You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 3.85.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪ST47‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a web host's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and they should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 21:48, 22 February 2026.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 05:35, 21 February 2024
- Expiry of block: 05:35, 21 February 2029
Your current IP address is 3.85.235.113. The blocked range is 3.85.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((short description|Variation in support for the theory of evolution))
((For|the scientific evidence supporting evolution|Evidence of common descent))
((Evolutionary biology))

The '''level of support for evolution''' among scientists, the public, and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the [[creation–evolution controversy]], and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific, and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of [[evolution]] by the general population exists, but evolution is taught at public schools and universities.

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, with 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as [[natural selection]].<ref name=pew/><ref>((cite journal|url=http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |last=Delgado |first=Cynthia |title=Finding evolution in medicine |journal=NIH Record |volume=58 |issue=15 |access-date=2007-10-22 |date=2006-07-28 |format=hmtl |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |archive-date=2008-11-22 ))</ref> Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by [[intelligent design]] proponents.<ref name="dover_pg83">[[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 83 of 139|Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83]]: "an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution."</ref>

There are many religious groups and denominations spread across several countries who reject the theory of evolution because it is in conflict with their central belief of [[creationism]]. For example, countries having such groups include the [[United States]],<ref>((cite journal | url = http://www.slate.com/id/1006378/ | title = George W. Bush, The Last Relativist | first = Timothy | last = Noah | journal = Slate |date=2000-10-31 | access-date = 2007-10-23))</ref><ref>((cite news |url=http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579 |title=Revealed: Tony Blair's link to schools that take the Creation literally |first=Nicholas |last=Pyke |newspaper=[[The Independent]] |date=2004-06-13 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928001636/http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579 |archive-date=2007-09-28 )); full article at ((cite web |last=Ohanian |first=Susan |title=Outrages |access-date=2007-10-23 |url=http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579 |archive-date=2009-02-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090218192538/http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.html?id=2579 |url-status=dead ))</ref><ref>((cite web | url = http://www2.onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html | title = Wir drehen die Uhr um 1000 Jahre zurück ("''We put the clock back a 1000 years''") | language = de | first = Peer | last = Meinert | access-date = 2007-10-23 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071014224931/http://onnachrichten.t-online.de/dyn/c/19/01/33/1901336.html | archive-date = 2007-10-14 ))</ref><ref>((cite news | url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3642460.stm | title = Serbia reverses Darwin suspension | work = [[BBC News]] |date=2004-09-09 | access-date = 2007-10-23 | format = stm ))</ref><ref>((cite journal | url = http://www.wbj.pl/?command=article&id=35336&type=wbj | title = And finally.. | journal = Warsaw Business Journal |date=2006-12-18 | access-date = 2007-10-23 | author1 = <!--Please add first missing authors to populate metadata.--> ))</ref><ref>((cite web | url = http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0607dutch_debate.asp | title = Creation commotion in Dutch Parliament | first = Frans | last = Gunnink | author2 = Bell, Philip | date = 2005-06-07 | access-date = 2007-10-23 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071013114948/http://answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0607dutch_debate.asp | archive-date = 2007-10-13 | url-status = dead )); ((cite journal | url = http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/308/5727/1394b | title = Evolution politics: Is Holland becoming the Kansas of Europe? | first = Martin | last = Enserink | journal = Science | date = 2005-06-03 | volume = 308 | issue = 5727 | pages = 1394 | doi = 10.1126/science.308.5727.1394b | pmid = 15933170 | s2cid = 153515231 ))</ref> [[South Africa]],<ref name="NS-WorldwideCreationism">((cite web |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327153.900-worldwide-creationism-shotgun-stunner-and-more.html |title=Worldwide creationism, Shotgun stunner, and more |work=New Scientist |access-date=2010-05-24))</ref> [[India]], the [[Muslim world]], [[South Korea]], [[Singapore]], the [[Philippines]], and [[Brazil]], with smaller followings in the [[United Kingdom]], the [[Republic of Ireland]], [[Japan]], [[Italy]], [[Germany]], [[Israel]],<ref name="Galileo goes to jail">((cite book |author=Numbers, Ronald L. |title=Galileo goes to jail: and other myths about science and religion |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |date=2009 |pages=221–223 |isbn=978-0-674-03327-6 ))</ref> [[Australia]],<ref>((cite book | last1 = Numbers | first1 = Ronald L. | title = Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion | publisher = Harward University Press |place= Cambridge and London | date = 2009 | pages = 217 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_Wj-ruvGFvgC&q=galileo+goes+to+jail | access-date = 2011-09-03 |chapter= Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon | isbn = 978-0-674-03327-6 |quote= Antievolutionists in Australia celebrated in August 2005, when the minister of education, a Christian physician named Brendan Nelson, came out in favor of exposing students both to evollution and ID... ))</ref> [[New Zealand]],<ref>((cite book | last1 = Numbers | first1 = Ronald L. | title = Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion | publisher = Harward University Press |place= Cambridge and London | date = 2009 | pages = 217, 279 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_Wj-ruvGFvgC&q=galileo+goes+to+jail | access-date = 2011-09-03 |chapter= Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon | isbn = 978-0-674-03327-6 |quote= Three years later the [[New Zealand Listener]] surprised many of its readers by announcing that "God and Darwin are still battling it out in New Zealand schools." ))</ref> and [[Canada]].<ref>((cite book | last1 = Numbers | first1 = Ronald L. | title = Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion | publisher = Harward University Press |place= Cambridge and London | date = 2009 | pages = 217 | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=_Wj-ruvGFvgC&q=galileo+goes+to+jail | access-date = 2011-09-03 |chapter= Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon | isbn = 978-0-674-03327-6 |quote= Writing in 2000, one observer claimed that "there are possibly more creationists per capita in Canada than in any other Western country apart from US." ))</ref>

Several publications discuss the subject of acceptance,<ref>((cite book |author=McCollister, Betty |title=Voices for evolution |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |date=1989 |isbn=978-0-939873-51-7 ))</ref><ref>((cite book |author=Matsumura, Molleen |title=Voices for evolution |publisher=National Center for Science Education |location=Berkeley, CA |date=1995 |isbn=978-0-939873-53-1 |url = http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/voices/permit.htm ))</ref> including a document produced by the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]].<ref name=NASteaching>((cite book |author= Working Group on Teaching Evolution, National Academy of Sciences |title=Teaching about evolution and the nature of science |publisher=National Academy Press |location=Washington, D.C |date=1998 |isbn=978-0-309-06364-7 )); available on-line: ((cite book | url = http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=56 | title = Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (ebook) | date = 1998 |author = United States National Academy of Sciences | publisher = National Academy Press | location = Washington DC | access-date = 2007-10-23 | doi = 10.17226/5787 | isbn = 978-0-309-06364-7 | author-link = United States National Academy of Sciences ))</ref>

==Scientific==
The vast majority of the [[scientific community]] and [[academia]] supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of [[biology]], [[paleontology]], [[molecular biology]], [[genetics]], [[anthropology]], and others.<ref>((cite news | first=PZ | last=Myers | author-link=PZ Myers | title=Ann Coulter: No evidence for evolution? | date=2006-06-18 | publisher=scienceblogs.com | url=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | work=Pharyngula | access-date=2006-11-18 | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060622031856/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php | archive-date=2006-06-22 ))</ref><ref>The [[National Science Teachers Association]]'s [https://web.archive.org/web/20030419055650/http://www.nsta.org/159%26psid%3D10 position statement on the teaching of evolution.]</ref><ref>[http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717190031/http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx |date=2011-07-17 )) Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom|United Kingdom's]] [[Royal Society]] (PDF file)</ref><ref name="AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws">From the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], the world's largest general scientific society: [https://web.archive.org/web/20131012043816/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] (PDF file), [https://web.archive.org/web/20131019171834/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0219boardstatement.shtml AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws]</ref><ref name=factfancy>[https://www.jstor.org/stable/2743476 ''Fact, Fancy, and Myth on Human Evolution'', Alan J. Almquist, John E. Cronin, Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 520&ndash;522]</ref> A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.<ref name=robinson>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm ''Public beliefs about evolution and creation'', Robinson, B. A. 1995.]</ref><ref>[http://ncse.com/rncse/17/6/many-scientists-see-gods-hand-evolution ''Many scientists see God's hand in evolution'', Witham, Larry, Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(6): 33, 1997]</ref>

Additionally, the [[scientific community]] considers [[intelligent design]], a [[neo-creationism|neo-creationist]] offshoot, to be unscientific,<ref>See: 1) [[List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design]] 2) [[Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science#Page 83 of 139|Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83]]. 3) The Discovery Institute's [[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]] petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four-day [[A Scientific Support For Darwinism]] petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml firmly rejects ID] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20021113213410/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml |date=2002-11-13 )). More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060614003243/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |date=2006-06-14 )). [http://ncse.com/media/voices/science List of statements from scientific professional organizations] on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.</ref> [[pseudoscience]],<ref>National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." [http://www3.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=50792 National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110212053541/http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/nsta_story.php?news_story_ID=50792 |date=2011-02-12 )) National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3, 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/116/5/1134#B1 Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action] Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134&ndash;1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.</ref> or [[junk science]].<ref>((Cite magazine |last=Orr |first=H. Allen |date=2005-05-23 |title=Devolution |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/05/30/devolution-2 |access-date=2023-03-01 |magazine=The New Yorker |language=en-US |quote=Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science.))</ref><ref>((Cite book |last=Pennock |first=Robert T. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44966044 |title=Tower of Babel : the evidence against the new creationism |date=1999 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=0-585-15711-1 |location=Cambridge, Mass. |oclc=44966044))</ref> The [[United States National Academy of Sciences|U.S. National Academy of Sciences]] has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of [[supernatural]] intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by [[experiment]], do not generate any predictions, and propose no new [[hypothesis|hypotheses]] of their own.<ref>National Academy of Sciences, 1999 [http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/25.html Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition]</ref> In September 2005, 38 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel laureates]] issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."<ref>The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory <cite>"because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."</cite> [http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf Nobel Laureates Initiative] ((webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061209120655/http://media.ljworld.com/pdf/2005/09/15/nobel_letter.pdf |date=December 9, 2006 )) (PDF file)</ref> In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".<ref>Faculty of Science, University of New South Wales. 20 October 2005. [http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html Intelligent Design is not Science - Scientists and teachers speak out] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060614003243/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html |date=2006-06-14 ))</ref>

In 1986, an ''[[amicus curiae]]'' brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the [[US Supreme Court]] in ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'', to reject a [[Louisiana]] state law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught. The brief also stated that the term "creation science" as used by the law embodied religious dogma, and that "teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education".<ref name=amicus>Amicus Curiae brief in ((cite court |litigants=Edwards v. Aguillard |vol=85-1513|reporter= |opinion= |pinpoint= |court=United States Supreme Court |date=1986-08-18 |url=)), available at ((cite web | url = http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html | title = Edwards v. Aguillard: Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates | access-date = 2007-10-19 | publisher = From [[TalkOrigins Archive]]))</ref> This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign a petition up to that point.<ref>((cite journal | last1 = Norman | first1 = Colin | year = 1986 | title = Nobelists unite against "creation science" | journal = Science | volume = 233 | issue = 4767| page = 935 | bibcode = 1986Sci...233..935N | doi = 10.1126/science.3738518 ))</ref> According to anthropologists Almquist and Cronin, the brief is the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."<ref name=factfancy/>

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://ncse.com/media/voices/science List of numerous US scientific societies that support evolution and their statements about evolution]</ref><ref>((Cite web |url=http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/1017_DD_FILE_IAP_Evolution.pdf |title=List of 68 international scientific societies on the Interacademy Panel (IAP) that endorse a resolution supporting evolution and a multibillion year old earth, June 2006. |access-date=2007-01-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061205234008/http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DOC_DOWNLOAD/1017_DD_FILE_IAP_Evolution.pdf |archive-date=2006-12-05 |url-status=dead ))</ref><ref>[https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/1999/nsb99149/nsb99149.txt National Science Board letter in support of evolution 1999]</ref><ref>((Cite web |url=http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298 |title=''Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design'', 11 Apr 2006. |access-date=4 January 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013040110/http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4298 |archive-date=13 October 2007 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all ))</ref> The [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.<ref name="AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws"/> The prestigious [[United States National Academy of Sciences]], which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/ ''Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition'', National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1999.]</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071117073919/http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5787&page=R1 ''Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998)'', National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.]</ref>

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by [[Pew Research Center]] found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."<ref name=pew>[[Pew Research Center]]: "[http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/ Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media]" July 9, 2009.</ref>

===Votes, resolutions, and statements of scientists before 1985===
One of the earliest resolutions in support of evolution was issued by the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] in 1922, and readopted in 1929.<ref>[http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450 ''AAAS Resolution: Present Scientific Status of the Theory of Evolution''], [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]], Adopted by the AAAS Council, December 26, 1922. AAAS Executive Committee readopts this resolution on April 21, 1929.</ref><ref>[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm ''The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism''] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090207173612/http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm |date=2009-02-07 )), G. R. Morton, Copyright 2002 G.R. Morton</ref>

Another early effort to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize–winning American biologist [[Hermann J. Muller]] in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May 1966:

((blockquote|There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.<ref>Bales, James D., ''Forty-Two Years on the Firing Line'', Lambert, Shreveport, LA, p.71-72, no date.</ref>))

This manifesto was signed by 177 of the leading American biologists, including [[George Gaylord Simpson|George G. Simpson]] of [[Harvard University]], Nobel Prize Winner [[Peter Agre]] of [[Duke University]], [[Carl Sagan]] of [[Cornell University|Cornell]], [[John Tyler Bonner]] of [[Princeton University|Princeton]], Nobel Prize Winner [[George Beadle]], President of the [[University of Chicago]], and [[Donald Kennedy|Donald F. Kennedy]] of [[Stanford University]], formerly head of the [[United States Food and Drug Administration]].<ref name=DayScientistsVoted>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1981 ''The Day the Scientists Voted'', Bert Thompson, Apologetics Press: Sensible Science, 2001, originally published in Reason & Revelation, 2(3):9-11, March 1982.]</ref>

This was followed by the passing of a resolution by the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] (AAAS) in the fall of 1972 that stated, in part, "the theory of creation ... is neither scientifically grounded nor capable of performing the rules required of science theories".<ref name=ABT>American Biology Teacher, January 1973.</ref> The [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] also passed a similar resolution in the fall of 1972.<ref name=ABT/> A statement on evolution called "A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science." was signed by Nobel Prize Winner [[Linus Pauling]], [[Isaac Asimov]], [[George Gaylord Simpson|George G. Simpson]], Caltech Biology Professor [[Norman H. Horowitz]], [[Ernst Mayr]], and others, and published in 1977.<ref>''A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science,'' The Humanist, January/February, 1977, p. 4-6.</ref> The governing board of the [[American Geological Institute]] issued a statement supporting resolution in November 1981.<ref>AAPG Explorer, January, 1982.</ref>
Shortly thereafter, the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science|AAAS]] passed another resolution supporting evolution and disparaging efforts to teach [[creationism]] in science classes.<ref>''"Creation-Science" Law Is Struck Down,'' Raloff, J., Science News, 121[2]:20, January 9, 1982.</ref>

To date, there are no scientifically peer-reviewed research articles that disclaim evolution listed in the scientific and medical journal search engine [[PubMed]].<ref name="pmid16670753">((cite journal | author=Attie AD | title=Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action | journal=J Clin Invest | date= 2006 | volume= 116 | issue= 5 | pages= 1134–8 | pmid=16670753 | doi=10.1172/JCI28449 | pmc=1451210 |name-list-style=vanc| author2=Sober E | author3=Numbers RL | author4=Amasino RM | author5=Cox B | author6=Berceau T | display-authors=6 | last7=Powell | first7=T | last8=Cox | first8=MM ))</ref>

===Project Steve===
((main|Project Steve))
The [[Discovery Institute]] announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for [[intelligent design]] as of February 8, 2007.<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html (''Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition'', Panda's Thumb, February 21, 2006)] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061213221402/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/few_biologists.html |date=December 13, 2006 ))</ref> This prompted the [[National Center for Science Education]] to produce a "light-hearted" [[petition]] called "[[Project Steve]]" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek [[parody]]" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting [[creationist]] principles that creationist organizations produce.<ref name=steve>[http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve National Center for Science Education "Project Steve"]</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/#presentsci List of living scientists who accept the biblical account of creation] from [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1370<ref>[http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves The List of Steves]</ref>) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.<ref name=nihrecord>[http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm ''Finding the Evolution in Medicine''] ((webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081122022815/http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm |date=November 22, 2008 )), Cynthia Delgado, NIH Record, July 28, 2006.</ref>

