Americans Behind in Accepting Evolution

December 6, 2006 § 36 Comments

The United States ranks behind 32 other nations in the acceptance of evolution. In 2005 a survey conducted by researchers (2 US and 1 Japanese) identified the US as second to last in the acceptance of evolution because of how adults answered the following question,

“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” (J. Wheaton, Wheat-Doggs World)

The results for the US were: 40%, true; not sure, 21% and 29% answered false. Turkey was the only nation of the 34 that scored lower than the US with an acceptance rate of around 23 percent. Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and France however, all scored an acceptance rating of 80% or higher. Jon Miller, co-author of the study and Professor at Michigan State University suggests that there is one main factor that contributed to the low scores of American adults, fundamentalist religions as he concedes,

The total effect of fundamentalist religious beliefs on attitude toward evolution was nearly twice as much in the United Sates, which indicates that individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God, and who pray frequently, were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views”. (NSTA Report)

These findings are interesting and give some indication on how likely religious influence has here in the U.S. socio-economic and especially the socio-political consciousness. I would like to poll some of my readers just for a quick scan, how many of you believe that,

“Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.”

It will be interesting to see your responses and discussions on this issue.

Advertisements

§ 36 Responses to Americans Behind in Accepting Evolution

  • I accept this as true – “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.”

    And I will show my hand. I am a disbeliever in the existence of a god or gods. Having said that, I am still amazed that many people who ARE theists do not accept the theory of evolution.

    There is nothing in the “rule book of life” that says that evolution was NOT part of god’s plan. Unless of course, you believe literally in the creation of the earth in 6 days. These people DO have great difficulty in accepting evolution.

    For many other people, however, evolution is no threat to their god belief.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    beepbeepitsme,

    Thank you for braving the American undercurrent against evolution and raising your hand in support of evolution, on a religiously-inclined blog no less. However, there is no need to feel as though you are making a statement against the grain on this blog. Islam has a different idea of creation and evolution than American Evangelists. In fact you may find it rather inviting, as Islamic Creationism allows enough room for a reasonable scientific analysis of the origin of the universe, which is not incompatible with traditional Islamic thought.

    For example, writer Abdul-Wahid Hamid explains that,

    “To say, as many do, that human beings came from or evolved from other creatures or that they originated from water, or that ther was a big bang and everything just happened to fall in place, does not really answer the question about the origin of the universe and all that is in it, including human beings.”

    That is to say, that evolution does not negate the existence of a Creator. Therefore, Islam has within its school of thought a scientific approach to Creationism that is not new however, overlooked (or avoided) by American Creationists.

    wasalaam

  • John Burgess says:

    Not throwing any stones here, but you might notice the lack of any mention of evolution in the Saudi curriculum. Some Muslims, clearly, find the idea unacceptable.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “Not throwing any stones here, but you might notice the lack of any mention of evolution in the Saudi curriculum.”

    John, you know if you put that out you have to be more specific. That is a unfair and dangerous generalization, the “Saudi curriculum” does not give much for the non-Saudi Western Sunni (national or immigrant) audience or the ever-curious non-Muslim audience that does not have a clue to who (what group) you are speaking of.

    So please, for the sake of my audience, explain more on the dissent of evolution in Saudi Arabia than labeling dissent from the “Saudi curriculum”. Yes, Saudi Arabia has a religious majority as does every religion in every country, that is not to say that it is not of importance but for clarity. I would appreciate it.

    wasalaam

  • Adam C says:

    Can we expect “Europeans Are Behind In Accepting God” as the next installment? Because if academia had any interest in doing so, they would find pretty easily that Europeans lag Americans in accepting God.

    Word choice matters. And until someone finds an actual animal that fits somewhere between ape and human, evolution is still a theory.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “Can we expect “Europeans Are Behind In Accepting God” as the next installment?”

    Excellent Adam, yes… I will start framing the thesis and do some brainstorming exercises over the weekend, however we may not have the same ideas about what the above statement means in terms of perspective. In addition, I cannot predict when I will publish the article but it is coming, thanks.

    “And until someone finds an actual animal that fits somewhere between ape and human, evolution is still a theory.”

    Not necessarily, you are assuming only one branch (possibility) of evolve, when there are thousands upon thousands of actual possibilities concerning genetic mutations in the homo species. You conclusion is that man came from ape and therefore there is a missing link, that is a theory yes, but there are more reasonable conclusions these days, it is interesting stuff, not really my bag but interesting none the less.

    wasalaam

  • DrM says:

    Yes, evolution is a theory but ideological atheists treat it as if its scientific canon. Many of them aren’t even scientists. No matter how many babies I’ve delivered, I am always dumbstruck by creation and the miracle that produces it.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “Yes, evolution is a theory but ideological atheists treat it as if its scientific canon.”

    Yes I know, but Dr.M it for the Athiests is their rejection of faith and the unconscious torment this places on a soul as the result of the impending doom which they have resolved in. It is said by Abdul-Wahid Hamid in Islam: the natural way that,

    “In time, using reason, some people find themselves in all honesty, being unable to accept the fantastic claims that are made of a religion or they see that these religions are unable to provide adequate or satisfying answers to the many aspects of life an human relationships. They reject this religion and because this is the only religion they know, they think that all religion is the same and so they reject religion as such altogether and the belief in God altogether. This is how, atheism, humanism and secularism have arisen in the West and under its influence spread to different parst of the world.”

    I have so much compassion for the atheist and the like because they were able to get out of one rut only to find themselves in another, I’m sure I will be criticized for implying that Islam is the only solution but, that is not what I mean. I mean that the acceptance, acknowledgment and surrender that an incircumscriptable God (not necessarily a being) is the origin of life in its essence.

    wasalaam

  • Adam C says:

    I don’t think intra-species evolution is debated much. The main contention is that some people want creationism taught alongside species-to-species evolution as different theories. I think one of those views has a lot more evidence supporting it, but neither has definitive proof. Since there isn’t proof, I’m less worried that Americans aren’t “accepting” it. It could be proof of a good skepticism.

    On the other hand, it would not surprise me to find Americans are behind in knowning certain facts (rather than theories) on major issues. For example, IIRC Americans trail on world geography and math skills. Those things worry me much more than how many Americans accept an unproved, although strongly supported, theory on evolution.

    My suggestion on belief in God is just meant to show that a widespread accepted theory (the existence of God) should not be the standard for how good education is. We should be measuring things based on skills and facts more than theories.

  • Adam C says:

    Final note. Thanks for participating at RS. I look forward to hearing more from you. My in-laws are all Muslim so I have a somewhat interesting perspective on the American Muslim community. It’s nice to have some Muslims posting on RS about issues and doing so without trying to provoke a confrontation. I appreciate the focus on dialogue.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “Since there isn’t proof, I’m less worried that Americans aren’t “accepting” it. It could be proof of a good skepticism.”

    Perhaps…

    “For example, IIRC Americans trail on world geography and math skills. Those things worry me much more than how many Americans accept an unproved, although strongly supported, theory on evolution.”

    We share that worry… I am a father of three and I have been intent on circumventing the problem areas of education in my state. There is much to be desired there but education in the states is still better than most.

    “We should be measuring things based on skills and facts more than theories.”

    Agreed.

    “Thanks for participating at RS. I look forward to hearing more from you.”

    I’m happy to be there, I may be a little slow on the posting, because I would like to contemplate the direction of my posts on RS, before I publish more. By the way JohnE of RS is someone else who will engage dialogue for the sake of dialogue, very refreshing. I look forward to more discussions.

    wasalaam

  • JR786 says:

    Adam C’s comments about RS are priceless. Abu Sahajj is about to learn the Muslim version of Leo Rosten’s definition of a Kike: A Jewish gentleman who has just left the room.

    RS routinely welcomes commentators who mock Islam, despise Muslims and openly call for either deportation or some form of loyalty screening for American Muslims, at the same time it thoughtfully waves Israeli flags while Muslim children aren’t even cold in their graves.

    RS a thinly disguised hate site, an LGF without the profanity; if Bonin is telling the truth about his in-laws it would be interesting to hear what they think of the anti-Muslim bashing that informs the site. If Abu Sahajj is interested perhaps Adam can prorvide him with some of the remarks and responses that other Muslims have experienced: Or were we just being ‘confronational’? Or maybe it’s not necessary, Abu Sahajj will shortly find out what the Muslim equivalent of a kike is.

  • DrM says:

    Wow JR896, thanks for the heads up. I’m not surprised though that the wingnut scum are staying true to form.
    One of the classic mistakes athiests often make is to lump in all religions together. I once had a spirited discussion with an athiest who thought he could use the Bible as a template to attack the Quran. He didn’t have much to say after finding out :

    Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (The Noble Quran, 21:30)

    Apparently he wasn’t prepared for that one from his book of failed atheist tactics. Its really a matter of intellectual and philisophical dishonesty. It’s shameful and an impediment to any real debate.

  • Dean Esmay says:

    I quite believe that human beings evolved from lower animals.

    I’m fairly well convinced that resistance to this idea has two causes in America:

    1) Many people come to America fleeing religious persecution, and have from the beginning. Thus we wind up with a lot more people to whom religion is deeply important.

    2) I honestly believe that a series of court decisions starting in the 1960s, which bypassed the normal electoral processes, led to a deepening resentment of the courts, and of science itself, on the part of tens of millions of parents.

    Look at the European countries and you’ll find few if any of them banned “creationism” from school science books by court fiat. Their elected governments, in which all people could voice an opinion and express their wishes by ballot, was how those countries arrived where we did.

    We told all these people, by comparison, to shut up and take it–essentially, we rammed the science down their throats with the blunt instrument of the courts, and called them names if they objected.

    This has been terribly detrimental to science education in this country, and we’re still dealing with its aftermath even now.

    This view doesn’t make me popular in some quarters, but it’s what I’ve thought for years now.

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    Thanks for your response Dean, its always nice when a highly respected blogger such as yourself makes a comment on Wa Salaam.

    “We told all these people, by comparison, to shut up and take it–essentially, we rammed the science down their throats with the blunt instrument of the courts, and called them names if they objected.”

    By the way you realize they are trying to do the same thing with ID, and ID by the way is far from a completed theory (NPR Commentary on ID in Classrooms).

    wasalaam

  • Dean Esmay says:

    Hi Wasalaam. Thanks for the kind words.

    But I can’t say I see it your way entirely on that. I see it pretty much as these parents see it: these ideas were allowed to be discussed in the science classes and the science textbooks all along. Then suddenly they were forced out, by brute force, over the objections of the parents. The courts ORDERED these ideas out of the textbooks, and damn whatever the parents or the elected school board officials had to say about it.

    Since then, those who want these ideas back into the discussion in their children’s classrooms have tried all sorts of compromises and been slapped down, attacked, and vilified no matter how they accomplish it.

    Thus, as I see it, those virulently opposing any mention of creationist-type ideas in the science classroom are, essentially, taking the position of William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey trial. Which I will remind you was not about whether or not evolution should be allowed to be taught at all, but whether its discussion should be banned.

    But banning is exactly what the anti-ID forces seek. Oh, they make noises about wanting to put it into religion or philosophy classes, maybe. Which misses the point.

    We are talking about educating children, which is something that parents should have the ultimate control over. And by BANNING these things from the science classroom, we have caused tens of millions of parents to simply tell their children that scientists are intellectual cowards and that science teachers are intellectual bullies.

    This is horribly counterproductive.

    I say let these ideas in. They would take up perhaps a page or two of a textbook. Hell, let’s have the kids go ahead and debate creation vs. evolution in science class, why not? The kids will profit from the debate even if they come away with different impressions.

    WHat we’re creating now is a climate wherein people are fearful just to speak their minds. It’s not much different than it was in the Scopes days, and that’s very sad to me.

  • Dean Esmay says:

    But I do note something:

    It is interesting, is it not, that BOTH sides in this debate feel that they are the ones under attack, and that BOTH sides feel like they are defending something?

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “And by BANNING these things from the science classroom, we have caused tens of millions of parents to simply tell their children that scientists are intellectual cowards and that science teachers are intellectual bullies.”

    Yes it is an interesting shake-up! So are you in favor of introducing students to ID? Do you believe it is Creationism masked in scientific jargon? I agree 100% with you that,

    “The kids will profit from the debate even if they come away with different impressions.”

    I think the result of legislative imposition in science classrooms has dumbed down the science classroom and stolen some shine away from scientific analysis. There must be an element of the unknown, this is what intrigues the scientist to know, hence the etymologic root scientia Latin. (to know). It is interesting to note that the Qur’an allows the flexibility for evolution to be possible, however some Muslims are in staunch opposition to the possibility as much as Evagelicals. Thanks again Dean… it means a lot.

    wasalaam

  • Dean Esmay says:

    I believe that ID is actually an effort to wedge creationist concepts back into the classroom. I do believe that. I think that’s transparently what this is all about–although, I also leave open the possibility that maybe, at some point, the anvil of scrutiny might be forcing them to be more scientific about what they believe.

    And again, I do NOT believe they have a science, although I marvel at how sophisticated the arguments they have created actually are, and I leave open the possibility that they may at some point produce something scientifically beneficial. I think the odds are against it, but, let them try.

    I go to a much more primitive level: there are a ton of parents who are uncomfortable with Darwinism, and they just want to discuss that n the science classroom. And I think that the more angry and defensive we become against that, the more counterproductive we are being.

    Screw it, let the 4th graders discuss and debate this. Why not? Are their brains going to melt? Or will they learn the most important lesson: that science is about asking questions fearlessly?

    Screw it man! What is really going to be the damage to my 9 year old (currently in 4th grade) if in science class he encounters an argument about this? What, the kids can’t handle the argument, they can’t handle the debate? It’s going to destroy them to learn that “oh gosh, a lot of people have problems with Darwin-so let’s discuss it???”

    I think the scientific/rationnalist community is getting this totally wrong. The theists think it is themselves who are under attack, and they’re just trying to insert themselves back into the debate. They don’t want to be forced out by court order. But seriously: what are we afraid of? The kids can’t handle the debate? They’re just zombies who must be force-fed whatever is in the textbooks? Come on, give the kids more credit. Let the kids know what the debate is, and let them discuss it. There is obviously some controversy here. No, maybe not a scientific controversy, but it is a controversy that their parents and some faiths have issues with. So why are we afraid to have them debate it? Come on goddamn it, my 9 year old son is no zombie who just regurgitates whatever the textbooks say. Let’s let the kids go ahead and have the conversation. Why not? Is that better than telling them that THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE NOT ALLOWED, especially by court decree?

    I don’t know, people think I’m a radical on this but seriously: what is the EXACT damage that will be done to these 9 year old minds? And shouldn’t parents have at least SOME control over the curriculum that the schools they pay taxes for teach?

    What gets to me is this: what EXACT damage do you think will accrue to these kids? WHat is it about the discussion that is so awful that they shouldn’t hear about it?

  • Abu Sahajj says:

    “I don’t know, people think I’m a radical on this but seriously: what is the EXACT damage that will be done to these 9 year old minds?”

    I’m not exactly sure its 9 year olds that are the threat. What about a 19 year old? Last year in highschool, these are emotive times for youth and also a time where self-identity is very important, so quite possibly the threat lies in debate amongst the elder student, in junior high or high school perhaps.

  • John says:

    In the public schools, theory of evolution isn’t dealt with until students reach 8th/9th grade. That is where the controversy has focused. At that point, however, it is integral to a well-developed biology curriculum, and if students wish to continue in the sciences in college. There are foundations to later learning though set down in the earlier grades that makes learning easier later on. For example, children learning about dinosaurs, geological layers, the fossil record, mutations, and so on.

    I would like to point out that “theory” in science is very different a term in meaning, than the way we use it conventionally. We do know evolution to be the case today. There is an enormous body of evidence, ever growing, to support it.

    Here’s a helpful site to learn more. There is an essay at that website that also discusses reconciling religious beliefs with an understanding of evolution. I recommend it.

    http://talkorigins.org/

    I am a theist and find no conflict between faith and the scientific understanding that we evolved from other forms of life.

    I think part of the difficulties in the schools have been three-fold. One, there has been a very well-funded and orchestrated theocratic movement through the Discovery Institute. Fortunately, they have dropped out of the limelight lately since the judge’s decisive and excellent ruling in the Dover case. I think we are, however, vulnerable to these kinds of influences in the United States because of the rise of fundamentalism along with a decline in the quality of education, including sciences, mathematics, critical thinking skills, and an understanding of Constitutional issues.

  • Hakim says:

    “I think we are, however, vulnerable to these kinds of influences in the United States because of the rise of fundamentalism along with a decline in the quality of education, including sciences, mathematics, critical thinking skills, and an understanding of Constitutional issues.”

    Overall perhaps, however, the issues of quality in education mentioned occur primarily in liberal-blue states where fundamentalism does not have the same presence. So how do you explain the connection?

  • John says:

    “Overall perhaps, however, the issues of quality in education mentioned occur primarily in liberal-blue states where fundamentalism does not have the same presence. So how do you explain the connection?”

    I do not see on what basis you assert that these educational issues occur primarily in liberal-blue states.

  • Hakim says:

    “I do not see on what basis you assert that these educational issues occur primarily in liberal-blue states.”

    On the “basis” that most education problems of this country are found with the poor of the inner-city. Is this not true? The lowest test scores in the country come from poor children in: New York, Los Angelos, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Baltimore, Detroit, etc. Is this not correct?

    Furthermore, are these not cities in blue-states? Aren’t christian fundamentalists a great minority in liberal-blue states? Thus, you see the basis of my assertion. Do you disagree?

  • John says:

    I have no disagreement with you about the quality of education in the inner city schools. Though we could probably argue for weeks about whether or not that has to do with being a red or blue state. After all, there are very high ranking districts in blue states and there are inner cities in red states.

    But so what?

    I am not really clear on what your point is here, in regard to challenges to the teaching of evolution in the schools, and what I stated earlier.

    The Discovery Institute led a well coordinated, well funded, and well documented political campaign targeting school districts throughout the country, likely leaving the inner cities alone. Though they are just as vulnerable, but for different reasons, in my opinion.

    Last I heard, their most well-publicized efforts were in Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. Red states. And not in the inner cities. Although I heard a little about efforts in New York State too.

    If you have a community with a pocket of politically active fundamentalist bible-beaters, however small but loud-mouthed, a scientifically ignorant or fundamentalist-led school board, and an uninformed voting populace, you are vulnerable whether or not you are in a democratic or republican district.

    One doesn’t have to be a democrat or a republican to have an understanding of the importance of science education, nor does belonging to either party necessitate that one is ignorant of evolution either.

  • Hakim says:

    “I am not really clear on what your point is here, in regard to challenges to the teaching of evolution in the schools, and what I stated earlier.”

    I am attempting to reason out your conclusion that,

    “[P]art of the difficulties in the schools have been three-fold.”

    Where you go on to explain this saying,

    “One, there has been a very well-funded and orchestrated theocratic movement through the Discovery Institute.

    and also that

    “[W]e are, however, vulnerable to these kinds of influences in the United States because of the rise of fundamentalism…

    As well as,

    “[A] decline in the quality of education, including sciences, mathematics, critical thinking skills, and an understanding of Constitutional issues.”

    My point is that although the decline of the aformentioned areas are a national issue, there is a significant difference in the decline of education in liberal-blue states, where Christian-fundamentlism is not present, than that of typically conservative red states where Christian-fundamentalism is popular. So how do you explain these vulnerabilities and their effects on the U.S. by way of poor education and fundamentalism when the two seem unrelated? How does this work in three-fold as you claim? Can you explain the problem a little further? Do you mean resistance to discussions on God in school?

    Perhaps, you may have misunderstood my position? Afterall, I am all for discussions on God in the classroom. Whereas, I would like to see philosophy added to the curriculum as a standard for middle and highschool kids. Perhaps, ibn Khaldun, al-Ghazali, Max Weber, Marx and others would be helpful to shape the coming age of a pluralist society. Because, ultimately, there can be no discussions of philosophy without discussions on God, agree?

  • John says:

    I think there has been an organized political attack on science education in the United States. It is not that new, if one looks back at things like the “Scopes Monkey Trial.” But it can more easily rear its head in places, time and again, depending on any number of factors, including fundamentalism in the local community, the overall national decline of education in the areas mentioned earlier, local school board politics, the activities and education of teachers and parents in various districts (which may not be colored according to the state’s leanings).

    Science is a non-theistic, non-partisan (one would hope) venture, and I think persons’ difficulties with evolution are sometimes because they do not understand that evolution is not a falsification of their religious beliefs, unless of course they adhere (for example) to a young earth creationist view of the world, or what is often called a literalist approach to the Bible.

    I am not opposed to some discussions of God in the public school classrooms depending on the context, subject material, and the approach of the teacher.

    But I think we get into some tricky territory here because of the 1st Amendment — which I wholeheartedly subscribe to.

    For example, one school I read about instituted a Bible as Literature elective. Sounds fine, right? We’re not doing religion, and it’s not required. But the teacher was not really approaching the Bible as literature; rather along the lines of what one might get in Sunday school, with a few discrete pedagogical twists to try to circumvent the Constitution.

    I agree that God issues (?) are part of well-rounded philosophy education, and I think it’s wonderful if students have the opportunity to examine these questions in a secular public school environment. Quality philosophy education addresses the decline of critical thinking skills in our nation. Of course, you are presenting a plethora of thinkers. One can have their hands full, and especially at those ages, just reading one, and never even talking about some of the philosophical questions I understand you as raising. For example, some high school history teachers incorporate Karl Marx. But they’re rather unusual, and I think, in that context (i.e. high school history), religious-philosophical questions aren’t part of the undertaking. They are more concerned with Marx’s criticism of capitalism.

    But IMO, if parents want their children to learn religion, they should do so outside public school classroom time, and insofar as science education is concerned, stop using their children as political pawns to disrupt valuable classroom time in biology for everyone else.

    We do seem to keep missing each other, and I’m not sure exactly why (I have not read your blog opinions in their entirety), but I hope this better clarifies where I’m coming from.

  • John says:

    I agree, however, from your comments that the term “three-fold” is likely inappropriate, as there are obviously other factors too.

  • John says:

    Upon further thought, I suggest that your philosophy proposal should be required curriculum for students and teacher education in the sense that people learn to make distinctions between theistic and non-theistic issues. Or the difference between what constitutes faith or reason.

    Even a student from a home that teaches him/her a literalist young earth creationist view of the universe should be able to garner that he/she does not have to agree with material, but must be able to understand and explain it.

    Likewise, we should not be hiring teachers (so poorly educated that that they) stand up in history classes (as in New Jersey) and tell students that there is no factual basis for evolutionary biology. Or that he (the techer) believes Muslims are going to hell. Which was the subject of a recent article concerning a student who taped such comments made by a teacher (lacking critical thinking skills).

    Now that student’s father is considering a law suit against the district.

    And with good reason IMO.

    Thank God we have a Constitution with the 1st Amendment.

    And thank you for an interesting blog and the opportunity to contribute.

    Happy New Year all.

  • jbruno says:

    Right on, John.

    Classroom is a very general term. Science classrooms seem to be what are being discussed here, and since God/gods cannot be studied and described through the methods of science, they should not be discussed in the science classroom. I think that is the issue at its core.

    I don’t really think science was “rammed” down anyone’s throat. I think scientists and the federal government were trying to officially describe what science is all about so there would not be anymore creationist spearheads into science education. Unfortunately, it had to be done again recently with the ID folks.

    It’s been said many times before; unlike some other fields, science does not have a democratic process and is not subject to anyone’s opinions for very good reason. This issue is serious business. If we let supernatural discussions enter into a science classroom, we may disrupt future generations’ understanding of science, and perhaps the structural integrity of the scientific community. That’s why scientists and “rationalists” (a general term that has no meaning) have reacted so strongly. I applaud their efforts.

    Good discussion, nice to hear different points of view, btw.

  • Ann says:

    In the U.S., there’s a false argument set up on the question of evolution; you either have yo accept Darwin’s theory of evolution or you have to accept creationism… as if there’s no other choice.

    For anyone who hasn’t read Harun Yahya, take a look at his “Evolution Deceit”: and other articles, which are available at his website: http://www.harunyahya.com

  • jbruno says:

    Please, spare me. Any website claiming to hold the “truth” within is suspect right off the top.

  • jbruno says:

    Believe what you will. Let’s not forget that evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical assertion, and is based on the available evidence.

  • Dr. X says:

    Hakim,

    re: your trackback to my post, The Genesis Account of Evolution

    Thank you for alerting me to this post and to your very interesting site. I’ve added you to my blogroll and intend to visit frequently.

    Best,

    Dr. X.

  • Dr. X says:

    Link to my post referenced above:

    http://tinyurl.com/ybl6nz

  • Hakim says:

    “Thank you for alerting me to this post and to your very interesting site. I’ve added you to my blogroll and intend to visit frequently.”

    No problem Dr. X, I’m glad that I found your site. I have added you to my blogroll as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Americans Behind in Accepting Evolution at SEYFETTİN.

meta

%d bloggers like this: