Only 15% of Americans accept evolution.

[Avenio]

Yes, you absolutely do "believe" in Evolution. You take scientist at their word (Both written and spoken) that what they are saying is true.

You assume that there aren't any people who are experts or have access to the data in question here.

That is foolish of you.

[Ostroeuropa]

Poll fail for stupid options.

You don't "believe in Evolution". Evolution ain't religion. No faith required.

Yes, you absolutely do "believe" in Evolution. You take scientist at their word (Both written and spoken) that what they are saying is true. Mostly because being an expert in every field of science and being capable of independently verifying every single statement/experiment is impossible. Humans do not live long enough to do this.

I have no idea why people insist on being so pedantic, but it is annoying. We should stop that.

No.
We take practically EVERY scientist at their word, when it is INCREDIBLY in their personal interest to disprove it if they could.
statements against interest are counted as proof in courts, by the way.
It counts here too.

They have nothing to gain from backing evolution if it isn't true and they know it. And these ARE the people who run experiments.
They have EVERYTHING to gain if they find out it's untrue.

[Neu Acadie]

Yes, you absolutely do "believe" in Evolution. You take scientist at their word (Both written and spoken) that what they are saying is true.

You assume that there aren't any people who are experts or have access to the data in question here.

That is foolish of you.

I address this in the next part of my post that you cut out.

Mostly because being an expert in every field of science and being capable of independently verifying every single statement/experiment is impossible. Humans do not live long enough to do this.

I have no idea why people insist on being so pedantic, but it is annoying. We should stop that.

You see that part I underlined to help you read it, and not skip over it so you can score a point? Yeah, that's pretty important to what you just said. You should probably read the entire post before replying.

[Neu Acadie]

No.
We take practically EVERY scientist at their word, when it is INCREDIBLY in their personal interest to disprove it if they could.
statements against interest are counted as proof in courts, by the way.
It counts here too.

They have nothing to gain from backing evolution if it isn't true and they know it. And these ARE the people who run experiments.
They have EVERYTHING to gain if they find out it's untrue.

I don't think you understand. Just because they have no demonstrable reason to lie to us does not make it any less so that we simply take them at their word. Another way of saying this is that we believe them when they tell us something. This is also known as "belief". We believe that scientist are telling us the truth. The end. No further statement is required beyond this point. There is no greater point I am trying to make. I am not trying to conflate our belief in the truth of scientist telling us about their ideas and religious faith or anything of the sort.

[Avenio]

You assume that there aren't any people who are experts or have access to the data in question here.

That is foolish of you.

I address this in the next part of my post that you cut out.

Mostly because being an expert in every field of science and being capable of independently verifying every single statement/experiment is impossible. Humans do not live long enough to do this.

I have no idea why people insist on being so pedantic, but it is annoying. We should stop that.

You see that part I underlined to help you read it, and not skip over it so you can score a point? Yeah, that's pretty important to what you just said. You should probably read the entire post before replying.

Oh, I read it. The part I quoted was merely the most salient point.

In any case, you're making another rather pointed mistake in your argument; that one either needs to be an expert in the field of evolution to understand the data in question and, fundamentally, the complexity and depth of data required to prove the validity of evolution as a concept.

Most countries with competent governments provide the relevant data in high schools in just a few classes, in fact, such is the simplicity and quality of the data available.

[Mike the Progressive]

She blinded me with... SCIENCE!

[Genivaria]

She blinded me with... SCIENCE!

And intense UV rays.

[Neu Acadie]

Oh, I read it. The part I quoted was merely the most salient point.

In any case, you're making another rather pointed mistake in your argument; that one either needs to be an expert in the field of evolution to understand the data in question and, fundamentally, the complexity and depth of data required to prove the validity of evolution as a concept.

No. My point is that one needs to be an expert to understand and conduct their own independent research and verification of other experiments to verify the truth value of what scientist are telling you. In every field of science to be able to do so for every set of science and its related data and theories. Otherwise, even if you are an expert in any particular field of science, you cannot verify the truth value through your own independent research and verification because you lack subject matter expertise to make an accurate assessment of the truth value. This is also known as "belief". Belief in the idea that scientist have no reason to lie and thus are telling the truth as they best know it. The end.

Sorry that you misunderstood what I said.

Most countries with competent governments provide the relevant data in high schools in just a few classes, in fact, such is the simplicity and quality of the data available.

Except this has nothing to do with what I was saying.

[Mike the Progressive]

She blinded me with... SCIENCE!

And intense UV rays.

Huh, and I thought those fluids were just the result of her having an orgasm. But yes, intense UV rays it was!

[Arkinesia]

I know that most Americans are absolutely illiterate scientifically, but really, 15%? That's less than one in six.

I doubt that 15% of Americans are atheists in the first place, so...

Yeah, honestly, the amount of Americans who are actually atheist is said to be around 4%. Most of the group are most likely agnostic or some religion that doesn't involve a specific creation myth.

I'm in the 32% who say God was involved but honestly I don't think the specifics of the creation story that Christians squabble over so much is as important as said people make it out to be.

[Jinwoy]

The source is a fairly conservative site.
Though it may not be shocking if it were true, I somewhat doubt the source enough to justify my own result that this number was pulled straight from depths of assland.

[Battenburgia]

I'm in the 32% who say God was involved .

yeah but which God? There are so many, not to mention all those goddesses

[Vortiaganica]

I'm in the 32% who say God was involved .

yeah but which God? There are so many, not to mention all those goddesses

I assume that the survey did not specify, albeit I admit I didn't bother to read the linked article.

Reading the linked article is not how we do things here in NSG unless, like, the discussion's unique.

[Alien Space Bats]

I look at the graph and see little real movement since 1982. What's the problem?

[Herigjen]

problem with religion discusion such as these is that there is no midle ground. there are two groups those who belive you will burn in hel for eternety if you dont throw rocks at gay people and those who belive your iq is less then 70 if you ever have considered the posibilety of God. Problem is that most of us is somewhere in the midle, I dont count myself as a religius man, and I dont care much of what other think, and I am defenety not leting my life being ruled by a 2000 year old book. Still I think there is a chanse there is some sort of deity, and where does that leave me? To answer the OPs pool, I would chose the second option, that humans evolved on its own, with the help of a god, but that does not make me reject sience. I also belive in Karma, I think that good things happen to people who do good, that does not mean I sit down and wait for good things to happen. It makes me go out and do more good things then bad. So what is the problem

[Arkinesia]

I'm in the 32% who say God was involved .

yeah but which God? There are so many, not to mention all those goddesses

I mentioned Christian schisms.

Does that clue you in y/n

[Dyakovo]

Yes, how dare we believe in a God.

It's possible to believe in a deity and still accept reality.

[Aryavartha]

Frankly, I don't give a shit what the general public believes. It doesn't really matter. What matters is whether or not the people who run our country are idiots.

Unfortunately, they are.

politicians don't jump out of sky. they come from general public.

After a while, this nonsense percolates to all levels and affects everyone.

[North Stradia]

The problem with religion discussions such as these is that there is no middle ground. There are two groups: those who believe you will burn in hell for eternity if you don't throw rocks at gay people, and those who believe your IQ is less than 70 if you ever have considered the possibility of God. The problem is that most of us are somewhere in the middle. I don't count myself as a religious man, I don't care much about what others think, and I am definitely not letting my life be ruled by a 2000 year old book. Still, I think there is a chance that there is some sort of deity, and where does that leave me? To answer the OP's poll, I would choose the second option, that humans evolved on their own, with the help of a god, but that does not make me reject science. I also believe in Karma; I think that good things happen to people who do good. That does not mean I sit down and wait for good things to happen. It makes me go out and do more good things than bad. So what is the problem?

A little proofreading goes a long way, my friend.

[Battenburgia]

yeah but which God? There are so many, not to mention all those goddesses

I mentioned Christian schisms.

Does that clue you in y/n

no not really...the graph doesn't specify which god is being talked about. It was clear you assumed it was the christian god, but how do you know about the other people?

Surely you are not claiming that there's just one god?

[Lietuvos]

One does not "believe" in a scientific hypothesis; therefore the question put to us here itself is wrong. But that and the fact that all proof requires some further proof and so on to infinity aside, of course evidence suggests that the theory of evolution is what happened and happens. (This might be redundant, but of course I use the word "theory" as in "scientific theory".)

[Azurand]

Thankfully, the Americans (unexpectedly) are still sane.

[North Stradia]

Thankfully, the Americans (unexpectedly) are still sane.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

[Azurand]

Thankfully, the Americans (unexpectedly) are still sane.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

What would you say, you Atheofascist? Would you dare to question the Almighty?

Note: Both of my posts are half-serious

[Dyakovo]

Thankfully, the Americans (unexpectedly) are still sane.

How is "almost half the population not accepting reality" a sign of sanity?