==Religious==
((globalize|date=February 2019))
((see also|Acceptance of evolution by religious groups))
((bar box
|title=Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States)<br/><small>Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth</small>
|caption=Total U.S. population percentage:48%<br/>Source: [[Pew Forum]]<ref>[http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Differences-on-the-Question-of-Evolution.aspx Religious Groups: Opinions of Evolution], [[Pew Forum]] (conducted in 2007, released in 2008)</ref>
|float=right
|bars=
((bar pixel|Buddhist|black|405||81%))
((bar pixel|Hindu|silver|400||80%))
((bar pixel|Jewish|black|385||77%))
((bar pixel|Unaffiliated|silver|360||72%))
((bar pixel|Catholic|black|290||58%))
((bar pixel|Orthodox|silver|270||54%))
((bar pixel|Mainline Protestant|black|255||51%))
((bar pixel|Muslim|silver|225||45%))
((bar pixel|Hist. Black Protest.|black|190||38%))
((bar pixel|Evang. Protestant|silver|120||24%))
((bar pixel|Mormon|black|110||22%))
((bar pixel|Jehovah's Witnesses|silver|40||8%))
))

Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is associated only with [[atheism]].<ref>Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, in his book [http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_Regarding_Creation_Evolution.htm ''Systematic Theology''] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070224164219/http://www.errantskeptics.org/Quotes_Regarding_Creation_Evolution.htm |date=2007-02-24 )), Charles Hodge, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15, argues that "''First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source... the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand.''"</ref><ref>[http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm#top ''Evolution and Christianity are opposites''] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061021232820/http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/21soc03.htm |date=2006-10-21 )), p. 36 of ''Evolution and Society'', Volume 2 of ''Scientific Facts Against Evolution-Origin of the Universe: 3 Volume Encyclopedia'' states, of evolution and Christianity, "''there can be no reconciliation between the two. One view stands for fighting, warfare against the supposed weaker ones, and atheism; the other is for peace, self-sacrifice for the good of others, and belief and trust in the Creator God...Even evolutionists and atheists have declared that their creeds are totally different than those of Christianity.''" Also in the article ''Evolution and the churches'' on pages 39-41 of the same volume, "''In spite of clear-cut statements by evolutionists that "evolution IS atheism," many denominations today accept one form or another of evolutionary theory.''"</ref>

However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of [[creation science]] in the influential ''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]'' court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.<ref>[http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2243 McLean v Arkansas, Encyclopedia of Arkansas]</ref> There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools.<ref>[http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion ''Defending the teaching of evolution in public education, Statements from Religious Organizations'']</ref> In addition, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], Dr. [[Rowan Williams]], issued statements in support of evolution in 2006.<ref>[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/21/archbishop_backs_evolution/ ''Archbishop of Canterbury backs evolution: Well, he is a Primate,'' Chris Williams, The Register, Tuesday 21 March 2006]</ref> The [[Clergy Letter Project]] is a signed statement by 12,808 (as of 28 May 2012) American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the [[National Center for Science Education]] found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).<ref>((harvnb|Matsumura|1998|p=9)) notes that, "''Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in ''Voices'' insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the [[Southern Baptist Convention]], which has changed its view of evolution since [[McLean v Arkansas]] and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the [[United Church of Christ]] and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement").''" Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled ''Believers: Dynamic Dozen'' put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the ''1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches''. Matsurmura's calculations include the [[Southern Baptist Convention|SBC]] based on a brief they filed in [[McLean v. Arkansas]], where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also ((harvnb|NCSE|2002)).</ref> These religious groups include the [[Catholic Church]], as well as various denominations of Protestantism, including the [[United Methodist Church]], [[National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.|National Baptist Convention, USA]], [[Evangelical Lutheran Church in America]], [[Presbyterian Church (USA)]], [[National Baptist Convention of America]], [[African Methodist Episcopal Church]], the [[Episcopal Church in the United States of America|Episcopal Church]], and others.<ref>[http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf ''Christianity, Evolution Not in Conflict'', John Richard Schrock, Wichita Eagle May 17, 2005 page 17A] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927061932/http://www.emporia.edu/biosci/schrock/docs/Eagle-25.pdf |date=September 27, 2011 )) <!-- This editorial mischaracterizes the Matsurmura|1998 article--></ref><ref>((harvnb|Matsumura|1998|p=9))</ref> A figure closer to about 71% is presented by the analysis of Walter B. Murfin and David F. Beck.<ref>[http://www.cesame-nm.org/index.php?name=Sections&req=viewarticle&artid=43&page=4 ''The Bible: Is it a True and Accurate Account of Creation? (Part 2): The Position of Major Christian Denominations on Creation and Inerrancy''] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015234023/http://www.cesame-nm.org/index.php?name=Sections |date=2007-10-15 )), Walter B. Murfin, David F. Beck, 13 April 1998, hosted on [http://www.cesame-nm.org/index.php Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education] ((Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015233002/http://www.cesame-nm.org/index.php |date=2007-10-15 )) website</ref>

[[Michael Shermer]] argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.<ref name=Shermer>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071010052848/http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00068F43-E189-150E-A18983414B7F0000&colID=13 ''Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution''], Michael Shermer, Scientific American, October 2006.</ref>

===Ahmadiyya===
((Main|Ahmadiyya views of evolution))
The [[Ahmadiyya]] Movement universally accepts evolution and actively promotes it. [[Mirza Tahir Ahmad]], Fourth [[Khalifatul Masih|Caliph]] of the [[Ahmadiyya Muslim Community]] has stated in his magnum opus ''[[Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth]]'' that evolution did occur but only through [[God]] being the One who brings it about. It does not occur itself, according to the [[Ahmadiyya Muslim Community]]. The Ahmadis do not believe [[Adam]] was the first human on Earth, but merely the first prophet to receive a [[revelation]] of God.

===Baha'i Faith===
((main|Bahá'í Faith and science#Evolution))
((primary sources|section|date=February 2020))
A fundamental part of `Abdul-Bahá's teachings on evolution is the belief that all life came from the [[Common descent|same origin]]: "the origin of all material life is one..."<ref>((harvnb|Effendi|1912|p=350))</ref>((Incomplete short citation|date=December 2016)) He states that from this sole origin, the complete diversity of life was generated: "Consider the world of created beings, how varied and diverse they are in species, yet with one sole origin"<ref>((harvnb|ʻAbdu'l-Bahá|1912|pp= 51–52))</ref> He explains that a slow, gradual process led to the development of complex entities:

((blockquote|[T]he growth and development of all beings is gradual; this is the universal divine organization and the natural system. The [[seed]] does not at once become a [[tree]]; the [[embryo]] does not at once become a man; the mineral does not suddenly become a stone. No, they grow and develop gradually and attain the limit of perfection<ref>((harvnb|ʻAbdu'l-Bahá|1908|pp=198–99))</ref>))

===Catholic Church===
The 1950 encyclical ''[[Humani generis]]'' advocated scepticism towards evolution without explicitly rejecting it; this was substantially amended by Pope John-Paul II in 1996 in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said, "Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."<ref>Pope John Paul II, Speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 23, 1996</ref> Between 2000 and 2002 the [[International Theological Commission]] found that "Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."<ref>[https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God"] ((webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140621050711/https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html |date=June 21, 2014 )), [[International Theological Commission]].</ref> This statement was published by the [[Holy See|Vatican]] in July 2004 by the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger (who became [[Pope Benedict XVI]]) who was the president of the Commission at the time.

