According to a recent Gallup poll, 46% of Americans believe that "God" created humans as told in the bible story. That compares to 44% in 1982. Add to that, believers in Intelligent Design came in 2nd at 32%, and believers in actual evolution were 3rd at 15%.
There was also a somewhat expected split between Republicans and Democrats - Among Repubs, 60% were creationist, but among Dems 41% were creationist (Does that average out to 46% of all Americans? Maybe Independents and Apathetics skew the averages)
Disappointing. I thought we were evolving faster than that. Inability to evolve is not a good long term strategy.
Why are people so afraid to evolve.... Or except the overwhelming amount of evidence for it. They will just keep getting their wisdom teeth and appendixes removed and never question why they have too...
i've been arguing with idiots at TheBlaze.com about this all morning. the comments are so stupid and misinformed. it's shows either:
a. a complete failure of our educational system to teach Science
b. a complete failure of Christianity to allow their constituents to think critically
i'm thinking it's B.
I think it’s a little of both. While reading your comment I felt compelled to add something else.
The war on public education--championed by conservatives--has created a system in many public schools of attempting to determine at early ages which kids are “college material” and which ones are not. Setting aside the nonsense of selectively giving up on children without attempting to include relevant factors such as: family life; health; disability status; poverty; and more public education has largely created a system that pools vast resources behind a chosen few and provides almost nothing to most of our young people.
While it’s true that not everyone is going to college it’s just as true that by giving up on so many children and failing to help them learn as much as they can America’s educational system is perpetuating a continuous class of undereducated people who lack the tools necessary to critically think. The decisions of the politicians and educators to abandon so many have had a great deal to do with the reality that so many Americans simply do not grasp the most basic of concepts. So, how can we ever expect them to be able to reject a system of belief that is rammed down their throat and has been adopted by so many?
You are right in a sense, there is evidence that an individual's brain does change with time - increase in synapses; and there are external factors that influence synapse formation. such as here, from Massachusetts General Hospital "Studies suggest that neurons that are adversely affected by factors such as stress, lack of stimulation, or neurotoxins may be hampered in their ability to form new patterns of connectivity and may lose synaptic connections. It is generally agreed that learning occurs when the acquisition of new information causes synaptic changes, but scientists are not yet certain precisely how these changes come about."
So, it's thought, that the less you think, the more you lose the ability think.
However, that change is not passed on to the next generation - a term called Lamarkism.
The word "evolution" has more than one meaning - see definition here - including "any kind of gradual change". A person's thoughts can evolve without any chance whatsoever of passing that change on to another generation, and even John D is evolving. John D has chosen to claim to know the one and only definition for evolution, regardless of the actual meaning and accepted uses of the word, or the somewhat dry tongue-in-cheek title of this post (ie, the joke that people have not "evolved" on "evolution").
From the wikipedia definition,
"The term evolution (from its literal meaning of "unfolding" of something into its true or explicit form) carries a connotation of gradual improvement or directionality from a beginning to an end point. This contrasts with the more general development, which can indicate change in any direction, or revolution, which implies recurring, periodic change."
As for directionality of evolutionary change you have a point - although again, there is that definition. When a species is ideally suited for its niche, it can remain essentially unchanged for a very long time. That actually makes the species less robust genetically, meaning that if there is invasion of exotic species or change in the ecosystem, the formerly unchanging species can go extinct. By introducing random changes in a species' DNA (genotype) that are then expressed as changes in an individual's anatomy, biochemistry, or behavior, if those changes improve ability to survive and pass on DNA, then although mutation is random and without "intent" the effect of evolution is directional. For neutral changes - it's anyone's guess. For detrimental changes, which happen much more than beneficial changes, the ability to survive is decreased, and often those changes are lost as "dead end". Often but not always.
There is also social evolution, in which societies change and take on different characteristics, which is also the point of this post, but don't say it too loud or John's head might explode, ruling out any further evolution on his part.
It is social intimidation or a type of mob mentality...monkey see/hear then mokey do/say/believe. That is why I think it is SO important for more of us to come out so that others will no longer fear atheists or atheists thought-processes. I came out at one job when a small minded woman cornered me and turns out another atheist and a near-atheist worked there, too! But, I had to come out before they would.