t f p g+ YouTube icon

America’s View on Evolution and Creationism (Infographic)

Bookmark and Share

April 4, 2012 Tags: Creation & Origins

Today's entry was written by the BioLogos Editorial Team. You can read more about what we believe here.

Note: The BioLogos Forum is pleased to present this infographic about science and faith in America. The graphic, titled "America's View on Evolution and Creationism," uses data from Gallup Research, The New York Times, and the Pew Research Center to show what Americans currently believe about the origins of humans. We encourage you to share the graphic with anyone and everyone, but please be sure to link back to this post as its source!

(Click Image for Full Resolution)

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 1 of 1   1
Marcus French - #68852

April 4th 2012

Got a typo there “White there” instead of “While there”

Brian Murphy - #68855

April 4th 2012

Found another one. Under shift in beliefs it says “human life has has” (has twice)

Stephen Mapes - #68859

April 4th 2012

Thanks, Marcus and Brian! The image should be fixed now!

Marcus French - #68856

April 4th 2012

Why are the only answers that humans evolved, or humans were created in present form less than 10,000 years ago?  What about those that believe humans were created in present form more than 10,000 years ago? Were they statistically insignificant? Or were the questions set up to only allow those options?

Stephen Mapes - #68860

April 4th 2012

The latter is the case. That was the exact wording of the Gallup poll from which the stats were taken.



Marcus French - #68877

April 5th 2012

How would BioLogos answer this question, given the limited number of available answers?

Joel Duff - #68862

April 4th 2012

If I am reading the charts right, I think the 44 and 48% is reversed on the comparision of 2010 and 1982 for holding to humans in present form less than 10,000 year. 

Stephen Mapes - #68863

April 4th 2012

Hi Historia,

It actually is 40%, but the way the zeros are stylized, they can be misread as 8’s!

Joel Duff - #68864

April 4th 2012

Ah, yes, now that I look at the full sized version it is more obvious.  I must have looked at that 10 times and never imaged that could be a 0.  Thanks for putting this information together in this format.  Joel

Vince Smith - #68870

April 4th 2012

I know you want the graphics to be as accurate as possible.  There appears to be an error with the one called “How Beliefs Changed.”  For the response “God created humans in their present form .........” the longer bar in the bar graph has been associated with the lower precentage (44%) and vice versa.  Seems like you need to switch the numbers.

Eric 'Siggy' Scott - #68871

April 4th 2012

In general, scientism is a pejorative term—by definition trust in science taken to excess.

As an agnostic, it mildly offends me that this term was chosen—it would be like calling creationism “antsciencism.”  A more neutral term would have been much preferred.

Eric 'Siggy' Scott - #68872

April 4th 2012


Roger A. Sawtelle - #68886

April 5th 2012


Creationists believe in the Creation narrative.  Christians believe in Christ.  Scientismers believe in science.

If you want to be called somethig else, tell us what it is and why.

Eric 'Siggy' Scott - #69313

April 15th 2012

I am not a “Scientismer.”

“Scientism” is like the term “dominion theology,” nobody identifies themselves by it, and few people claim it as their belief system.

Like most Christians, agnostics and humanists who believe in evolution consider science and mathematics as a highly reliable way to glean truth out of our fallible human faculties.

That does not mean we all necessarily say that personal experience is wholly invalid, or even that spiritual experiences are pure illusion (consider Buddhists, who certainly do not adhere to “scientism”!).  It also does not mean we rule out the possibility of the supernatural a priori.

At present, scientism by definition means the inappropriate or excessive trust in science as the only way of knowing.  It is, therefore, a derogatory term.

There is a small movement to claim the term “scientism” is the way that the LGBT community has relacimed “queer.”  But it is very small, and I for one do not support it, because I think intuition and personal experience can still be valid in cases where controlled studies are impossible.

You may disagree and criticize my world view.  You may continue to argue that I have an excessive trust in science—that’s a discussion worth hashing out (someplace else).  But don’t push a label on my that I explicitly reject.

Putting “scientism” in the infographic is like lumping together the three forms of creationism under the heading “blind faith.”  I’m sure you would not accept that label, though may secularists (not me) would accuse faith of distorting your reason.

You would want them to represent you truthfully, even while they disagree, instead of replacing you with a deragotory caricature.  I only ask the same grace in return: the Golden Rule.

Roger A. Sawtelle - #68875

April 5th 2012

What strikes me is how greatly Republicans are out of step with BOTH Independents and Damocrats. 

If the Republicans are able to somehow steal the election on “economic” and ideological issues,  this well lead to even more frustration because they will not have a true mandate, but they will try to govern as if they did.

The religious/science divide over evolution has become a cultural and political divide and a very serious problem in our world.     

Roger A. Sawtelle - #68889

April 5th 2012

A recent poll shows that an overwhelming number of people of all political and faith beliefs would like the candidates for presidenrt debate the scientific aspects of modern life.   

Now I do not really think that it would be a good idea to further politicize science, but I do think that this is evidence that most people would like a general discussion of these issues.  The public needs information and leadership.  Special interests seem more intent spreading confusion rather than knowledge.  Faith based organizations such as BioLogos sould be very instrumental is this process. 

Y Y - #68891

April 5th 2012

So true. I can see myself comfortably fitting in the right categories of the demographics though I’m in Australia (if I replaced Democrat wit Labour and Republican with Liberal). 

hathach3 - #68905

April 6th 2012

Thanks for posting this. Would it be possible for you to post an alternate view, separating this graphic into four or five graphs that would fit better on a screen?

If that can’t be easily done, would you allow others to do such alteration, without altering the content, and with proper attribution.


Stephen Mapes - #68932

April 10th 2012

Hi Hathach!

Feel free to break the infographic into smaller section, so long as you use the same attributions as you would for the full image!

hathach3 - #68934

April 10th 2012


I’ll do that, and link to the result.

hathach3 - #68935

April 10th 2012

The pictorial information above, which I have split into five pictures, may be found <a href=“http://sunandshield.blogspot.com/2012/04/americas-view-on-evolution-and.html”>here</a>.

hathach3 - #68936

April 10th 2012

Whoops! Apparently I shouldn’t have tried to use a URL in the comment. Here’s the URL:


Black Beard - #69288

April 12th 2012

38% ignorantly think “that looks hard to make, how could nature do it!?” and plug their chosen God into that gap.

16% are put in the ‘scientism’ strawman catagory of “absolute certanty there is no God”  when even Richard Dawkins puts himself as a 7 on the Dawkins Skale he invented.

44% believe that Rachelle Welch movie was a documentry.

9% heard the choices in this poll and mercifully walked away.

Eric 'Siggy' Scott - #69314

April 15th 2012


Dawkins puts himself at 6.9.  7 is absolute certainty. 

Page 1 of 1   1