll lacked nuanced sur-
vey techniques and equivocated on origin
definitions, forcing participants to choose
between only these options (which notably
excluded theistic evolution). Hence its results
are not necessarily an accurate survey of the
views of the UK public.[112][113]
United States
The US has one of the highest levels of public
belief in biblical or other religious accounts
of the origins of life on earth among industri-
alized countries.[115]
According to a 2007 Gallup poll,[116]
about 43% of American believe that "God
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Political % Creation- % do not believe in
identification ist[120] evolution[121]
Republican 60 68
Democrat 29 40
Independent 37
Percentage of Americans polled
Religious group Belief in the literal truth of the
Bible or Torah
Evangelical 47.8
Protestants
Catholics 11.0
Protestant 11.0
Jewish 9.0
created human beings pretty much in their
present form at one time within the last
10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less
than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup
poll.[117] Only 14% believed that "humans be-
ing have developed over millions of years
from less advanced forms of life, but God had
no part in this process", despite 49% of re-
spondents indicating they believed in evolu-
tion. [116] Belief in creationism is inversely
correlated to education; only 22% of those
with post-graduate degrees believe in strict
creationism.[117] A 2000 poll for People for
the American Way found 70% of the Americ-
an public felt that evolution was compatible
with a belief in God.[118]
Edward Larson and Larry Witham in 1998
published the results of a survey of the mem-
bers of the US National Academy of Science
showing that 93% of the respondents did not
believe in a personal God.[119]
A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that
70% of evangelical Christians felt that living
organisms have not changed since their cre-
ation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32% of
mainline Protestants shared this opinion. A
2005 Harris Poll[122] estimated that 63% of
liberals and 37% of conservatives agreed that
humans and other primates have a common
ancestry.[76]
Evolution, creationism and sci-
entific literacy
A 1997 study found that fewer than 20% of
Americans possessed basic scientific liter-
acy[123] and a People for the American Way
poll found that less than half (48%) of those
7
Level of support for evolution
% belief in % belief in
evolution[121] evolution[120]
30 11
57 44
61
Belief that the Bible or Torah is a book of
history and legends
6.5
20.0
20.0
52.6
polled chose the correct definition of evolu-
tion from a list.[118] In 2006, New Scientist
reported that almost 2/3 of Americans believe
they share less than half their genes with
"monkeys", when in fact the figure is
between 95–99% depending on the primate
and comparison method.[124]
Steve Sailer has pointed out that it is not
clear how firmly public beliefs in creationism
are held.[125] Most creationist claims require
a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in
biblical inerrancy, while a 2006 study by the
Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion found
only a minority of those polled believed in the
literal truth in the Bible.[126]
Trends
The level of assent that evolution garners has
changed with time. The trends in acceptance
of evolution can be estimated.
Early impact of Darwin’s theory
The level of support for evolution in different
communities has varied with time. Darwin’s
theory had convinced almost every naturalist
within 20 years of its publication in 1858,
and was making serious inroads with the
public and the more liberal clergy. It had
reached such extremes, that by 1880, one
American religious weekly publication estim-
ated that "perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half
of the educated ministers in our leading
Evangelical denominations" felt "that the
story of the creation and fall of man, told in
Genesis, is no more the record of actual
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
occurrences than is the parable of the Prod-
igal Son."[127]
By the late 1800s, many of the most con-
servative Christians accepted an ancient
earth, and life on earth before Eden. Victori-
an Era Creationists were more akin to people
who subscribe to theistic evolution today.
Even fervent anti-evolutionist Scopes Trial
prosecutor William Jennings Bryan inter-
preted the "days" of Genesis as ages of the
earth, and acknowledged that biochemical
evolution took place, drawing the line only at
the story of Adam and Eve’s creation.
Prominent pre-World War II creationist Harry
Rimmer allowed an Old Earth by slipping mil-
lions of years into putative gaps in the Genes-
is account, and claimed that the Noachian
Flood was only a local phenomenon.[127]
In the decades of the 1900s, George
Macready Price and a tiny group of Seventh-
day Adventist followers were the among the
very few believers in a Young Earth and a
worldwide flood, which Price championed in
his "new catastrophism" theories. It was not
until the publication of John C. Whitcomb, Jr.,
and Henry M. Morris’s book Genesis Flood in
1961 that Price’s idea was revived. In the last
few decades, many creationists have adopted
Price’s beliefs, becoming progressively more
strict biblical literalists.[127]
Recent public beliefs
In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US popula-
tion, and 25% of college graduates agreed
with the statement, "God created man pretty
much in his present form at one time within
the last 10,000 years."
Fourteen years later, in 2005, Gallup
found that 53% of Americans expressed the
belief that "God created human beings in
their present form exactly the way the Bible
describes it." About 2/3 (65.5%) of those sur-
veyed thought that creationism was definitely
or probably true. In 2005 a Newsweek poll
discovered that 80 percent of the American
public thought that "God created the uni-
verse." and the Pew Research Center repor-
ted that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say
that creationism should be taught alongside
evolution in public schools." Ronald Numbers
commented on that with "Most surprising of
all was the discovery that large numbers of
high-school biology teachers — from 30% in
Illinois and 38% in Ohio to a whopping 69%
8
Level of support for evolution
in Kentucky — supported the teaching of cre-
ationism."[127]
The National Center for Science Educa-
tion reports that from 1985 to 2005, the num-
ber of Americans unsure about evolution in-
creased from 7% to 21%, while the number
rejecting evolution declined from 48% to
39%.[124][111] Jon Miller of Michigan State
University has found in his polls that the
number of Americans who accept evolution
has declined from 45% to 40% from 1985 to
2005.[128]
In light of these somewhat contradictory
results, it is difficult to know for sure what is
happening to public opinion on evolution in
the US. It does not appear that either side is
making unequivocal progress. It does appear
that uncertainty about the issue is increas-
ing, however.
Anecdotal evidence is that creationism is
becoming more of an issue in the UK as well.
One report in 2006 was that UK students are
increasingly arriving ill-prepared to particip-
ate in medical studies or other advanced edu-
cation.[129]
Recent scientific trends
The level of support for creationism among
relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of
480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave
credence to creationism in 1987,[21] repres-
enting about 0.146% of relevant scientists. In
2007 the Discovery Institute reported that
about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific
Dissent From Darwinism list, up from 100 in
2001.[130] The actual statement of the
Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relat-
ively mild one that expresses skepticism
about the absoluteness of ’Darwinism’ (and is
in line with the falsifiability required of sci-
entific theories) to explain all features of life,
and does not in any way represent an abso-
lute denial or rejection of evolution.[131] By
contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known
as Project Steve, a list of scientists named
Steve who agree that evolution is "a vital,
well-supported, unifying principle of the bio-
logical sciences," has 1080 Steves as of
March 26, 2009. People named Steve make
up approximately 1% of the total U.S.
population.
The United States National Science
Foundation statistics on US yearly science
graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to
2001, the number of biological science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Level of support for evolution

graduates increased by 59% while the num- [4] Denton, Michael (1986). Evolution: a
ber of geological science graduates de- theory in crisis. Bethesda, Md: Adler &
creased by 20.5%. However, the number of Adler. ISBN 0917561058.
geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of [5] Schafersman, Steven (2003-09-05).
the number of graduates in the biological sci- "Texas Citizens for Science Responds to
ences, while it was 10.7% of the number of Latest Discovery Institute Challenge" (in
biological science graduates in 1987.[132] english) (html). Discovery Institute.
The Science Resources Statistics Division of http://www.texscience.org/files/
the National Science Foundation estimated discovery-signers.htm. Retrieved on
that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological 2007-10-23.
scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold [6] ^ Amicus Curiae brief in Edwards v.
graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 Aguillard, 85-1513 (United States
earth scientists in the US as well.[133] Supreme Court 1986-08-18)., available at
Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters rep- "Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae
resent about 0.054% of the estimated Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates" (in english)
1,108,100 biological and geological scientists (html). From Talk.origins.
in the US in 1999. In addition, a large frac- http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/edwards-v-
tion of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties aguillard/amicus1.html. Retrieved on
unrelated to research on evolution; of the 2007-10-19.
dissenters, three-quarters are not biolo- [7] Noah, Timothy (2000-10-31). "George W.
gists.[134] Therefore, the roughly 150 biolo- Bush, The Last Relativist" (in english).
gist Darwin Dissenters represent about http://www.slate.com/id/1006378/.
0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
1999. As of 2006, the list was expanded to [8] Pyke, Nicholas (2004-06-13). "Revealed:
include non-US scientists, overestimating the Tony Blair’s link to schools that take the
number of US scientists that do not accept Creation literally". The Independent.
evolution.[135] , according to the Discovery http://susanohanian.org/
Institute, a known creationist lobby institu- show_atrocities.html?id=2579. Archive
tion. Despite the increase in absolute number copy at the Internet Archive; full article
of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, at Ohanian, Susan. "Outrages".
proportionately the figures indicates the sup- http://susanohanian.org/
port from scientists for creationism and intel- show_atrocities.html?id=2579. Retrieved
ligent design is steadily decreasing, despite on 2007-10-23.
an increase in public support. [9] Meinert, Peer. "Wir drehen die Uhr um
1000 Jahre zurück ("We put the clock
See also back a 1000 years")" (in german) (html).
http://www2.onnachrichten.t-online.de/
• History of creationism dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html. Retrieved
• List of scientific societies rejecting on 2007-10-23.
intelligent design‎ [10] "Serbia reverses Darwin suspension" (in
english) (stm). BBC News. 2004-09-09.
Footnotes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/
3642460.stm. Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
[1] Delgado, Cynthia (2006-07-28). "Finding [11] "And finally...". Warsaw Business
evolution in medicine" (in english) Journal. 2006-12-18. http://www.wbj.pl/
(hmtl). NIH Record 58 (15). ?command=article&id=35336&type=wbj.
http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/ Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm. Retrieved [12] Gunnink, Frans (2005-06-07). "Creation
on 2007-10-22. commotion in Dutch Parliament".
[2] ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83 http://www.answersingenesis.org/
[3] ^ Morris, Henry (n.d.). "The ICR docs2005/0607dutch_debate.asp.
Scientists" (in english). Institute for Retrieved on 2007-10-23. ; Enserink,
Creation Research. http://www.icr.org/ Martin (2005-06-03). "Evolution politics:
index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163. Is Holland becoming the Kansas of
Retrieved on 2007-10-23. Europe?". Science 308 (5727): 1394.
doi:10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b.

9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PMID 15933170.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/
summary/308/5727/1394b.
[13] McCollister, Betty (1989). Voices for
evolution. Berkeley, CA: National Center
for Science Education. ISBN
0-939873-51-6.
[14] Matsumura, Molleen (1995) (in english)
(html). Voices for evolution. Berkeley,
CA: National Center for Science
Education. ISBN 0-939873-53-2.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/
creation/voices/permit.htm.
[15] Working Group on Teaching Evolution,
National Academy of Sciences (1998).
Teaching about evolution and the nature
of science. Washington, D.C: National
Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-06364-7. ;
available on-line: United States National
Academy of Sciences (1998). "Teaching
About Evolution and the Nature of
Science (ebook)". Washington DC:
National Academy Press.
http://books.nap.edu/
openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=56.
Retrieved on 2007-10-23.
[16] Myers, PZ (2006-06-18). "Ann Coulter:
No evidence for evolution?". Pharyngula
(scienceblogs.com).
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
2006/06/
ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php.
Retrieved on 2006-11-18.
[17] The National Science Teachers
Association’s position statement on the
teaching of evolution.
[18] IAP Statement on the Teaching of
Evolution Joint statement issued by the
national science academies of 67
countries, including the United
Kingdom’s Royal Society (PDF file)
[19] ^ From the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the world’s
largest general scientific society: 2006
Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
(PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-
Evolution Laws
[20] ^ Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human
Evolution, Alan J. Almquist, John E.
Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29,
No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520–522
[21] ^ As reported by Newsweek: "By one
count there are some 700 scientists with
respectable academic credentials (out of
a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life
scientists) who give credence to
10
Level of support for evolution
creation-science, the general theory that
complex life forms did not evolve but
appeared ’abruptly’."Martz & McDaniel
1987, p. 23
[22] ^ Finding the Evolution in Medicine,
Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28,
2006.
[23] Public beliefs about evolution and
creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995.
[24] Many scientists see God’s hand in
evolution, Witham, Larry, Reports of the
National Center for Science Education
17(6): 33, 1997
[25] See: 1) List of scientific societies
rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller
v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery
Institute’s A Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has
been signed by "over 600 scientists" as
of August 20, 2006. A four day A
Scientific Support For Darwinism
petition gained 7733 signatories from
scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the
largest association of scientists in the
U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly
rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian
scientists and educators condemn
teaching of intelligent design in school
science classes. List of statements from
scientific professional organizations on
the status intelligent design and other
forms of creationism.
[26] National Science Teachers Association, a
professional association of 55,000
science teachers and administrators in a
2005 press release: "We stand with the
nation’s leading scientific organizations
and scientists, including Dr. John
Marburger, the president’s top science
advisor, in stating that intelligent design
is not science.…It is simply not fair to
present pseudoscience to students in the
science classroom." National Science
Teachers Association Disappointed About
Intelligent Design Comments Made by
President Bush National Science
Teachers Association Press Release
August 3, 2005
[27] Defending science education against
intelligent design: a call to action Journal
of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138
American Society for Clinical
Investigation, 2006.
[28] "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent
design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere
because they have all sworn allegiance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed
because intelligent design is junk
science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science.
New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why
intelligent design isn’t. Also, Robert T.
Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence
Against the New Creationism.
[29] Junk science Mark Bergin. World
Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25
2006.
[30] National Academy of Sciences, 1999
Science and Creationism: A View from
the National Academy of Sciences,
Second Edition
[31] The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity
Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent
design cannot be tested as a scientific
theory "because its central conclusion is
based on belief in the intervention of a
supernatural agent." Nobel Laureates
Initiative (PDF file)
[32] Faculty of Science, University of New
South Wales. 20 October 2005.
Intelligent Design is not Science -
Scientists and teachers speak out
[33] US Supreme Court Case No. 85-1513,
October Term, 1986, August 18, 1986
[34] List of numerous US scientific societies
that support evolution and their
statements about evolution
[35] List of 68 international scientific
societies on the Interacademy Panel
(IAP) that endorse a resolution
supporting evolution and a multibillion
year old earth, June 2006.
[36] National Science Board letter in support
of evolution 1999
[37] Royal Society statement on evolution,
creationism and intelligent design, 11
Apr 2006.
[38] Science and Creationism: A View from
the National Academy of Sciences,
Second Edition, National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy Press,
Washington DC, 1999.
[39] Teaching About Evolution and the
Nature of Science (1998), National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy
Press, Washington DC, 1998.
[40] AAAS Resolution: Present Scientific
Status of the Theory of Evolution,
American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Adopted by the
AAAS Council, December 26, 1922. AAAS
Executive Committee readopts this
resolution on April 21, 1929.
11
Level of support for evolution
[41] The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The
Longest Running Falsehood in
Creationism, G. R. Morton, Copyright
2002 G.R. Morton
[42] Bales, James D., Forty-Two Years on the
Firing Line, Lambert, Shreveport, LA,
p.71-72, no date.
[43] The Day the Scientists Voted, Bert
Thompson, Apologetics Press: Sensible
Science, 2001, originally published in
Reason & Revelation, 2(3):9-11, March
1982.
[44] ^ American Biology Teacher, January
1973.
[45] A Statement Affirming Evolution as a
Principle of Science, The Humanist,
January/February, 1977, p. 4-6.
[46] AAPG Explorer, January, 1982.
[47] "Creation-Science" Law Is Struck Down,
Raloff, J., Science News, 121[2]:20,
January 9, 1982.
[48] Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution:
Do any scientists with Ph.D. degrees
reject the theory of evolution? Yes, they
do!, Do-While Jones, Disclosure
Newsletter, July, 2001.
[49] "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation,
2nd edition", Creation-Life Publishers,
1971.
[50] "Scientific" Creationism Examined, Paul
Tobin, The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager:
A Skeptic’s Guide to Christianity
[51] An Engineer Looks at the Creationist
Movement, John W. Patterson,
Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of
Science 89(2):55-58, 1982.
[52] [In Six Days : Why Fifty Scientists
Choose to Believe in Creation], John F.
Ashton, Master Books, January 1, 2001,
ISBN-10: 0890513414
[53] 21 great scientists who believed the
Bible, Ann Lamont, Creation Science
Foundation, 1995. ISBN 0949906212
[54] It should be noted that not all scientists
who signed necessarily are staunch
creationists. For example, Stanley N.
Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton
University, State University of New York,
who signed but describes himself as an
atheist, said that when he endorsed a
petition he had no idea what the
Discovery Institute was. Salthe stated, "I
signed it in irritation." (Few Biologists
but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-
Evolution Petition, Panda’s Thumb,
February 21, 2006)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[55] List of Creation Scientists, a list of
biological and physical scientists that
support creationism on the Institute for
Creation Research website.
[56] Creation scientists and other biographies
of interest: Some modern scientists who
have accepted the biblical account of
creation, a list of scientists that support
creationism on the Answers in Genesis
website.
[57] Creation scientists and other specialists
of interest, a list of scientists who
support creationism on Creation
Ministries International’s website. It
should be noted that Creation Ministries
International is the international arm of
Answers in Genesis and not an
independent organization.
[58] Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN
SCIENCE, Who’s who in Creation/
Evolution (list of 94)
[59] National Center for Science Education
"Project Steve"
[60] List of living scientists who accept the
biblical account of creation from
Answers in Genesis
[61] The List of Steves
[62] Staff (February 8, 2007). "Ranks of
Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on
the Rise". Discovery Institute.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/
viewDB/
index.php?command=view&id=2732.
Retrieved on 2008-02-04.
[63] It should be noted that not all scientists
who signed necessarily are staunch
creationists. For example, Stanley N.
Salthe, a visiting scientist at Binghamton
University, State University of New York,
who signed but describes himself as an
atheist, said that when he endorsed a
petition he had no idea what the
Discovery Institute was. Salte stated, "I
signed it in irritation." (Few Biologists
but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-
Evolution Petition, Panda’s Thumb,
February 21, 2006)
[64] Religious Groups: Opinions of Evolution,
Pew Forum (conducted in 2007, released
in 2008)
[65] For a discussion about some controversy
about this, see Kent Hovind.
[66] Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, in
his book Systematic Theology, Charles
Hodge, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co,
1975, vol. 2, p. 15, argues that "First, it
12
Level of support for evolution
shocks the common sense of
unsophisticated men to be told that the
whale and the humming-bird, man and
the mosquito, are derived from the same
source... the system is thoroughly
atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly
stand."
[67] Presupposing Naturalism: Atheism,
Agnosticism and Theistic Evolution?,
Rev. Curtis L. Brickley, Jr., Darwin,
Design and Democracy V: Science
Converges on Design - from Cosmology
to Paleontology to Biology, September
24-25, 2004, Woodward Hall, University
of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New
Mexico states that "Theistic evolution
fails traditional theistic religion by not
allowing for the continued intervention
of a creative cause or power. Theistic
evolution can get you knowledge "of
God" only through faith by denying
natural revelation. But without natural
revelation, there can be no rational basis
for belief in a God who actually reveals
Himself through nature. By embracing
Naturalism, and its rejection of the
supernatural, theistic evolution denies a
rational basis for belief in God and a
basis for our faith in the resurrection of
Jesus Christ."
[68] Evolution and Christianity are opposites,
p. 36 of Evolution and Society, Volume 2
of Scientific Facts Against Evolution-
Origin of the Universe: 3 Volume
Encyclopedia states, of evolution and
Christianity, "there can be no
reconciliation between the two. One view
stands for fighting, warfare against the
supposed weaker ones, and atheism; the
other is for peace, self-sacrifice for the
good of others, and belief and trust in
the Creator God...Even evolutionists and
atheists have declared that their creeds
are totally different than those of
Christianity." Also in the article
Evolution and the churches on pages
39-41 of the same volume, "In spite of
clear-cut statements by evolutionists that
"evolution IS atheism," many
denominations today accept one form or
another of evolutionary theory."
[69] McLean v Arkansas, Encyclopedia of
Arkansas
[70] Defending the teaching of evolution in
public education, Statements from
Religious Organizations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[71] Archbishop of Canterbury backs
evolution: Well, he is a Primate, Chris
Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21
March 2006
[72] Matsumura 1998, p. 9 notes that, "Table
1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12
largest Christian denominations, 89.6%
belong to churches that support
evolution education! Indeed, many of the
statements in Voices insist quite strongly
that evolution must be included in
science education and "creation science"
must be excluded. Even if we subtract
the Southern Baptist Convention, which
has changed its view of evolution since
McLean v Arkansas and might take a
different position now, the percentage
those in denominations supporting
evolution is still a substantial 77%.
Furthermore, many other Christian and
non-Christian denominations, including
the United Church of Christ and the
National Sikh Center, have shown some
degree of support for evolution
education (as defined by inclusion in
’Voices’ or the "Joint Statement")."
Matsumura produced her table from a
June, 1998 article titled Believers:
Dynamic Dozen put out by Religion News
Services which in turn cites the 1998
Yearbook of American and Canadian
Churches. Matsurmura’s calculations
include the SBC based on a brief they
filed in McLean v. Arkansas, where the
SBC took a position it has since changed,
according to Matsurmura. See also
NCSE 2002.
[73] Christianity, Evolution Not in Conflict,
John Richard Schrock, Wichita Eagle
May 17, 2005 page 17A
[74] Matsumura 1998, p. 9
[75] The Bible: Is it a True and Accurate
Account of Creation? (Part 2): The
Position of Major Christian
Denominations on Creation and
Inerrancy, Walter B. Murfin, David F.
Beck, 13 April 1998, hosted on Coalition
for Excellence in Science and Math
Education website
[76] ^ Darwin on the Right: Why Christians
and conservatives should accept
evolution, Michael Shermer, Scientific
American, October 2006.
[77] Pope John Paul II, Speech to the
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October
23, 1996
13
Level of support for evolution
[78] “Communion and Stewardship: Human
Persons Created in the Image of God”,
International Theological Commission.
[79] Tom Heneghan. "Catholics and
Evolution: Interview with Cardinal
Christoph Schönborn", BeliefNet, Jan. 5,
2006 [1]
[80] "Intelligent design" criticized in Vatican
newspaper, NCSE article, January 20,
2006
[81] In "Design" vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins
Point in Rome, Ian Fisher and Cornelia
Dean, New York Times, January 19,
2006.
[82] Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican
director says, Mark Lombard, 1/30/2006,
Catholic Online
[83] http://textonly.itl-usa.org/ahmadi/
ahmadi13.html
[84] GCAG 1977, General Council of the
Assemblies of Godofficial assertion of
creationism
[85] Evangelical Presbyterian Church position
that Bible is "infallible"
[86] Barry 2001, p. 60-61
[87] Official Seventh-day Adventist belief
statement advocating creationism
[88] Prof. Michael J. Ghedotti, "Evolutionary
Biology at Regis, a Jesuit Catholic
School.
[89] Lindsey, George (1985-10-01). "Evolution
- Useful or Useless?" (in english) (asp).
Impact (Institute for Creation Research)
#148. http://www.icr.org/
index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=252.
Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
[90] Wieland, Carl (1999-09-01). "Evolution
and practical science" (in english) (asp).
Creation 20 (4): 4.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp. Retrieved
on 2007-10-22.
[91] Ham, Ken (1998-09-01). "French creation
interview with French scientist Dr André
Eggen" (in english) (asp). Creation 20
(4): 17–19.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
creation/v20/i4/french.asp. Retrieved on
2007-10-22.
[92] Williams, George; Nesse, Randolph M.
(1996). Why we get sick: the new science
of Darwinian medicine. New York:
Vintage Books. p. 304. ISBN
0679746749.
[93] ^ Isaak, Mark (ed.) (2005-10-04). "Index
to Creationist claims: Claim CA215" (in
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
english) (html).
http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CA/
CA215.html. Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
[94] Mindell, David A. (2006). The evolving
world: evolution in everyday life.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
ISBN 0674021916.
[95] Gertzen, Jason; Stafford, Diane
(2005-10-08). "Do Scientists See Kansas,
Missouri As ’Anti-Science’?" (in english).
http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/
265482/
do_scientists_see_kansas_missouri_as_antiscience.
Retrieved on 2007-10-22.
[96] Waging War on Evolution, Paul A. Hanle,
Washington Post, Sunday, October 1,
2006; Page B04
[97] McCarter, James (nd.). "Evolution is a
Winner - for Breakthroughs and Prizes"
(in english) (asp). http://ncseweb.org/
rncse/25/3-4/evolution-is-winner-
breakthroughs-prizes. Retrieved on
2007-10-22. ; originally published in the
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2005-10-09.
[98] List of educational organizations that
support evolution and their statements
about evolution
[99] Teaching About Evolution and the
Nature of Science (1998) Appendix A,
National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.
[100]Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97.
(1968)
[101]Segraves v. California, No. 278978
Sacramento Superior Court (1981)
[102]McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education,
529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 (1982) U.S. Law
Week 2412
[103]Edwards v. Aguillard, 482, U.S. 578, 55
(1987) U.S. Law Week 4860, S. CT. 2573,
96 L. Ed. 2d510
[104]Webster v. New Lenox School District
#122, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th. Cir., 1990)
[105]Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School
District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir., 1994)
[106]Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education,
No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997)
[107]Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment and Memorandum,
Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court
for the Third Judicial District of the State
of Minnesota [2000]
[108]Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
No. 04-2688 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005)
[109]Hurst v. Newman court documents
14
Level of support for evolution
[110]No scientific issue is ever decided by
such argumentum ad populum
(Introduction to Logic, I.M. Copi,
Macmillan, New York, 1978). The only
thing that matters in science is if the
data available match the predictions of a
given scientific theory. As pointed out by
creationist Bert Thompson, "Truth never
is determined by popular opinion or
majority vote." (The Day the Scientists
Voted, Bert Thompson, Apologetics
Press: Sensible Science)
[111]^ Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, Shinji
Okamoto (11 August 2006). "Public
Acceptance of Evolution". Science 313
(5788): 765–766. doi:10.1126/
science.1126746.
[112]Britons unconvinced on evolution
[113]BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life
[114]Public beliefs about evolution and
creation, Robinson, B. A. 1995–2006.
[115]Third of Americans Say Evidence Has
Supported Darwin’s Evolution Theory
Almost half of Americans believe God
created humans 10,000 years ago Frank
Newport Result of 2004 Gallup poll
showing about 45% of the US public
believe in the biblical creation account,
and only 1/3 believe in Darwinian theory.
[116]^ See Majority of Republicans Doubt
Theory of Evolution.
[117]^ Harper, Jennifer (2006-06-09).
"Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine
Creation". http://washingtontimes.com/
national/
20060608-111826-4947r.htm. Archive
copy at the Internet Archive
[118]^ "Evolution and Creationism in Public
Education". People for the American Way
Poll. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/
default.aspx?oid=2097. Retrieved on
2007-10-29.
[119]Leading Scientists Still Reject God,
Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham,
Nature, July 23, 1998
[120]^ 2005 Pew Research Center poll
[121]^ Newport, Frank (2007-06-11).
"Majority of Republicans doubt theory of
evolution". Gallup.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/
?ci=27847. Retrieved on 2007-06-22.
[122]Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe
Human Beings Were Created by God,
The Harris Poll #52, July 6, 2005.
[123]Miller, J.D.; Pardo, R.; Niwa, F. (1997).
Public Perceptions of Science and
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Technology: A Comparative Study of the
European Union, the United States,
Japan, and Canada.
[124]^ Why doesn’t America believe in
evolution?, Jeff Hecht, New Scientist, 20
August 2006
[125]Sailer, Steve (1999-11-20). "A Miracle
Happens Here:" Darwin’s Enemies on
the Right - Part I of a Two Part Series"
(in english) (html). National Post.
http://www.isteve.com/Darwin-
EnemiesonRight.htm. Retrieved on
2007-10-29.
[126]"American Piety in the 21st Century"
(PDF). Baylor Institute for Studies of
Religion. 2006-09-01.
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/
document.php/33304.pdf. Retrieved on
2007-10-29.
[127]^ The Creationists: From Scientific
Creationism to Intelligent Design,
expanded edition, Ronald L. Numbers,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts and London, England,
2006 ISBN-10: 0-674-02339-0
[128]Science, vol 313, p 765
[129]Academics fight rise of creationism at
universities: More students believe
Darwin got it wrong, Royal Society
challenges "insidious problem", Duncan
Campbell, The Guardian, Tuesday
February 21, 2006.
[130]Staff, Discovery Institute (2007-03-08).
"Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s
Theory on the Rise" (in english).
Discovery Institute.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/
viewDB/
index.php?command=view&id=2732.
Retrieved on 2007-10-30.
[131]Evans, Skip (2001-11-29). "Doubting
Darwinism through Creative License".
National Center for Science Education.
http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/
doubting-darwinism-creative-license.
Retrieved on 2007-12-13.
[132]"NSF statistics on science graduates
1966–2001" (in english) (pdf). Ntional
Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/
statistics/nsf04311/pdf/tab42.pdf.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution"
Categories: Creationism, Creationist objections to evolution, Religion and science, Intelligent
design controversies
15
Level of support for evolution
[133]"1999 SESTAT (Scientists and Engineers
Statistical Data) Table C-1" (in english)
(pdf). National Science Foundation/
Science Resources Statistics Division.
http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/preformatted-
tables/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf.
[134]Chang, Kenneth (2006-03-21 language =
english). "Few Biologists But Many
Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution
Petition" (php). The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/
science/sciencespecial2/
21peti.html?_r=1&oref=slogin. ; text
available without registering at
"Skeptical News" (in english) (html).
http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/
news2006-02-25.htm.
[135]Crowther, Robert (2006-06-21). "Dissent
From Darwinism ’Goes Global’ as Over
600 Scientists Around the World Express
Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution"
(in english) (html).
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/
dissent_from_darwinism_goes_gl.html.
Retrieved on 2007-10-30.
References
• Martz, Larry & Ann McDaniel
(1987-06-29), "Keeping God Out of Class
(Washington and bureau reports)",
Newsweek (Newsweek Inc.) CIX (26):
22-23, ISSN 0028-9604
• Matsumura, Molleen (1998), "What Do
Christians Really Believe About
Evolution?", Reports of the National
Center About Evolution (National Center
for Science Education Inc.) 18 (2): 8-9,
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/
en/a/a0/Masumura_1998.pdf> Retrieved
on 2007-02-07
• NCSE, National Center for Science
Education Inc. (2002-12-19), "Statements
from Religious Organizations", NCSE
Resource (National Center for Science
Education Inc.), <http://ncseweb.org/
media/voices/religion> Retrieved on
2007-02-08
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Level of support for evolution

This page was last modified on 15 May 2009, at 05:09 (UTC). All text is available under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a
registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-
deductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

16