The [[Magisterium]] has not made an authoritative statement on intelligent design, and has permitted arguments on both sides of the issue. In 2005, Cardinal [[Christoph Schönborn]] of Vienna appeared to endorse intelligent design when he denounced philosophically materialist interpretations of evolution.<ref>Tom Heneghan. "Catholics and Evolution: Interview with Cardinal Christoph Schönborn", ''BeliefNet'', Jan. 5, 2006 [http://www.beliefnet.com/story/182/story_18220_1.html]</ref> In an op-ed in the [[New York Times]] he said "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html] Finding Design in Nature by Christoph Schönborn</ref>

In the January 16&ndash;17 2006 edition of the official [[Holy See|Vatican]] newspaper ''[[L'Osservatore Romano]]'', [[University of Bologna]] evolutionary biology Professor [[Fiorenzo Facchini]] wrote an article agreeing with the judge's ruling in ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover]]'' and stating that [[intelligent design]] was unscientific.<ref>[http://ncse.com/news/2006/01/intelligent-design-criticized-vatican-newspaper-00975 ''"Intelligent design" criticized in Vatican newspaper''], [[National Center for Science Education|NCSE]] article, January 20, 2006</ref><ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/science/sciencespecial2/19evolution.html?ex=1295326800&en=62dc61ea5d27e73d&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss ''In "Design" vs. Darwinism, Darwin Wins Point in Rome''], Ian Fisher and Cornelia Dean, New York Times, January 19, 2006.</ref> [[Jesuit]] Father [[George Coyne]], former director of the [[Vatican Observatory]], has also denounced intelligent design.<ref>[http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 ''Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says''] ((webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130323080822/http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503 |date=March 23, 2013 )), Mark Lombard, 1/30/2006, Catholic Online</ref>

===Sikhism===
The Sikh [[Sri Guru Granth Sahib|scripture]] explicitly states that the Universe and its processes are created by, and subject to, the laws of Nature. Furthermore, the name that is used by Sikhs for God, [[Waheguru]], is literally translated as "the Wonderful Teacher",<ref>((Cite web|url=https://www.thoughtco.com/waheguru-wondrous-enlightener-2993088|title=What is the Meaning of Sikhism Term Waheguru?))</ref> implying that these laws are, in principle at least, at least partially discernible by human inquiry. One of the [[Japji Sahib|hymns]] that observant Sikhs recite daily describes the orbit of the Earth as being caused by those same laws (and not some mythological cause).<ref>((Cite web|url=http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=3&english=t&id=115#l115|title=Sri Granth: Sri Guru Granth Sahib))</ref> Thus, the scientific world-view, which includes the Darwinian theory of evolution, is compatible with traditional [[Sikh]] belief.

===Hinduism===
((Main|Hindu views on evolution))
Hindus believe in the concept of evolution of life on Earth.<ref>[http://www.msu.edu/~hernan94] Dave Hernandez - Michigan State University</ref> The concepts of [[Dashavatara]]&mdash;different incarnations of God starting from simple organisms and progressively becoming complex beings&mdash;and [[Religious views of evolution#Day and night of Brahma|Day and Night of Brahma]] are generally cited as instances of Hindu acceptance of evolution.((citation needed|date=August 2016))

===US religious denominations===
In the United States, many Protestant denominations promote creationism, preach against evolution, and sponsor lectures and debates on the subject. Denominations that explicitly advocate creationism instead of evolution or "Darwinism" include the [[Assemblies of God]],<ref>((cite web |title=The doctrine of creation |url=https://ag.org/Beliefs/Position-Papers/The-Doctrine-of-Creation |website=Assemblies of God |access-date=3 November 2023))</ref> the [[Free Methodist Church]], [[Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod]],<ref>((cite web |title=Brief Statement of LCMS Doctrinal Position - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod |url=https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/doctrine/brief-statement-of-lcms-doctrinal-position#creation |website=www.lcms.org))</ref> [[Pentecostal Churches]], [[Seventh-day Adventist Church]]es,<ref>((Cite web |url=http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html |title=Official Seventh-day Adventist belief statement advocating creationism |access-date=2007-01-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060310104717/http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html |archive-date=2006-03-10 |url-status=dead ))</ref> [[Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod]], [[Christian Reformed Church in North America|Christian Reformed Church]], [[Southern Baptist Convention]],<ref>((Cite web |url=http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=967 |title=Southern Baptist Convention Resolution on Creationism |access-date=2009-06-30 |archive-date=2013-12-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131217014144/http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=967 |url-status=dead ))</ref> the [[Oneness Pentecostal|Pentecostal Oneness churches]], and the [[Evangelical Lutheran Synod]].<ref>((cite web |last1=Holbird |first1=Doyle |title=My Help Comes From the Lord, the Maker of Heaven and Earth |url=https://els.org/resources/document-archive/convention-essays/essay2019-holbird/ |website=Evangelical Lutheran Synod |access-date=17 February 2020))</ref> [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] produce [[gap creationism]] and [[day-age creationism]] literature to refute evolution but reject the "creationist" label, which they consider to apply only to [[Young Earth creationism]].<ref>((cite journal|journal=Awake!|url=http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102006321#h=8:0-14:118|title=Are Jehovah's Witnesses Creationists?|date=September 2006|page=3))</ref><ref>((cite book|title=Insight on the Scriptures|volume=1|page=545|publisher=Watch Tower Society))</ref><ref>((cite book |chapter =Science and the Genesis account |title=Was Life Created? |pages=24&ndash;27 |publisher=Watch Tower Society |url=http://cvaas.org/files/Was%20Life%20Created.pdf))</ref><ref>((cite book|last1=Chryssides|first1=George D.|title=Historical Dictionary of Jehovah's Witnesses|date=2008|publisher=Scarecrow Press|isbn=9780810862692|page=37|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Xx6nUwZzeCsC&pg=PA37|language=en))</ref>

==Medicine and industry==
A common complaint of [[creationist]]s is that evolution is of no value, has never been used for anything, and will never be of any use. According to many creationists, nothing would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and science and industry might even benefit.<ref>((cite journal | url = http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=252 | title = Evolution - Useful or Useless? | first = George | last = Lindsey | journal = Impact | volume = #148 |date=1985-10-01 | access-date = 2007-10-22 |format = asp ))</ref><ref>((cite journal | url = http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp | title = Evolution and practical science | first = Carl | last = Wieland | journal = Creation | volume = 20 | issue = 4 | pages = 4 |date=1999-09-01 | access-date = 2007-10-22 |format = asp |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070929104420/http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/evolution.asp |archive-date = September 29, 2007))</ref><ref>((cite journal | url = http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/french.asp | title = French creation interview with French scientist Dr André Eggen | first = Ken | last = Ham | journal = Creation | volume = 20 | issue = 4 | pages = 17–19 |date=1998-09-01 | access-date = 2007-10-22 | format = asp ))</ref>

In fact, evolution is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a daily basis by researchers in [[medicine]], [[biochemistry]], [[molecular biology]], and [[genetics]] to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalise observed data and prepare applications.<ref name=nihrecord/><ref>((cite book |author1=Williams, George |author2=Nesse, Randolph M. |title=Why we get sick: the new science of Darwinian medicine |publisher=Vintage Books |location=New York |date=1996 |isbn=978-0-679-74674-4 |page=304))</ref><ref name=applications>((cite web | url = http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html | title = Index to Creationist claims: Claim CA215 | work = [[TalkOrigins Archive]] | access-date = 2007-10-22 |date=2005-10-04 |editor-last = Isaak |editor-first = Mark ))</ref><ref name=Mindell>((cite book |author=Mindell, David A. |title=The evolving world: evolution in everyday life |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |date=2006 |isbn=978-0-674-02191-4 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/evolvingworldevo00mind ))</ref> As of May 2019 there are 554,965 scientific papers in [[PubMed]] that mention 'evolution'.<ref name=pubmed>((cite web | url = https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=evolution | title = NCBI PubMed | work = [[PubMed]] | access-date = 2012-06-25 | date = 2012-06-25))</ref> Pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products, and also use these medicines to combat evolving bacteria and viruses.<ref name=applications/>

Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of [[corporations]]. In [[Kansas]], there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the [[biotech]] industry.<ref>((cite web | url = http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/265482/do_scientists_see_kansas_missouri_as_antiscience | title = Do Scientists See Kansas, Missouri As 'Anti-Science'? | first = Jason | last = Gertzen |author2=Stafford, Diane | work = The Kansas City Star |date=2005-10-08 | access-date = 2007-10-22 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071117074042/http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/265482/do_scientists_see_kansas_missouri_as_antiscience |archive-date = November 17, 2007))</ref> Paul Hanle of the [[Biotechnology Institute]] warned that the [[United States]] risks falling behind in the [[biotechnology]] race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901628.html ''Waging War on Evolution,'' Paul A. Hanle, Washington Post, Sunday, October 1, 2006; Page B04]</ref>

James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated stated that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner [[Leland Hartwell]] relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions, both of which have significant implications for the treatment of cancers. Furthermore, McCarter concluded that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology depended on an understanding of evolutionary theory (according to McCarter's unspecified personal criteria).<ref>((cite web | url = http://ncse.com/rncse/25/3-4/evolution-is-winner-breakthroughs-prizes | format = asp | title = Evolution is a Winner - for Breakthroughs and Prizes | first = James | last = McCarter | work = National Center for Science Education | date = n.d. | access-date = 2007-10-22)); originally published in the [[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]], 2005-10-09.</ref>

==Public support==
[[File:Views on Evolution.svg|thumb|right|350px|Acceptance of human evolution in various countries (2006)<ref>((cite journal |journal=New Scientist |date=19 April 2008 |volume=198 |issue=2652 |author=Michael Le Page |title=Evolution myths: It doesn't matter if people don't grasp evolution |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826523.000-evolution-myths-it-doesnt-matter-if-people-dont-grasp-evolution.html |page=31 |doi=10.1016/S0262-4079(08)60984-7))</ref><ref name="ScienceSurvey">((cite journal |journal=Science |date=11 August 2006 |volume=313 |issue=5788 |pages=765&ndash;766 |title=Public Acceptance of Evolution |author1=Jon D. Miller |author2=Eugenie C. Scott |author3=Shinji Okamoto |doi=10.1126/science.1126746 |pmid=16902112 |s2cid=152990938 ))</ref>]]

There does not appear to be significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.<ref>((Citation
| url=http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/5/24/weekend-update-youd-have-to-be-science-illiterate-to-think-b.html
| title=The Cultural Cognition Project
| access-date=May 28, 2014
))</ref><ref>((Citation
| last=Shtulman
| first=Andrew
| title=Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution
| journal=Cognitive Psychology
| volume=52
| issue=2
| date=2006
| pages=170–194
| doi=10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.10.001
| pmid=16337619
| s2cid=20274446
))
</ref> In some countries, creationist beliefs (or a lack of support for evolutionary theory) are relatively widespread, even garnering a majority of public opinion. A study published in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries, and [[Japan]]. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was [[Turkey]] (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in [[Iceland]], [[Denmark]] and [[Sweden]].<ref name="ScienceSurvey"/>

=== Afghanistan ===
According to the Pew Research Center, Afghanistan has the lowest acceptance of evolution in the Muslim countries. Only 26% of people in [[Afghanistan]] accept evolution. 62% deny human evolution and believe that humans have always existed in their present form.<ref name="pewforum.org">((Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-science-and-popular-culture/ | title=Muslim Views on Religion, Science and Popular Culture| date=2013-04-30))</ref>

=== Argentina ===
According to a 2014 poll produced by the [[Pew Research Center]], 71% of people in Argentina believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 23% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Armenia ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 56 percent of Armenians deny human evolution and claim that humans have always existed in their present and only 34 percent of Armenians accept human evolution.<ref name="ReferenceA">((Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/2017/05/10/science-and-religion/ | title=Science and religion in central and eastern Europe| date=2017-05-10))</ref>

=== Australia ===
A 2009 [[Nielsen Holdings|Nielsen]] poll showed that 23% of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins," 42% believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32% believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God".<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html |title=Faith: What Australians believe in |last=Marr |first=David |date=December 19, 2009 |work=[[The Age]] |location=Melbourne, Australia |archive-url=https://archive.today/20181211051311/https://www.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html |archive-date=December 11, 2018 |url-status=live |access-date=December 11, 2018 |df=mdy-all ))</ref><ref>((cite web |last=Maley |first=Jacqueline |date=December 19, 2009 |title=God is still tops but angels rate well |url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html |work=[[The Age]] |location=Melbourne, Australia |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120913234134/http://www.theage.com.au/national/god-is-still-tops-but-angels-rate-well-20091218-l5v9.html |archive-date=September 13, 2012 |access-date=December 18, 2009 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all ))</ref>

A 2013 survey conducted by Auspoll and the [[Australian Academy of Science]] found that 80% of Australians believe in evolution (70% believe it is currently occurring, 10% believe in evolution but do not think it is currently occurring), 12% were not sure and 9% stated they do not believe in evolution.<ref>((cite web |url=https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/learning/documents/ScienceLiteracyReport2013.pdf |title=Science literacy in Australia |date=2013 |work=[[Australian Academy of Science]] ))</ref>

=== Belarus ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 63 percent of respondents in Belarus accept the theory of evolution while 23 percent of them deny evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

===Bolivia===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 44% of people in Bolivia believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 39% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

===Brazil===
In a 2010 poll, 59% of respondents said they believe in [[theistic evolution]], or evolution guided by God. A further 8% believe in evolution without divine intervention, while 25% were creationists. Support for creationism was stronger among the poor and the least educated.<ref>[http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/ciencia/ult306u715507.shtml 59% dos brasileiros acreditam em Deus e também em Darwin]</ref> According to a 2014 poll produced by the Pew Research Center, 66% of Brazilians agree that humans evolved over time and 29% think they have always existed in the present form.<ref name="PewLatinAmerica">((cite report|url=http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/chapter-8-religion-and-science/|title=Religion in Latin America|publisher=Pew Research Center|date=November 13, 2014))</ref>

===Canada===
In a 2019 nationwide poll, 61% of Canadians believe that humans evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, while 23% believe that God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.<ref name="Research Co.">[https://researchco.ca/2019/12/04/creationism-evolution-canada/ Research Co.]</ref>

===Chile===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 69% of people in [[Chile]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 26% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

===Colombia===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 59% of people in [[Colombia]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 35% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Costa Rica ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 56% of people in [[Costa Rica]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 38% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Czech Republic ===
According to the Pew Research Center, the [[Czech Republic]] has the highest acceptance of evolution in Eastern Europe. 83 percent people in the [[Czech Republic]] believe that humans evolved over time.

=== Dominican Republic ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 41% of people in [[Dominican Republic]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 56% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Ecuador ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 50% of people in [[Ecuador]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 44% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== El Salvador ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 46% of people in [[El Salvador]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 45% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Estonia ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 74% of [[Estonia]]ns accept the theory of evolution while 21% deny it and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."

=== Georgia ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 58 percent of [[Georgia (country)|Georgians]] accept the theory of evolution while 34 percent of Georgians deny the theory of evolution.<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Guatemala ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 55% of people in [[Guatemala]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 38% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Honduras ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 49% of people in [[Honduras]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 45% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Hungary ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 69 percent of [[Hungary|Hungarians]] accept the theory of evolution and 21 percent of Hungarians deny human evolution.<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Kazakhstan ===
According to the Pew Research Center, [[Kazakhstan]] has the highest acceptance of evolution in the Muslim countries. 79% of 
people in Kazakhstan accept the theory of evolution.<ref name="pewforum.org" />

=== India ===
According to a 2009 survey conducted by the British Council, 77% of people in [[India]] agree that enough scientific evidence exists to support evolution.<ref name="ncse India">[http://ncse.com/news/2009/07/opinions-evolution-from-ten-countries-004885 Opinions on evolution from ten countries] July 2nd, 2009, [[National Center for Science Education]]</ref><ref>((Cite news|date=July 1, 2009|title=Darwin and unnatural disbelief|work=Los Angeles Times|url=https://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/07/darwin-and-unnatural-disbelief.html|url-status=live|access-date=May 30, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200112170407/https://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/07/darwin-and-unnatural-disbelief.html|archive-date=Jan 12, 2020))</ref> Also, 85% of God believing Indians who know about evolution agree that life on earth evolved over time as a result of natural selection.<ref name="ncse India" />

In the same 2009 survey carried among 10 major nations, the highest proportion that agreed that evolutionary theories alone should be taught in schools was in India, at 49%.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8322781.stm Darwin teaching 'divides opinion'] [[BBC News]]; Monday, 26 October 2009. The 10 nations among which the survey was carried out were: Argentina, China, Egypt, Great Britain, India, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Spain, USA.</ref><ref>((Cite web|last=|first=|date=June 30, 2009|title=Results of Global British Council Global Education Darwin Survey|url=https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/evolution/09-Survey-BritishCouncil-globaleducationDarwineducation-MORIEducationDataTables-FINAL.pdf|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=January 14, 2021|website=British Council))</ref>

In a survey conducted across 12 states in India, public acceptance of evolution stood at 68.5%.<ref>((Cite news|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-snippets-two-of-three-indians-accept-evolution-led-by-four-of-five-in-delhi-says-study-5330037/|title=Explained snippets: Two of three Indians accept evolution, led by four of five in Delhi, says study|date=2018-08-29|work=The Indian Express|access-date=2018-08-31|language=en-US))</ref><ref>((Cite journal|last=Bast|first=Felix|date=2018|title=Public Acceptance of Evolution in India|url=http://op.niscair.res.in/index.php/JST/article/viewFile/21415/465464783|journal=Journal of Scientific Temper|volume=6|pages=24–38|via=))</ref>

In 2023, NCERT, under the rationalization scheme, removed Darwin's theory of evolution from class 10th school textbooks. Only students who take opt for biology in class 11th will be taught Darwin's theory of evolution.<ref>((cite news |title=NCERT Class 10th new syllabus 2023: Now, Evolution and Periodic table removed from CBSE science textbooks| url=https://www.indiatvnews.com/education/news/ncert-class-10th-new-syllabus-2023-now-evolution-and-periodic-table-removes-from-cbse-science-textbooks-2023-06-01-873801 | agency=India Tv | access-date=5 June 2023 | date=2 June 2023))</ref><ref>((cite news |title=Darwin's theory of evolution removed from school books in India |url=https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayextra/india-darwin/102280810 |agency=ABC Australia |access-date=11 May 2023 |date=30 Apr 2023))</ref>

=== Indonesia ===
A 2009 survey conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators&nbsp;found that 85% of [[Indonesia]]n high school students agreed with the statement, "Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time."<ref name="nytimes-islam">((Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03islam.html|title=Creationism, Without a Young Earth, Emerges in the Islamic World|last=Chang|first=Kenneth|date=2009-11-02|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-04-24|issn=0362-4331))</ref>

=== Israel ===
The theory of evolution is a 'hard sell' in schools in [[Israel]]. More than half of Israeli [[Jews]] accept the [[human evolution]] while more than 40% deny human evolution & claim that humans have always existed in their present form.<ref>((Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/education-values-and-science/pf_2016-03-08_israel-08-03 | title=About half of Israeli Jews believe in evolution &#124; Pew Research Center))</ref><ref>((Cite web | url=https://www.timesofisrael.com/evolution-a-hard-sell-among-israeli-jews-pew-study-finds/ | title=Evolution a hard sell among Israeli Jews, Pew study finds| website=[[The Times of Israel]]))</ref>

=== Latvia ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 66 percent of [[Latvia]]ns accept the theory of evolution while 25 percent of Latvians deny evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Lithuania ===
According to the Pew Research Center 54 percent of [[Lithuania]]ns accept the theory of evolution while 34 percent of them deny evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Mexico ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 64% of people in [[Mexico]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 32% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Moldova ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 49 percent of [[Moldova]]ns accept the theory of evolution while 42 percent of Moldovan deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in the present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Nicaragua ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 47% of people in [[Nicaragua]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 48% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Norway ===
According to a 2008 Norstat poll for [[NRK]], 59% of the [[Norway|Norwegian]] population fully accept evolution, 24% somewhat agree with the theory, 4% somewhat disagree with the theory while 8% do not accept evolution. 4% did not know.<ref>Chris Veløy (13 March 2008) [http://www.nrk.no/viten/1-av-10-tror-ikke-pa-evolusjonen-1.5085835 1 av 10 tror ikke på evolusjonen] NRK. Retrieved 14 January 2014 ((in lang|no))</ref>

=== Pakistan ===
A 2009 survey conducted by the McGill researchers and their international collaborators&nbsp;found that 86% of [[Pakistan]]i high school students agreed with the statement, "Millions of fossils show that life has existed for billions of years and changed over time."<ref name="nytimes-islam" />

=== Panama ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 61% of people in Panama believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 34% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Paraguay ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 59% of people in Paraguay believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 30% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Peru ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 51% of people in Peru believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 39% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Poland ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of [[Poland|Poles]] accept the theory of evolution while 23 percent of Poles deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Russia ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 65 percent of [[Russia]]ns accept the theory of evolution while 26 percent of Russians deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Serbia ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of [[Serbia]]ns accept the theory of evolution while 29 percent of respondents in Serbia deny the theory of evolution while and claim that "humans have always existed in their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Turkey ===
In 2017, the government removed the theory of evolution from the school curriculum.<ref>((cite news |last1=Kroet |first1=Cynthia |title=Darwin cut from Turkish schools |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/darwin-cut-from-turkish-schools/ |access-date=11 May 2023 |agency=Politico |date=July 18, 2017))</ref>

=== United Kingdom ===
A 2006 [[United Kingdom]] poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different explanations for the origin of life: 22% chose (Young Earth) [[Young Earth creationism|creationism]], 17% opted for [[intelligent design]] ("certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, e.g. God"), 48% selected evolution theory (with a divine role explicitly excluded) and the rest did not know.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm Britons unconvinced on evolution] BBC 26 January 2006</ref><ref>[https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/262/BBC-Survey-On-The-Origins-Of-Life.aspx BBC Survey On The Origins Of Life] IPSOS-Mori</ref> A 2009 poll found that only 38% of Britons believe God played no role in evolution.<ref>((Cite web|url=https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/poll-darwin-survey-shows-international-consensus-on-acceptance-of-evolution.pdf|title=Project Darwin Omnibus - Great Britain|date=April 2009|website=Ipsos|access-date=24 April 2017|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305194947/https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/poll-darwin-survey-shows-international-consensus-on-acceptance-of-evolution.pdf|archive-date=5 March 2016))</ref> In a 2012 poll, 69% of Britons believe that humans evolved from less advanced life forms, while 17% believe that God created human beings in their present forms within the last 10,000 years.<ref name="Angus Reid Polls">((Cite web |url=http://www.angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf |title=Angus Reid Polls |access-date=2015-04-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170621030930/http://angusreidglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012.09.05_CreEvo.pdf |archive-date=2017-06-21 |url-status=dead ))</ref>

===United States===
[[United States]] courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'', ''[[Hendren v. Campbell]]'', ''[[McLean v. Arkansas]]'' and ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]''.

A prominent organization in the United States behind the [[intelligent design movement]] is the [[Discovery Institute]], which, through its [[Center for Science and Culture]], conducts a number of [[Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns|public relations and lobbying campaigns]] aimed at influencing the public and policy makers in order to advance its position in [[academia]]. The Discovery Institute claims that because there is a significant lack of [[Argumentum ad populum|public support]] for evolution, that [[creation and evolution in public education|public schools]] should, as their campaign states, "[[Teach the Controversy]]", although there is no controversy over the validity of evolution within the scientific community.

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center;"
|+2009 Pew Research<ref name="Pew-2009-07-09-5">((cite web
|url=http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/
|title=Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues
|access-date=2013-03-06
|date=2009-07-09
|publisher=PewResearch
))</ref>
! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" |US Group
! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" ! |[[Young-Earth Creationism]] !! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | Belief in evolution [[theistic evolution|guided by supreme being]]!! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | Belief in evolution due to natural processes!! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | NA

|-
| align="left" |Public||31%||22%||32%||15%
|-
| align="left" |Scientists||2%||8%||87%||3%
|}

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;"
|+2014 Gallup poll<ref name="gallup170822">((cite web
|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
|title=In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins
|access-date=2015-07-29
|last=Newport
|first=Frank
|date=2014-06-02
|publisher=Gallup
))</ref>

! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" |Religious Institution Attendance
! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" ! |[[Young-Earth Creationism]] !! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | Belief in [[theistic evolution|God-guided evolution]]!! style="background:#d0e5f5;color:black" | Belief in evolution without God
|-
| align="left" |Attend church weekly||69%||24%||1%
|-
| align="left" |Attend church nearly weekly/monthly||47%||39%||9%
|-
| align="left" |Seldom/never attend church||23%||32%||34%
|}

The US has one of the highest levels of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origins of life on Earth among industrialized countries.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20070116213944/http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?CI=14107 ''Third of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory Almost half of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago'' Frank Newport ] Result of 2004 Gallup poll showing about 45% of the US public believe in the biblical creation account, and only 1/3 believe in Darwinian theory.</ref> However, according to the [[Pew Research Center]], 62 percent of adults in the United States accept human evolution while 34 percent of adults believe that humans have always existed in their present form. The poll involved over 35,000 adults in the United States. However acceptance of evolution varies per state. For example, the State of [[Vermont]] has the highest acceptance of evolution of any other State in the [[United States]]. 79% people in Vermont accept human evolution. While [[Mississippi]] with 43% has the lowest acceptance of evolution of any US state.<ref>((Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/ | title=Public's Views on Human Evolution &#124; Pew Research Center| date=2013-12-30))</ref>
<ref>((Cite web | url=http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-human-evolution/by/state/ | title=Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics &#124; Pew Research Center))</ref>

According to a 2021 study, in 2019, 54% of Americans agreed with the statement: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals".<ref name=":0">((Cite web |date=2021-08-20 |title=Study: Evolution now accepted by majority of Americans |url=https://news.umich.edu/study-evolution-now-accepted-by-majority-of-americans/ |access-date=2022-03-28 |website=[[University of Michigan]] News |language=en-US))</ref> A 2019 [[The Gallup Organization|Gallup]] creationism survey found that 40% of adults in the United States inclined to the belief that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when asked for their beliefs regarding the origin and development of human beings.<ref>((Cite web | url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx| date=July 26, 2019| title=40% of Americans Believe in Creationism))</ref> 22% believed that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", despite 49% of respondents indicating they believed in evolution. Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism.<ref name="timespoll">((cite news|url=http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm |title=Americans Still Hold Faith In Divine Creation |work=Washington Times (on-line) |last=Harper |first=Jennifer |date=2006-06-09 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060616013904/http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060608-111826-4947r.htm |archive-date=2006-06-16 ))</ref> The level of support for strict creationism could be even lower when poll results are adjusted after comparison with other polls with questions that more specifically account for uncertainty and ambivalence.<ref>((cite journal |last1=Branch |first1=Glenn |author-link1=Glenn Branch |title=Understanding Gallup's Latest Poll on Evolution |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |date=2017 |volume=41 |issue=5 |pages=5–6))</ref> A 2000 poll for [[People for the American Way]] found that 70% of the American public thought that evolution is compatible with a belief in God.<ref name="pfaw">((cite web | url = http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2097 | title = Evolution and Creationism in Public Education | publisher = People for the American Way Poll | access-date = 2007-10-29 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070930015140/http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2097 |archive-date = September 30, 2007))</ref>

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;"
|+2007 Gallup poll<ref name="gallup27847">((cite web
|url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx
|title=Majority of Republicans doubt theory of evolution
|access-date=2008-06-01
|last=Newport
|first=Frank
|date=2007-06-11
|publisher=Gallup
))</ref>
!Political identification
!Do not believe in evolution
!Believe in evolution
!NA
|-
| align="left" |Republican||68%||30%||2%
|-
| align="left" |Democrat||40%||57%||3%
|-
| align="left" |Independent||37%||61%||2%
|}

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: center;"
|+2005 Pew Research Center poll<ref name="pew2005">2005 Pew Research Center poll</ref>
!Political identification
!Creationist
!Believe in evolution
!NA
|-
| align="left" |Republican||60%||11%||29%
|-
| align="left" |Democrat||29%||44%||27%
|}

According to a 2021 study, in 2019, 34% of conservative Republicans and 83% of liberal Democrats accepted evolution.<ref name=":0" /> A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70% of evangelical Christians believed that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32% of mainline Protestants shared this opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll<ref name="Harrispoll">[http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 ''Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God''] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051217080148/http://harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581 |date=2005-12-17 )), The Harris Poll #52, July 6, 2005.</ref> estimated that 63% of liberals and 37% of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.<ref name="Shermer" />

=== Ukraine ===
According to the Pew Research Center, 54 percent of respondents in [[Ukraine]] accept the theory of evolution while 34 percent deny the theory of evolution and claim that "humans have always existed their present form."<ref name="ReferenceA" />

=== Uruguay ===
According to a 2014 poll produced by the Pew Research Center, 74% of people in [[Uruguay]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 20% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

=== Venezuela ===
According to a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, 63% of people in [[Venezuela]] believe "humans and other living things evolved over time" while 33% believe they have "always existed in the present form."<ref name="PewLatinAmerica" />

==Other support for evolution==
There are also many educational organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.<ref>[http://ncse.com/media/voices/education List of educational organizations that support evolution and their statements about evolution]</ref>

Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent design advocates have lost suits in US courts.<ref>''Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998)'' [http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309063647/html/121.html Appendix A], National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1998.</ref> Here is a list of important court cases in which creationists have suffered setbacks:

*1968 ''[[Epperson v. Arkansas]]'', [[United States Supreme Court]]<ref>Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97. (1968)</ref>
*1981 ''[[Segraves v. State of California]]'', [[Supreme Court of California]]<ref>Segraves v. California, No. 278978 Sacramento Superior Court (1981)</ref>
*1982 ''[[McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education]]'', U.S. [[United States district court|Federal Court]]<ref>McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 50 (1982) U.S. Law Week 2412</ref>
*1987 ''[[Edwards v. Aguillard]]'', [[United States Supreme Court]]<ref>Edwards v. Aguillard, 482, U.S. 578, 55 (1987) U.S. Law Week 4860, S. CT. 2573, 96 L. Ed. 2d510</ref>
*1990 ''[[Webster v. New Lenox School District]]'', Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals<ref>Webster v. New Lenox School District #122, 917 F.2d 1004 (7th. Cir., 1990)</ref>
*1994 ''[[Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District]]'', Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District], 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir., 1994)</ref>
*1997 ''[[Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education]]'', United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana<ref>[http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1625.ZD.html Freiler v Tangipahoa Board of Education], No. 94-3577 (E.D. La. Aug. 8, 1997)</ref>
*2000 ''[[Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al.]]'', District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota<ref>Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]</ref>
*2005 ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]'', US Federal Court<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District No. 04-2688 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 20, 2005)</ref>
*2006 ''[[Hurst v. Newman]]'' US District Court Eastern District of California

== Trends ==
The level of assent that evolution garners has changed with time. The trends in acceptance of evolution can be estimated.

===Early impact of Darwin's theory===
The level of support for evolution in different communities has varied with time and social context.<ref>((cite thesis |last=Macpherson |first=Ryan |date=2003 |title=The Vestiges of Creation in America's Pre-Darwinian Evolution Debates: Interpreting Theology and the Natural Sciences in Three Academic Communities |type=PhD |publisher=University of Notre Dame|url=https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=5441001 |access-date=17 August 2019)), found that different answers about the nature of salvation correlated with attitudes toward the pre-Darwinian ''[[Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation|Vestiges]]''</ref> [[Charles Darwin|Darwin's]] theory had convinced almost every naturalist within 20 years of its publication in 1858, and was making serious inroads with the public and the more liberal clergy. It had reached such extremes, that by 1880, one
American religious weekly publication estimated that "perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half of the educated ministers in our leading Evangelical denominations" thought "that the story of the creation and fall of man, told in Genesis, is no more the record of actual occurrences than is the parable of the Prodigal Son."<ref name=Numbers>[https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20070621033807/http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/NUMCRX_excerpt.pdf ''The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, expanded edition'', Ronald L. Numbers, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 2006] ((ISBN|0-674-02339-0))</ref>

By the late 19th century, many of the most conservative Christians accepted an ancient Earth, and life on Earth before Eden. [[Victorian Era]] Creationists were more akin to people who subscribe to [[theistic evolution]] today. Even fervent anti-evolutionist [[Scopes Trial]] prosecutor [[William Jennings Bryan]] interpreted the "days" of [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]] as ages of the Earth, and acknowledged that biochemical evolution took place, drawing the line only at the story of [[Adam and Eve]]'s creation. Prominent pre-World War II creationist [[Harry Rimmer]] allowed an [[Old Earth Creationist|Old Earth]] by slipping millions of years into putative gaps in the Genesis account, and claimed that the [[Noachian Flood]] was only a local phenomenon.<ref name=Numbers/>

In the decades of the 20th century, [[George McCready Price]] and a tiny group of [[Seventh-day Adventist Church|Seventh-day Adventist]] followers were among the very few believers in a [[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth]] and a worldwide flood, which Price championed in his "new catastrophism" theories. It was not until the publication of [[John C. Whitcomb, Jr.]], and [[Henry M. Morris]]’s book ''Genesis Flood'' in 1961 that Price's idea was revived. In the last few decades, many creationists have adopted Price's beliefs, becoming progressively more strict [[biblical literalists]].<ref name=Numbers/>((Dead link|date=December 2015))

===Recent public beliefs===
((Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|date=December 2010))
In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US population, and 25% of college graduates agreed with the statement, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Fourteen years later, in 2005, Gallup found that 53% of Americans expressed the belief that "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." About 2/3 (65.5%) of those surveyed thought that creationism was definitely or probably true. In 2005 a [[Newsweek]] poll discovered that 80 percent of the American public thought that "God created the universe." and the Pew Research Center reported that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools." [[Ronald Numbers]] commented on that with "Most surprising of all was the discovery that large numbers of high-school biology teachers — from 30% in Illinois and 38% in Ohio to a whopping 69% in Kentucky — supported the teaching of creationism."<ref name=Numbers/>

The [[National Center for Science Education]] reports that from 1985 to 2005, the number of Americans unsure about evolution increased from 7% to 21%, while the number rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%.<ref name=ScienceSurvey/><ref name=Hecht>[https://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9786 Why doesn't America believe in evolution?, Jeff Hecht, New Scientist, 20 August 2006]</ref> Jon Miller of Michigan State University has found in his polls that the number of Americans who accept evolution has declined from 45% to 40% from 1985 to 2005.<ref>Science, vol 313, p 765</ref>

In light of these somewhat contradictory results, it is difficult to know for sure what is happening to public opinion on evolution in the US. It does not appear that either side is making unequivocal progress. It does appear that uncertainty about the issue is increasing, however.

A Pew Research Center poll in 2018 found that the way the question is asked changes the results, for instance among U.S. adults the number of people who believe humans have evolved over time varies from 68% to 81% based on the question format.<ref>((Cite web|last=Funk|first=Cary|title=How highly religious Americans view evolution depends on how they're asked about it|url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/06/how-highly-religious-americans-view-evolution-depends-on-how-theyre-asked-about-it/|access-date=2022-02-18|website=Pew Research Center|language=en-US))</ref>

Anecdotal evidence suggests that creationism is gaining ground in the UK as well. One report in 2006 stated that UK students are increasingly arriving ill-prepared to participate in medical studies or other advanced education.<ref>[http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1714171,00.html ''Academics fight rise of creationism at universities: More students believe Darwin got it wrong, Royal Society challenges "insidious problem"''], Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Tuesday February 21, 2006.</ref>

===Recent scientific trends===
The level of support for [[creationism]] among relevant scientists is minimal. In 2007 the [[Discovery Institute]] reported that about 600 scientists signed their ''[[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism|A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism]]'' list, up from 100 in 2001.<ref>((cite web | url = http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732 | title = Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin's Theory on the Rise | author = Staff, [[Discovery Institute]] | publisher = [[Discovery Institute]] |date=2007-03-08 | access-date = 2007-10-30 ))</ref> The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism' (and is in line with the [[falsifiability]] required of [[Theory#Science|scientific theories]]) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.<ref name=Evans>((cite web | url = http://ncse.com/creationism/general/doubting-darwinism-creative-license | title = Doubting Darwinism through Creative License | last = Evans | first = Skip | author-link = Skip Evans | publisher = [[National Center for Science Education]] |date=2001-11-29 | access-date = 2007-12-13))</ref> By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as [[Project Steve]], a list restricted to scientists with the name Steve (or variations of it) who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 1,491 signatories ((As of|2023|9|18|alt=as of September 18, 2023)).<ref name=home>((cite web |url=http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve |title=Project Steve |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]] |access-date=November 24, 2015 |date=October 17, 2008))</ref> People with these names make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.

The United States [[National Science Foundation]] statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.<ref>((cite web | url = https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04311/pdf/tab42.pdf | title = NSF statistics on science graduates 1966&ndash;2001 | publisher = National Science Foundation | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20061109070632/https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf04311/pdf/tab42.pdf | archive-date = 2006-11-09 ))</ref> The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.<ref>((cite web | url = http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/preformatted-tables/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf | title = 1999 SESTAT (Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data) Table C-1 | publisher = National Science Foundation/Science Resources Statistics Division | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060929135233/http://srsstats.sbe.nsf.gov/preformatted-tables/1999/tables/TableC1.pdf | archive-date = 2006-09-29 ))</ref>

A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.<ref name=Chang>((cite news | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?_r=1&oref=slogin | title = Few Biologists But Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition | first = Kenneth | last = Chang | work = The [[New York Times]] |date=2006-03-21 | format = php )); text available without registering at ((cite web | url = http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2006-02-25.htm | title = Skeptical News ))</ref> As of 2006, the dissenter list was expanded to include non-US scientists.<ref>((cite web | url = http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/dissent_from_darwinism_goes_gl.html | last = Crowther | first = Robert | publisher = [[Discovery Institute]] | title = Dissent From Darwinism 'Goes Global' as Over 600 Scientists Around the World Express Their Doubts About Darwinian Evolution | access-date = 2007-10-30 |date=2006-06-21 ))</ref>

Some researchers are attempting to understand the factors that affect people's acceptance of evolution. Studies have yielded inconsistent results, explains associate professor of education at Ohio State University, David Haury. He recently performed a study that found people are likely to reject evolution if they have feelings of uncertainty, regardless of how well they understand evolutionary theory. Haury believes that teachers need to show students that their intuitive feelings may be misleading (for example, using the [[Wason selection task]]), and thus to exercise caution when relying on them as they judge the rational merits of ideas.<ref>((cite journal|doi=10.1002/tea.20449 | volume=49 | issue=1 | title=Feeling of certainty: Uncovering a missing link between knowledge and acceptance of evolution | year=2011 | journal=Journal of Research in Science Teaching | pages=95–121 | last1 = Ha | first1 = Minsu| bibcode=2012JRScT..49...95H | doi-access=free ))</ref><ref>[http://news.discovery.com/human/intuition-belief-evolution-120122.html Discovery News, "Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling", Sun Jan 22, 2012 09:24 AM ET. Content provided by LiveScience.com]</ref>

==See also==
*[[History of creationism]]
*[[List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design]]

== Footnotes ==
((Reflist))

== References ==
*((Cite book |last=ʻAbdu'l-Bahá |author-link=ʻAbdu'l-Bahá |year=1908 |publication-date=1990 |title=[[Some Answered Questions]] |publisher=Baháʼí Publishing Trust |place=Wilmette, Illinois, USA ))
*((Cite book |last=ʻAbdu'l-Bahá |year=1912 |publication-date=1995 |title=Paris Talks |publisher=Baháʼí Distribution Service |place=London |url=http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PT/ |isbn=1-870989-57-0 ))
*((Cite book |last=Effendi |first=Abbas |author-link=ʻAbdu'l-Bahá |year=1912 |title=The Promulgation of Universal Peace |publication-date=1987 |publisher=US Baháʼí Publishing Trust |url=http://www.reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PUP/pup-117.html#gr9 |isbn=0-87743-172-8 ))
*((Cite journal
 | last1 = Matsumura
 | first1 = Molleen
 | date = 1998
 | title = What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution?
 | journal = Reports of the National Center About Evolution
 | volume = 18
 | pages = 8–9
 | url = http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/what-do-christians-really-believe-evolution
 | issue = 2
 )) Retrieved on 2007-02-07
*((Cite journal
 | last1 = National Center for Science Education (NCSE)
 | author-link = National Center for Science Education
 | date = 2002
 | title = Statements from Religious Organizations
 | journal = NCSE Resource
 | url = http://ncse.com/media/voices/religion
 | ref = ((SfnRef|NCSE|2002))
 )) Retrieved on 2007-02-08

((Evolution))
((portal bar|Biology|Evolution))

((DEFAULTSORT:Level Of Support For Evolution))
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Intelligent design controversies]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Edwards v. Aguillard (edit)
Level of support for evolution (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:As of (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Bar box (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Bar pixel (edit)
Template:Blockquote (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Blockquote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category-inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation needed (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite book (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite court (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite magazine (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite report (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite thesis (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dead link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:Endflatlist (view source) (protected)
Template:Evolution (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Evolutionary biology (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Flatlist (view source) (protected)
Template:For (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Globalize (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Globalize/name (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Harvard citation no brackets (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Harvnb (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:ISBN (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:If all (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:In lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Incomplete short citation (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:MONTHNAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:MONTHNUMBER (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Nowrap (view source) (protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:PAGENAMEBASE (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Plainlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Portal-inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Portal bar (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Primary sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:See also (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:SfnRef (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Startflatlist (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Template:Yesno-no (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno-yes (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Check isxn (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes/anchor id list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes/anchor id list/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Footnotes/whitelist (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:For (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:In lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang/ISO 639 synonyms (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana languages (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana regions (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana scripts (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana suppressed scripts (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana variants (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:Portal (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal-inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/aliases (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/b (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/e (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal bar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal bar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Redirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Unicode data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Webarchive/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Level of support for evolution.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution"