The public’s knowledge of science and technology varies widely across a range of questions on current topics and basic scientific concepts, according to a new quiz by the Pew Research Center and Smithsonian magazine. Click here to take the quiz yourself before reviewing the answers.

About eight-in-ten Americans (83%) identify ultraviolet as the type of radiation that sunscreen protects against. Nearly as many (77%) know that the main concern about the overuse of antibiotics is that it can lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

However, only about half (51%) of the public knows that “fracking” is a process that extracts natural gas, not coal, diamonds or silicon from the earth.

Similarly, knowledge of basic scientific concepts differs greatly across questions. While most Americans (78%) know that the basic function of red blood cells is to carry oxygen to all parts of the body, just 20% could identify nitrogen as the gas that makes up most of the atmosphere.

The quiz is part of a nationwide survey, conducted March 7-10 among 1,006 adults, which also probed opinions and perceptions about science and math in education. The survey was conducted with Smithsonian magazine for an edition focusing on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education (see “How Much Do Americans Know about Science?”).

The public underestimates how well American high school students perform on standardized science tests compared with students in other developed nations. A plurality (44%) believes that 15-year-olds in other developed nations outrank U.S. students in knowledge of science; according to an international student assessment, U.S. 15-year-olds are in the middle ranks of developed nations in science knowledge.

Nearly half of Americans (46%) say that the main reason that many young people do not pursue degrees in math and science is mostly because they think these subjects are too hard; just 22% say it is mostly because young people think math and science are not useful for their careers while 20% say it is because they think these subjects are too boring. Women (54%) are more likely than men (37%) to say that the main reason young people do not pursue math and science degrees is because they think these subjects are too difficult.

The survey asked an open-ended question about what one subject K-12 schools should emphasize more these days; 30% of respondents say math; 19% say English, grammar or writing, while 11% say science; and 10% say history, social studies or government. Overall, 45% mention some aspect of science, technology, engineering or mathematics.

About the Quiz: Chemical Reactions, Control Groups and CO2

The new survey includes a mix of 13 knowledge questions; some are the type that might be found in a science textbook while others come from news coverage of science and technology issues.

Among the textbook-type questions, the quiz asks which is a chemical reaction – water boiling, sugar dissolving or nails rusting. Two-thirds (66%) correctly say that nails rusting is an example of a chemical reaction; much smaller percentages incorrectly say that water boiling (12%) and sugar dissolving (also 12%) are examples of chemical reactions.

The survey also asks about basic scientific knowledge in a series of true-false questions. Most Americans (77%) correctly say it is true that the continents have been moving for millions of years and will continue to move in the future. But only about half (47%) say it is true that electrons are smaller than atoms. The percentages answering these and other true-false questions correctly are little changed from a June 2009 survey.

Other questions test knowledge of scientific methods and current scientific issues. Most Americans know that scientists use control groups to test the effectiveness of new drugs in treating disease. Three-quarters (75%) correctly say that scientists give a new drug to half of a group of volunteers, but not to the other half, and compare how many in each group get better. Just 19% say it would be more effective to give the drug to the entire group.

Demographic Differences in Knowledge about Science & Technology

Education is the strongest demographic predictor of knowledge about science and technology. People with at least some exposure to college do much better than those with no college experience on nearly all of the questions.

On several questions, there also are wide differences between college graduates and those who have attended college but not graduated. For instance, 76% of college graduates but just 55% of those with some college experience identify carbon dioxide as the gas that most scientists believe causes atmospheric temperatures to rise.

There are only modest partisan differences in knowledge about which gas is generally seen by scientists as causing atmospheric temperatures to rise; 63% of independents say it is carbon dioxide, as do 58% of Republicans and 56% of Democrats.

Notably, even most college graduates could not identify the gas that makes up most of the earth’s atmosphere. Just 31% correctly say it is nitrogen, while an identical percentage (31%) incorrectly says it is oxygen. Among those with a high school education or less, oxygen is the most frequent response.

In previous Pew Research Center surveys measuring knowledge of politics and public affairs, young people typically have not fared as well as older people. But that pattern does not hold for most questions about scientific topics. As a group, those younger than 30 do about as well as those in the 30-49 and 50-64 age groups.

Meanwhile, people 65 and older scored relatively low on many questions. Just 37% know that nanotechnology deals with small things; majorities in younger age groups know this. And just 27% correctly answered a question about how lasers work, compared with about half in older age groups.

However, half (50%) of those 65 and older identify natural gas as the resource extracted in fracking, compared with 61% of those 50-64, 52% of those 30-49 and just 35% of those under 30. This was the only question on which those 65 and older scored higher than those younger than 30.

Overall, men outperformed women on the quiz, though in many cases the differences are modest. On average, men answered 8.6 items correctly, compared with 7.7 items for women.

On the health-related questions on the quiz, however, women did as well as or better than men. Women are more likely than men to know that a major concern of the overuse of antibiotics is that it can lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria (81% of women know this vs. 72% of men).

What Subject Should Receive More Emphasis in K-12 Schools?

Asked in an open-ended format what one subject being taught in K-12 schools should receive greater emphasis than it does now, 30% volunteer math and arithmetic. About one-in-five (19%) say English, grammar, writing and reading should receive more emphasis, while about one-in-ten cite science (11%) or history (10%).

Republicans (35%) are more likely than Democrats (24%) to say that math and arithmetic should be emphasized more by schools. More Republicans (13%) than Democrats (5%) also say that history, social studies and civics should get greater attention.

By contrast, while 17% of Democrats say that science should receive greater emphasis in K-12 schools, just 7% of Republicans agree. Comparable percentages of Republicans and Democrats say other subjects – including English and grammar, art and music, and religion and Christianity – deserve more emphasis than they are currently receiving.

Many Say U.S. Students Are Outranked in Science

A plurality of Americans (44%) say that average American 15-year-olds rank at the bottom on standardized tests of science knowledge, when compared with students in other developed nations. That is incorrect: According to the most recent available data from the Program for International Student Assessment, U.S. students rank among the middle of OECD nations.

The survey finds that 35% correctly know that U.S. 15-year-olds are about in the middle when it comes to science knowledge; 7% say incorrectly that American students rank among the top of developed nations.

College graduates are more likely than those with less education to underestimate the performance of U.S. teens on standardized science tests. More than half of college graduates (56%) say that American students rank near the bottom among developed countries. That compares with 46% of those with some college experience who do not have a degree and 36% of those with no more than a high school education.

There are no significant partisan differences in evaluations of student performance on standardized science tests: 46% of Republicans and about as many Democrats (45%) and independents (45%) say they rank near the bottom among developed nations.

When asked why many young people do not pursue degrees in math and science, a 46% plurality says it is mostly because they view these subjects as too difficult. Fewer say young people are turned off because they see math and science as not useful for their careers (22%) or because they are too boring (20%).

Young people have about the same opinions as older people for why many do not pursue math and science degrees: 47% say it is because those subjects are seen as too difficult. More women (54%) than men (37%) say many young people do not go after degrees in math and science mainly because they perceive those subjects as being too difficult.

Overview

On the eve of the final mission of the U.S. space shuttle program, most Americans say the United States must be at the forefront of future space exploration. Fifty years after the first American manned space flight, nearly six-in-ten (58%) say it is essential that the United States continue to be a world leader in space exploration; about four-in-ten say this is not essential (38%).

Looking back on the shuttle program, a majority (55%) say it has been a good investment for the country. However, this is lower than it was in the 1980s; throughout the early years of the shuttle program, six-in-ten or more said the program was a good investment.

Majorities in nearly all demographic groups say it is essential that the U.S. continue to be at the vanguard of space exploration. And partisan groups largely agree that American leadership is vital, although this view is more prevalent among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say the nation must continue to play an international leadership role in space exploration; smaller majorities of Democrats (54%) and independents (57%) say this.

Shuttle Has Been “Good Investment”

As the shuttle program comes to a close 30 years after its first mission, 55% of Americans think the program has been a good investment for the country; 36% do not think so. In August 1981, four months after the first shuttle flight, 66% said the program was a good investment.

About two-thirds of college graduates (66%) say the shuttle program has been a good investment, as does a smaller majority of those with some college education (57%). Among those with no college experience, assessments of the value of the shuttle program are more mixed:  47% say it has been a good investment, while 43% say it has not.

Americans with annual family incomes of $75,000 or more give more positive evaluations to the shuttle program than those with lower incomes. By greater than two-to-one those with higher incomes say the program has been a good investment (67% good vs. 27% not good); those with annual incomes of less than $30,000 are divided in their views (44% good, 47% not good). And while about six-in-ten Republicans (63%) and independents (60%) say the program has been a good investment, Democrats are more muted in their appraisals (48% good investment).

Benefits of Space Program

Large majorities say that the space program has helped encourage interest in science, led to scientific advances and contributed to feelings of patriotism. But no more than about four-in-ten say that the program has contributed “a lot” in any of these areas.

Overall, 39% say it has contributed a lot to encouraging interest in science, 35% say it has contributed some while 22% think it has contributed not much or nothing. Nearly as many (38%) say the space program has contributed a lot to scientific advances that all Americans can use, while 34% think it has done a lot for feelings or pride and patriotism.

There are only modest political and demographic differences in opinions about the space program’s contributions. More men than women say the program contributes a lot to scientific advances (by 45% to 31%) and encouraging interest in science and technology (44% to 35%).

Imagine a future in which cancer becomes a memory, ordinary people travel in space, and computers carry on conversations like humans. Now imagine a darker future – a world beset by war, rising temperatures and energy shortages, one where the United States faces a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons.

Most Americans think that these developments and many others are likely to unfold over the next 40 years. In the public’s view, this promises to be an era of technological progress. Large majorities expect that computers will be able to carry on conversations (81% say this definitely or probably will happen) and that there will be a cure for cancer (71%). About two-thirds (66%) say that artificial arms and legs will outperform real limbs while 53% envision ordinary people traveling in space.

At the same time, most say that war, terrorism and environmental catastrophes are at least probable by the year 2050. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) see another world war as definite or probable; 53% say the same about the prospect for a major terrorist attack on the United States involving nuclear weapons. An even higher percentage (72%) anticipates that the world will face a major energy crisis in the next 40 years.

The public is evenly divided over whether the quality of the earth’s environment will improve over the next 40 years; as many say the environment is not likely to improve (50%) as say it is (47%). There continues to be a widespread belief that the earth will get warmer in the future, though the percentage expressing this view has declined by 10 points, from 76% to 66%, since 1999.

Moreover, 60% say the world’s oceans will be less healthy 40 years from now than they are today; just 32% say the oceans will be more healthy. The survey was conducted just after the April 20 explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico but before the full extent of the massive environmental damage caused by the oil leak became evident.

These are among the findings of a new survey of attitudes and expectations about the future, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Smithsonian magazine in conjunction with the magazine’s 40th anniversary (see “40 Things You Need to Know about the Next 40 Years“). The survey, conducted by landline and cell phones April 21-26 among 1,546 adults, was informed by a 1999 survey on the future that explored many of the same topics (see “Optimism Reigns, Technology Plays Key Role,” October 24, 1999).

Despite the current economic slump and the widespread anticipation of crises to come, most Americans remain upbeat about the future, both for themselves and the nation. Today, 64% say they are very or somewhat optimistic about life for themselves and their family over the next 40 years, while 61% are optimistic about the future of the United States. Moreover, 56% say the U.S. economy will be stronger than it is today.

Today’s recession-weary public is less sanguine about the long-term future than it was in May 1999, a time of very strong economic growth. Still, majorities across most demographic and political groups see things getting better – both for themselves and the nation – over the next four decades.

Race Relations and Health Care Expected to Improve

Thinking ahead 40 years, 68% say race relations in the United States will better, which is unchanged from the 1999 survey. And in the wake of the election of the nation’s first African American president, large majorities say that the election of a woman (89%) and Hispanic (69%) will definitely or probably occur.

Notably, far more Americans think that health care will be more affordable in the future than did so in May 1999. Currently, 50% say health care will be more affordable in 2050, while 46% say it will be less affordable. In 1999, just 36% said health care would be more affordable compared with 60% who said it would be less affordable.

While a clear majority (58%) expects the gap between rich and poor in the United States to grow by 2050, fewer people say this than did so in 1999 (69%). About a third (34%) now says the rich-poor gap will get smaller, up from 27% 11 years ago.

However, Americans are less optimistic about long-term prospects for public education than they were 11 years ago. About half (49%) say the public education system will improve by 2050, down from 66% who expressed that view in 1999.

The public expresses mixed views about America’s role in the world in 2050. On the one hand, people are divided over whether China will overtake the U.S. as the world’s main superpower – 46% say this will definitely or probably happen, while 49% say it will not. However, most Americans (53%) say that the United States will be less important in the world 40 years from now than it is today; 40% say it will be more important.

As the current decade draws to a close, relatively few Americans have positive things to say about it. By roughly two-to-one, more say they have a generally negative (50%) rather than a generally positive (27%) impression of the past 10 years. This stands in stark contrast to the public’s recollection of other decades in the past half-century. When asked to look back on the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, positive feelings outweigh negative in all cases.

To be sure, the passage of time may affect the way people view these historical periods. For example, had we asked the public’s impression of the 1970s in December of 1979, the negatives may well have outweighed the positives.

By a wide margin, the 9/11 terrorist attacks are seen as the most important event of the decade, with Barack Obama’s election as president a distant second – even among his political supporters. And the sour view of the decade is broad-based, with few in any political or demographic group offering positive evaluations.

Happy to put the 2000s behind them, most Americans are optimistic that the 2010s will be better. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they think the next decade will be better than the last for the country as a whole, though roughly a third (32%) think things will be worse.

There are a number of recent changes and trends that are viewed favorably. In particular, the major technological and communications advances are viewed in an overwhelmingly positive light.

Clear majorities see cell phones, the internet and e-mail as changes for the better, and most also view specific changes such as handheld internet devices and online shopping as beneficial trends. There is greater division of opinion, however, over whether social networking sites or internet blogs have been changes for the better or changes for the worse.

Most see increasing racial and ethnic diversity as a change for the better, as well as increased surveillance and security measures and the broader range of news and entertainment options.

But the public is divided over whether wider acceptance of gays and lesbians, cable news talk and opinion shows, and the growing number of people with money in the stock market are good or bad trends. Reality TV shows are, by a wide margin, the least popular trend tested in the poll; 63% say these shows have been a change for the worse. Tattoos are also unpopular with many – 40% say more people getting tattoos is a change for the worse, though 45% say it makes no difference and 7% see it as a change for the better.

A ‘Downhill’ Decade

The breadth and depth of discontent with the current decade is reflected in the words people use to describe it. The single most common word or phrase used to characterize the past 10 years is downhill, and other bleak terms such as poor, decline, chaotic, disaster, scary, and depressing are common. Other, more neutral, words like change, fair and interesting also come up, and while the word good is near the top of the list, there are few other positive words mentioned with any frequency.

Boomers Look Back Fondly

There is no significant generational divide in impressions of the current decade: Roughly half in all age groups view the 2000s negatively, while less than a third rates the decade positively. This is in stark contrast to generational differences in views of previous decades. The 1990s are viewed far more positively by younger people – roughly two-thirds of Americans younger than 50 have a positive impression of the decade compared with fewer than half of people ages 50 and older. The 1960s, by contrast, receive generally positive ratings from people ages 50 and older, while those under 50 offer more mixed views.

The biggest generational division of opinion is in retrospective evaluations of the 1970s. Baby Boomers – most of whom are between the ages of 50 and 64 today and were between 20 and 34 in 1979 – view this decade in an overwhelmingly favorable light, with positive impressions outnumbering negative views by 48 points (59% positive vs. 11% negative). By contrast, people who were younger than 20 at the end of the 1970s – who are currently in their 30s and 40s – offer a less positive assessment; just 28% view the decade positively, 20% negatively, and 52% say neither or offer no opinion.

The decade out of the last half century with the best image right now is the 1980s. While comparable percentages offer positive evaluations of the 1980s (56%) and 1990s (57%), negative ratings for the 1980s are lower than for the 1990s (12% vs. 19%). And the balance of opinion about the 1980s is overwhelmingly positive across all age groups – with positive views outnumbering negative by more than three-to-one across the board.

Next Decade Looks Better

Most Americans (59%) think the next decade will be better than the current one for the country as a whole, and this perspective is widely shared across most political and demographic groups. But a significant minority – 32% – is of the view that things will be worse in the 2010s than in the 2000s. Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats (42% vs. 20%) to offer a pessimistic assessment of the next decade. Roughly a third (34%) of independents offer a gloomy prediction.

Generationally, Americans between the ages of 50 and 64 are the most pessimistic about the 2010s – 42% think things will be worse over the next 10 years. This compares with 30% of people under 50 and just 26% of those age 65 and older. Along religious lines, white evangelical Protestants take a far more pessimistic view of the next decade than other major religious groups. Just over half (52%) of white evangelicals predict that the coming decade will be worse than the current one, far more than the number of white mainline Protestants (29%), white Catholics (24%) or unaffiliated (28%) Americans who take this view.

9/11 the Crystallizing Event

When offered a list of six major events of the decade, just over half (53%) say that the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were the single most important event of the decade. Trailing far behind, 16% cite Obama’s election as president, 12% the 2008 financial crisis, 6% George W. Bush’s election as president, 5% the war in Iraq, and 3% cite Hurricane Katrina.

More than a quarter (28%) of Democrats say Obama’s election was the single most important event of the decade, far more than among independents (12%) or Republicans (8%). Because of this focus on Obama’s election, fewer Democrats (43%) cite the Sept. 11 attacks as the biggest event of the decade than Republicans (60%) or independents (56%).

And while 9/11 is seen as the most important event across all age groups, opinions about the importance of other events differ in significant ways. People under age 30 are more likely than their elders to name the war in Iraq as the most important event of the decade (11% vs. 3% of those ages 30 and over). And, along with the oldest cohort, younger Americans are less likely to name 9/11 as the most important event.

Technology and Communications Changes Viewed Positively

The internet – perhaps the seminal technological development of recent decades – conti
nues to be widely seen in a favorable light. About two-thirds (65%) say the internet has been a change for the better, while just 16% say it has been a change for the worse; 11% say it hasn’t made much difference while 8% are unsure. This largely mirrors the balance of opinion at the close of the 1990s – the decade that saw the widespread adoption of the web. In 1999, 69% called the internet a change for the better and 18% called it a change for the worse.

As with most technological developments, young people and the well educated are particularly likely to embrace the internet as a change for the better. About three-quarters (76%) of young people view the web as a positive change, compared with far fewer (42%) of those ages 65 and older. Older Americans, however, are no more likely to see the internet as a change for the worse than are younger people, rather more seniors simply say it has made no difference or are unsure as to its impact.

As was the case in 1999, far more of those with a college degree say the internet has been a change for the better (82%) than do those with no college experience (52%). And the internet – like most other technological developments – is not a politicized innovation: similar majorities of Republicans (69%), Democrats (68%), and independents (63%) say the internet has been a positive change.

Email, the form of communication born from the web, is viewed as favorably as the internet itself. By an overwhelming margin, more say email has been a change for the better (65%) than say it has been a change for the worse (7%); 19% say it hasn’t made a difference. Views of email are largely unchanged from a decade ago, though there has been a slight decline in the share describing email as a change for the better. This decline has taken place largely among young people: 69% of those younger than 30 say email has been a change for the better, compared with 82% a decade ago. Very few young people – just 1% – say email has been a change for the worse, but a quarter of those who came of age in the current decade – with ever-increasing options for real-time, wireless communication – say email has not made much of a difference. In 1999, just 6% of those under 30 expressed that view.

In addition to the internet and email, cell phones are broadly embraced by the public as a change for the better. Nearly seven-in-ten (69%) call cell phones a change for the better compared with just 14% who call them a change for the worse. Overall, the public’s take on cell phones is slightly better than it was ten years ago. In 1999, 22% felt that cell phones were a change for the worse – this has fallen to 14% in the current survey.

Age Gap in Views of Handheld Devices

Handheld devices such as Blackberries and iPhones are seen as a good thing by most people (56%). However, a quarter (25%) says these devices have been a change for the worse. The age gap in attitudes toward these devices is particularly wide: 72% of those under 30 consider handheld wireless devices to be a positive change, compared with just 33% of those 65 and older.

The public is ambivalent when it comes to evaluating social networking sites such as Facebook. About a third (35%) call them a change for the better, 21% say they have been a change for the worse, while 31% say social networking sites have not made much of a difference and 12% are unsure. In fact, even among young people, fewer than half (45%) say social networking sites have been a change for the better.

And when it comes to internet blogs, the plurality opinion (36%) is that the emergence of blogs has not made much of a difference. Slightly fewer (29%) call them a change for the better, while 21% think they have been a change for the worse.

Greater Diversity Seen as Positive Change

A majority (61%) of the public says that the increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the United States has been a change for the better; 25% say increasing diversity has not made much difference and only 9% say it has been a change for the worse. However, opinion that increased diversity has been a change for the better is more widely held among some demographic groups than others.

Older people are less likely to believe that increased diversity has been a change for the better; about half (49%) of people ages 65 and older say this has been a change for the better compared with about two-thirds (66%) of those younger than 50. More college graduates (72%) than those with a high school education or less (54%) think increased diversity is a change for the better.

Divisions over Acceptance of Gays

There is far less agreement about the increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians. Overall, 38% say this has been a change for the better, 28% a change for the worse and 28% say it has made no difference. As with other public opinion questions about homosexuality, there is a substantial divide between how younger and older Americans view this issue.

By greater than two-to-one, those younger than 50 see increased acceptance of gays and lesbians as a change for the better (45%), not worse (19%) By contrast, people ages 65 and older see this as a change for the worse, not the better, by more than two-to-one (46% to 21%).

There is a substantial gender divide on this issue: more women than men think increased acceptance of gays and lesbians has been a change for the better (45% vs. 31%). And this gender gap spans generations. Younger women in particular see this as a change for the better; 53% of women under 50 say this has been a change for the better, compared with 36% of men in this age range.

There also are educational differences on the issue of increased acceptance of gays and lesbians: 51% of college graduates and 44% of those with some college education say this has been a change for the better compared with only 28% of those with a high school education or less. In addition, while 52% of Democrats and 40% of independents think increased acceptance of gays and lesbians is a change for the better, just 21% of Republicans agree. And just 20% of white non-Hispanic evangelical Protestants say greater acceptance of gays is a change for the better, a far lower percentage than in other religious groups.

Most See Benefits of Genetic Testing

A majority of Americans (53%) say that genetic testing has been a change for the better while 22% say it has not made much difference and 13% say it has been a change for the worse. A plurality across all age and educational groups says that genetic testing has been a change for the better, but fewer of those who are 65 and older or who have a high school education or less believe this.

White evangelical Protestants are more divided in their opinion than nearly all other demographic groups. About four-in-ten (39%) say genetic testing has been a change for the better, but 25% say it has made no difference and 23% say it has been a change for worse. A plurality of Republicans, Democrats and independents say that genetic testing has been a change for the better, but Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that it has been a change for the worse (18% vs. 8%).

Generations Divide over Tattoos

The public is divided about the impact of more people getting tattoos; 45% say it has not made much difference, 40% think it has been a change for the worse and only 7% say this has been a change for the better. As might be expected, older Americans are far more likely to negatively view this trend: 64% of those 65 and older and 51% of those 50 to 64 say more people getting tattoos has been a change for the worse. A majority of those under 50 (56%) say the tattoo trend has not made much of a difference.

The age differences are larger among women than men. About six-in-ten (61%) women ages 50 and older say more people getting tattoos have been a change for the worse compared with 27% of younger women. The gap is smaller among men: 51% of men 50 and older say more people getting tattoos has been a change for the worse compared with 30% of younger men.

A majority (56%) of white evangelical Protestants say that more people getting tattoos has been a change for the worse; white mainline Protestants and white Catholics are more divided in their opinion. By comparison, 57% of those who are religiously unaffiliated say that more people getting tattoos has not made much difference.

Cable Talk a Mixed Bag

The public also is divided about the effect of cable news talk and opinion shows; 34% say they have been a change for the better, 31% think they have made no difference and 30% say they have been a change for the worse. More young people think these shows have been a change for the worse than people 65 and older. Similarly, more college graduates (43%) say cable news talk and opinion shows have been a change for the worse than those with some college education (28%) or with a high school education or less (23%).

On balance, more Republicans say cable news talk and opinion shows have been a change for the better (40%) than worse (24%). Democrats and independents are more divided with about the same percentages of each group viewing these shows positively and negatively.

A plurality (44%) of those who get most national and international news from cable television news say that cable talk and opinion shows have been a change for the better, compared with 31% who get most of their news from network news. People whose main news source is cable news are also more likely than those who get most news from newspapers to say these shows have been a change for the better.

The public overwhelmingly thinks that reality television shows have been a change for the worse; 63% say this compared with 22% who say they have not made much difference and only 8% who say they have been a change for the better. A plurality in all age groups says these shows have been a change for the worse. Even though a majority in all education groups says reality television shows have been a change for the worse; college graduates or those with some college education are more likely than those with a high school education or less to say they have been a change for the worse.

Americans like science. Overwhelming majorities say that science has had a positive effect on society and that science has made life easier for most people. Most also say that government investments in science, as well as engineering and technology, pay off in the long run. And scientists are very highly rated compared with members of other professions: Only members of the military and teachers are more likely to be viewed as contributing a lot to society’s well-being.

However, the public has a far less positive view of the global standing of U.S. science than do scientists themselves. Just 17% of the public thinks that U.S. scientific achievements rate as the best in the world.
A survey of more than 2,500 scientists, conducted in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), finds that nearly half (49%) rate U.S. scientific achievements as the best in the world. When asked about their own scientific specialty, about the same share of scientists (45%) rate U.S. scientific achievements the best in the world.

There are indications that the public also is somewhat less confident in America’s scientific prowess than it once was. Significantly fewer Americans volunteer scientific advances as one of the country’s most important achievements than did so a decade ago (27% today, 47% in May 1999). As an example, ten years ago, 18% cited space exploration and the moon landing as the country’s top achievement of the 20th century. Today 12% see it as the greatest achievement of the past 50 years.

While the public holds scientists in high regard, many scientists offer unfavorable, if not critical, assessments of the public’s knowledge and expectations. Fully 85% see the public’s lack of scientific knowledge as a major problem for science, and nearly half (49%) fault the public for having unrealistic expectations about the speed of scientific achievements.

A substantial percentage of scientists also say that the news media have done a poor job educating the public. About three-quarters (76%) say a major problem for science is that news reports fail to distinguish between findings that are well-founded and those that are not. And 48% say media oversimplification of scientific findings is a major problem. The scientists are particularly critical of television news coverage of science. Just 15% of scientists rate TV coverage as excellent or good, while 83% say it is only fair or poor. Newspaper coverage of science is rated somewhat better; still, barely a third (36%) of the scientists say it is excellent or good, while 63% rate it as only fair or poor.

While scientists are generally upbeat about the state of their profession, they do see several obstacles to conducting high-quality basic research. As might be expected, by far the biggest impediment is a lack of funding; more than eight-in-ten say this is a very serious (46%) or a serious (41%) impediment to research. A majority (56%) also says that visa and immigration problems for foreign scientists and students stand in the way of high-quality research. Far smaller percentages say that regulations on animal research (27%) or other factors are serious impediments to scientific research.

Points of Agreement

The survey of opinions about the state of science and its impact on society was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific society. The survey of the general public was conducted on landlines and cell phones among 2,001 adults April 28-May 12; the online survey of scientists was conducted among a sample of 2,533 members of the AAAS from May 1-June 14. Science knowledge questions were included in a separate survey of the general public, conducted on landlines and cell phones among 1,005 adults June 18-21.

While scientists express frustration with the public, there are some significant points of agreement between the public and the scientific community. First, majorities of both groups point to advances in medicine and life sciences as important achievements of science. About half of the public (52%) cites medicine – including health care, vaccines, and medical cures – when asked to describe ways that science has positively affected society; by comparison, just 7% mention communications and computer technology. Similarly, most scientists (55%) mention a biomedical or health finding when asked about the nation’s greatest scientific achievement of the last 20 years.

There also is common ground between the public and scientists regarding the pivotal role of government in funding scientific research. Government institutions and agencies are the dominant funders of research, according to scientists: 84% list a government entity as an important source of funding for their specialty, with nearly half specifically citing the National Institutes of Health (49%) or the National Science Foundation (47%). Half of the scientists (50%) cite non-government funding sources as among the most important in their field.

A majority of the public (60%) says that government investment in research is essential for scientific progress; only about half that percentage (29%) is of the view that private investment will ensure that enough scientific progress is made even without government intervention.

Moreover, large percentages think that government investments in basic scientific research (73%) and engineering and technology (74%) pay off in the long run. Notably, the partisan differences in these views are fairly modest, with 80% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans saying that government investments in basic science pay off in the long run. Comparable percentages of Democrats and Republicans say the same about government investments in engineering and technology.

In this regard, public views about whether funding for scientific research should be increased, decreased or kept the same have changed little since the start of the decade. Currently, more than twice as many people say that, if given the task of making up the budget for the federal government, they would increase (39%) rather than decrease (14%) funding for scientific research; 40% say they would keep spending as it is. That is largely unchanged from 2001, when 41% said they would increase funding for scientific research.

As in the past, scientific research rates as a second-tier funding priority, well behind education (67% increase funding), veterans’ benefits (63%) and health care (61%). But since 2001, support for increasing funding in several areas, including education and health care, has declined. Over the same period, opinions about funding scientific research have remained more stable.

Opinion Gaps between Scientists, Public

The public and scientists generally concur about the importance of government funding of scientific research, but there are substantial gaps in the opinions of scientists and the public about various scientific and societal issues. Scientists are far less critical than the general public of government performance. Just 40% of scientists agree that “when something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful”; a majority of the public (57%) agrees with this statement.

Scientists also are more critical of business; they are roughly half as likely as the public to say that “business corporations generally strike a fair balance between making profits and serving the public interest” (20% of scientists vs. 37% of public).

When it comes to contemporary scientific issues, these differences are often even larger. Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true.

And the near consensus among scientists about global warming is not mirrored in the general public. While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees.

More than nine-in-ten scientists (93%) favor the use of animals in scientific research, but only about half of the public (52%) agrees. There also are wide differences in the proportions of scientists (93%) and the public (58%) that favor federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. There is less of a schism over the need for universal vaccinations: 82% of scientists and 69% of the public at large say that all children should be required to be vaccinated. Just 17% of scientists and 28% of the public say parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children.

Despite these differences, science and scientists are viewed positively by those who differ over evolution, global warming and other contentious issues.

On the question of evolution, for instance, 78% of those who say that humans and other living things have evolved over time because of natural selection and other natural processes say that scientists contribute a lot to the well-being of society. Those who say humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time express a less positive view of scientists; nonetheless, 63% of them say scientists have contributed a great deal to society.

There also are only modest differences in views of scientists between those who say global warming is caused by human activity and those who say there is no solid evidence the earth is warming. In addition, those who say that science sometimes conflicts with their own religious beliefs – 36% of the public – are only slightly less likely than those who see no conflict to say that scientists contribute a great deal to society (67%, 72% respectively).

Good Times for Science

The poll finds scientists upbeat about the state of their profession. Three-quarters (76%) say this is generally a good time for science and nearly as many (73%) say it is good time for their scientific specialty. Positive views are shared by scientists irrespective of specialty. In addition, despite the bad economy, 67% say it is either a very good time (17%) or a good time (50%) to begin a career in their scientific field.

Politics may play some role in the positive way the scientists surveyed judge the times. More than half of the scientists surveyed (55%) say they are Democrats, compared with 35% of the public. Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberals. Many of the scientists surveyed mentioned in their open-ended comments that they were optimistic about the Obama administration’s likely impact on science.

For its part, the public does not perceive scientists as a particularly liberal group. When asked whether they think of scientists as liberal, conservative or neither in particular, nearly two-thirds (64%) choose the latter option. Just 20% say they think of scientists as politically liberal. However, a majority of scientists (56%) do see members of their profession as liberal.

Most scientists had heard at least a little about claims that government scientists were not allowed to report research findings that conflicted with the Bush administration’s point of view. And the vast majority (77%) says that these claims are true. By contrast, these claims barely registered with the public – more than half heard nothing at all about this issue. Only about a quarter of the public (28%) said they thought the claims were true.

Both scientists and the public overwhelmingly say it is appropriate for scientists to become active in political debates about such issues as nuclear power or stem cell research. Virtually all scientists (97%) endorse their participation in debates about these issues, while 76% of the public agrees.

Science Knowledge

Americans are knowledgeable about basic scientific facts that affect their health and their daily lives. But the public is less able to answer questions about more complex science topics.

The 12-item quiz administered to the public is available online. If you would like to take the quiz before reading this section, click here.

Fully 91% know that aspirin is an over-the-counter drug recommended to prevent heart attacks and 82% know that GPS technology relies on satellites. And topics covered in major news stories also are widely understood; 77% correctly identify earthquakes as a cause of tsunamis and 65% can identify CO2 as a gas linked to rising temperatures.

Slightly more than half (54%) knows that antibiotics do not kill viruses along with bacteria, and about the same percentage (52%) knows that what distinguishes stem cells from other cells is that they can develop into many different kinds of cells. And some high-school science knowledge is elusive for most Americans: Fewer than half (46%) know that electrons are smaller than atoms.

Previous Pew Research Center knowledge surveys have shown that young people are poorly informed about current events and politics. But this is not the case with science knowledge. In fact, those younger than 30 get higher scores on the knowledge test than do those 65 and older. Still, the best-informed people about science, according to the results of this quiz, are those 30 to 49.

There is a great deal of consistency across polls in what the public believes about the origins of life and how the issue should be taught in the schools. Polling has regularly found that the public favors the teaching of multiple perspectives on the issue in the schools. While solid majorities believe that evolution should be taught in science classes, roughly two-thirds of Americans favor adding creationism to the school curriculum.

Surveys are also fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time. The wording of survey questions generally makes little systematic difference in this division of opinion.

Opinions on the theory of “intelligent design,” however, are far more complex, making it difficult to determine how many Americans subscribe to this view of life’s origins. In part, this reflects the public’s lack of familiarity with the concept of intelligent design, which holds that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is inadequate in explaining the development of complex life forms. A Gallup survey in August found that only about half of Americans are familiar with the term. Moreover, because the concept involves sensitive matters of faith and science, questions that attempt to indirectly measure support for intelligent design produce divergent results.

Consider for example the approaches taken by Pew and Gallup (see table below). The two organizations find similar numbers in favor of a creationist position ­ 42% for Pew, 45% for Gallup ­ although each describes the concept in decidedly different terms. But Pew finds far more people believing in natural selection (26% vs. 13% for Gallup) while Gallup finds more subscribing to the view that God or a supreme being guided the evolutionary process (38% vs. 18% for Pew).

These differences result from the way the options are presented. Gallup asks respondents to choose among three views, two of which suggest a belief in God (“God created human beings pretty much in the present form” and “God guided [the evolutionary] process”), and one that rejects God’s involvement altogether (“God had no part in this process”). It seems likely that for many respondents, agreeing with this last statement could imply a denial of belief in God. The resulting percentage choosing this option (13%) is about the size of the segment of the public that does not believe in God at all.

Pew’s approach, on the other hand, asks people initially if they believe life “evolved over time” or existed in its “present form since the beginning of time”; the question makes no mention of God. Those who said that life evolved were then asked if life “evolved due to natural processes such as natural selection” or whether “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.” The Pew formulation provides a significantly more positive and inclusive description of the scientific position by characterizing natural selection as “a natural process” rather than something “God had no part in.” This implicitly allows people who believe that God or a supreme being set the evolutionary process in motion, or even shaped it in some way, to still opt for “natural selection” as the main engine of evolution.¹

Confusing Concepts

Most Americans say they are familiar with creationism and evolution, but there is some confusion about the terms’ meaning. In an August 2005 Gallup poll, 58% of the public said that creationism was definitely or probably true as an explanation for the origin and development of life, but 55% also said this about evolution. Since creationism and evolution are incompatible as explanations, some portion of the public is clearly confused about the meaning of the terms.

A 1999 Fox News poll of registered voters offered respondents the explicit option to say that both Darwin’s theory of evolution and the biblical account of creation were true: 26% said both were. Similarly, Pew’s July 2005 poll found that about nearly three-in-ten of those who oppose the teaching of creationism nonetheless personally accept creationist accounts of life’s origins, and 14% of those who accept natural selection favor teaching creationism instead of evolution.

The term “intelligent design” is still unknown to much of the public. In the August 2005 Gallup survey, 52% said they were either “not too familiar” or “not at all familiar” with the phrase. By comparison, only 17% and 24% were not familiar with “evolution” and “creationism,” respectively. Given the low level of public recognition of the term, “intelligent design” is rarely mentioned in polling on the origins of life.

Scientists and Evolution

A narrow majority of the public (54% in a recent Pew poll) believes that scientists are generally in agreement about evolution. But fewer believe there is strong scientific evidence in support of evolution. A December 2004 Newsweek survey found just 45% saying evolution was both widely accepted in the scientific community and well supported by evidence, and the same number in a 2005 Harris Interactive survey agreed that “Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries” (48% disagree). A 2004 Gallup poll registered even fewer (35%) saying Darwin’s theory of evolution has been “well-supported by evidence.” This question also offered respondents the choice of saying they don’t know enough about the issue, an option that 30% selected.

Teach Evolution, Other Approaches

Despite the fact that fewer than half of Americans personally believe in evolution, a solid majority over the past 20 years has supported the teaching of alternative accounts of the origins of life, including evolution. Poll questions have typically asked if creationism should be taught along with evolution, and majorities ranging from 57% to 68% say that it should. Questions have been asked about removing evolution from the curriculum, but only a minority of the public favors this step. And questions that ask if creationism should be taught instead of evolution have found only 33%-40% in favor.

Relatively few questions have asked if respondents believe that evolution should be taught, perhaps because it is the status quo today. A recent Gallup poll found 61% favoring the teaching of evolution in public school science classes, while 54% said creationism should be taught and 43% said that intelligent design should be taught.

A survey conducted by Fox News in 1999 found nearly identical majorities of people favoring the teaching of evolution and opposing its removal from the curriculum. In one version of the question, respondents were told that the Kansas State Board of Education adopted new standards that would remove evolution from the mandatory curriculum; a 57% majority of registered voters disagreed with the board’s actions, while 33% agreed with the removal. The other version stated that “the National Academy of Sciences recommended that evolution be taught to all public school students as the most convincing theory for how human beings developed” and then asked if respondents agreed or disagreed that evolution should be taught in all public schools: 56% agreed with teaching evolution and 35% disagreed with it. Thus, despite the invocation of two very different kinds of authority on opposite sides of the issue, the public opinion result was the same.

None of the polls probes deeply into what respondents are thinking when they say a particular approach should be taught. Should standardized science tests now include sections on both evolution and creationism? Does support for teaching evolution (or creationism) mean mandatory or optional instruction? On the latter question, a 1999 Gallup survey found that when offered the choice between having evolution as required instruction or having it offered as an elective but not required, just 28% said it should be required; 49% supported offering it as an option, and 21% opposed offering it at all. The same alternatives were offered for creationism and responses were very similar.

1. For a complete discussion of the Pew poll, see “Religion a Strength and Weakness for Both Parties,” released Aug. 30, 2005. Note that prior to being asked about evolution, respondents in the Pew poll were given a chance to express their belief in God or a higher power and that God (or a higher power) created life on earth.

Both major political parties have a problem with their approach toward religion, in the eyes of many Americans. More than four-in-ten say that liberals who are not religious have too much control over the Democratic Party, while an almost identical percentage says that religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party.

The public also has distinctly different perceptions of both parties when it comes to dealing with religion and personal freedoms. By a wide margin ­ 51% to 28% ­ the Republican Party is seen as most concerned with protecting religious values. By a nearly identical margin (52%-30%), the Democratic Party is perceived as most concerned with protecting the freedom of citizens to make personal choices.

Yet the Democrats’ strength in this area is overshadowed by a sharp erosion in the number of Americans who believe the party is friendly toward religion. Only about three-in-ten (29%) see the Democrats as friendly toward religion, down from 40% last August. Meanwhile, a solid majority (55%) continues to view the Republicans as friendly toward religion.

However, independents are more critical of the influence of religious conservatives on the Republican Party than they are of the influence of secular liberals on the Democratic Party. Most independents (54%) think religious conservatives have too much influence over the Republican Party, while fewer, 43%, think secular liberals have too much sway on the Democratic Party.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted July 7-17 among 2,000 adults, also finds deep religious and political differences over questions relating to evolution and the origins of life. