Ummm...sloppy writing combined with typical journalistic ignorance, perhaps?

Do you happen to have a link to the survey that came to the 20% conclusion?

I'm curious as to how the question was posed and the survey conducted.

In the early nineties, there was a widely reported survey clearly demonstrating nearly 70% of the US public didn't believe the Holocaust happened. Unfortunately, the reporting failed to show the question asked, which was a logical and grammatical nightmare.

That doesn't mean the survey you cite is similar, but it is worth knowing the background the number.

Can more than 20% of the American public explain how an internal combustion engine works ?
Yet over 80% use one daily.

We can't explain electricity or gravity, either, but they exist nonetheless, and we use them to our great advantage.

It is fine to refer to evolution as a theory, as long as one does not make the mistake of assuming that means it is only an hypothesis. The two words do not have the same meaning in the context of the scientific method. Confusion on this point on the part of the general public is unfortunate, because it leads them to take a word used in the context of its scientific meaning and then try and downplay its significance simply because they don't understand what the term really means.

P.S. You do know that gravity is "only" a theory, too, yes?

Jeff:

Gallup has beenm polling it for years and it ranges from 10 to 20%:

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/creation/evol-poll.htm

HT:

Hold up a book, let go, it drops. Gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact. Newton's guess about it seems dubious.

Now hold up a finch. Wait for it to evolve.

Michael:

Yes, that's the difference, Darwinism doesn't work.

Evolution requires time. I believe we've had this conversation before, and your attempts to falsify the theory of evolution are all based on a misunderstanding of how long it takes to create a new species or how that transition occurs. Evolution as an hypothesis is confirmed by the fossil record and by observations in the lab, which is why we "promoted" it to the status of a theory.

HT:

And in all this time--all of recorded history--not a single thing has evolved. Is this a pause, as some propose, in the process?

"[A]ll of recorded history" ??

Is that a joke ?

Counting cave art, that's about 30,000 years, or roughly .0001% of the time since life is believed to have arisen.

The effects of gravity are factual, but not what it is or how it's produced.
Also, gravity isn't uniform. There are places on Earth where it's not as strong, for unexplainable reasons.
Although we do have an anti-gravity theory, and can reproduce its effects.

Please. The phrase "in all of recorded history" sounds grand, but the odds that someone in 2450 B.C. would know evolution even if they saw it is just silly. Although what man has been doing with domesticated animals and plants over that period of time is certainly representative of what the beginning of a speciation event would look like.

Further, even now we have relatively little of the world's total biomass under direct observation, so the odds that we would see a speciation event are small. Also, evolution is the accumulation of small changes over time, so all that an observer in the right place at the right time would see is that the characteristics of a species seem to be a little different over a number of generations. And, the times involved are much longer than you seem to think, so it is not likely that any one observer would ever see a complete speciation event, except with bacteria in a lab, which has already been done.

That is why the fossil record and the structure of life on earth as we can currently observe and measure it are so useful. And they fit the structure that the hypothesis of evolution posits, which is why we now call it a theory.

OJ: "Hold up a book, let go, it drops. Gravity isn't a theory, it's a fact."

If you only watched that book for a millisecond, you wouldn't see it drop.

From the AHD:

theory

1.a. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena. b. Such knowledge or such a system.

:

4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

To a scientist, theory is the absolute top of the pyramid, the elite. There can be no further promotion. Relativity, quantum mechanics, electricity, photosynthesis in plants and yes, gravity, are all merely theories.

OJ, your analogy is flawed;one finch will never evolve. Organisms do not evolve, species do, over geologic time. Hold up 100,000 generations of finches, and the last fich will be very different from the first. The problem is the time frame. It is impossible to directly observe evolution because it is so slow.

Indirectly, though, it is undeniable that some kind of evolution has occurred. The problem with the debate is that while evolution does a very good job explaining the differences and similarities between living species, and making predictions about new species, evolution cannot explain why there are any species at all as opposed to none. It should be noted that evolution does not purport to do so, nor can any science answer what is essentially a philosophical question (Why are we here?).

No one's ever observed a star evolve, either, but no one attacks textbooks that include Hertzprung-Russell diagrams, there are no attacks on 'Hubbleism' and no well-financed antiHubbleism institutes, and no political charlatan ever sought a vote by attacking the theory that stars evolve.

I understand the difficulty Orrin is in. He preaches morality, which ought, one would think, to include honesty; but he cannot be honest about the foundations of darwinism, because he has nailed his flag to the wrong mast.

Mr. Lange:

Hold a hundred finches...

Harry:

We don't know how stars evolve either.

HT:

We know species changed in the past, it just becomes increasingly unlikely that Darwinism explains the change.

Yeah, because "he says so."

20%? That's hilarious! Entertaining, even. No, really! But... wrong. That "study" was supported and implemented by whom, exactly? Oh, never mind... bye.

Zogby says 20% so it MUST be right...makes complete sense now, doesn't it? Doesn't it? Doesn't...

Gallup

HT:

What do you mean, "the structure of life on earth"? Outside of the purely physical, what is there about human life as you experience it that ties it to natural selection?

OJ:

Thank you for providing the link. I must admit I was pleasantly surprised that, unlike the Holocaust survey I noted above, or surveys "showing" women earnings ~70% of men's, the survey appeared quite even handed.

However, a close reading of the findings does not support your 20% number.

"Most recently, in Gallup’s February 19-21 poll, 45% of respondents chose "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," the statement that most closely describes biblical creationism. A slightly larger percentage, almost half, chose one of the two evolution-oriented statements: 37% selected "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" and 12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

"... over one-quarter of Americans who say they believe in the creationist perspective choose an evolutionary statement -- albeit the one that has God’s involvement. Thus, it appears that a substantial proportion of "creationists" cannot be distinguished from the majority of 'evolutionists' in the way they think about the origins and development of humankind."

Several things, at least, are noteworthy here. First, 49% of the respondents believed in completely indistinguishable intepretations of evolution. That is, no amount of evidence, including being able to actually observe all of natural history since its inception, would be able to prove or disprove God's invisible guiding hand in the process.

Second that 45% of respondents hewing closely to the literal Creationist view are either stunningly ignorant, or are uniquely immune to letting a few facts get in the way of a good fairy tale. One would think the undisputed existence of humans in the Americas over at least the last 15,000 years, or 30,0000 year old cave paintings might be worth including in that outlook.

Also, while the survey went to some effort to categorize respondents by their familiarity with evolution and creationism, I didn't note any attempt to similarly cateqorize the responses.

By tortureing and cherry-picking the survey, I could come up with something like OJ's 20%. However, the gist of the survey is very clear: 49% of the respondents believe the Theory of Evolution correctly describes Natural History, and that number grows to 60% if one adds 1/4 of the 45% of self described Creationists chose evolutionary statements to describe the content of their beliefs.

NB: Presuming my reading is more accurate, that does not suddenly make the Theory of Evolution three times as true (or 1/3 as false, your mileage may vary) as if OJ's 20% number holds.

"We don't know how stars evolve either."

No, we don't know. But we have a theory that is strongly overdetermined by observations and deductive consequences. Just like the Theory of Evolution.

Your airy-fairy, unsubstantiated, statements to the contrary notwithstanding.

Jeff:

Yes, Creationism and Intelligent Design are both Evolution. The only argument is over which non-scientific mechanism you think drives it--God, Nature, the Designer(s). Teach all three and let people decide for themselves.

That's as may be. The survey clearly does not support the 20% figure you continually cite.

Perhaps we shall hear no more of it?

Jeff:

Yes, it says 12%. I'll lower my figure.

OJ:

Their analysis says something far, far different.

But given your track record on this subject, I'm not surprised you ruthlessly torture the survey's results.

Jeff:

If I could just quote you without being accused of torture:

12% chose "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

Perhaps you should quote the survey itself, like I did.

You said 20% believe in evolution. The survey says 60%. You have accused Evolution of being a God killer, yet for a great many people, it is no such thing.

For precisely the reasons I have cited before: there is (or at least has been; who knows what tomorrow brings) no way to include, or exclude, the hand of God. Various evolutionists may have their beliefs on the matter, but the theory itself is utterly, completely, silent.

With God directing it there's no Natural Selection and thus no Evolution, just Creation. But you're right, at last, that there's no way to distinguish the two.

OJ:

That is nonsense. Even with God invisibly directing, 60% of people say they believe in Evolutionary Theory.

Besides, God may limit himself to shooting alpha particles at DNA, or nudging viruses in the proper direction, to effect mutation.

And let natural selection sort out the winners.

Creationism, of course, aims to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the specific guiding hand of God.

Thereby destroying any test of faith.

Jeff:

I agree that ity is impossible using scientific means to differentiate between Natural Selection and God or any other sentience as the mechanism driving Evolution--indeed, I've said that thousands of times to you. But you've always dissented. I'm glad to see you come around, just surprised.

I didn't say we understand how stars evolve.

I said there is no well-funded institute devoted to preventing our children from learning about the Hertzprung-Russell sequence, no blogs (as far as I know) that claim that cosmology is ruining society.

If your position were truly frankly antiscientific, you'd have to lose points for ignoring cosmology.

Maybe your position has nothing whatever to do with science, though.

Harry:

No one understands or believes in cosmology--we all understand, though few believe in, Darwinism.

OJ:

No, you have said Evolution is categorically wrong, no matter the cause.

That is what you have said thousands of times.

However, if you are finally willing to admit that Evolutionary theory is a correct explanation of the material manifestations of Natural History, then you just might finally be making some progress.

No, I've said it's not science, as neither are Creation nor ID. But I don't put much stock in science.

A natural reaction to something you don't understand.

Understand, don't place faith in.

Considering your avowed innumeracy, willful mixing of deduction, induction and circularity, and an established track record of tendentious reasoning, your claim to understanding just doesn't hold much water.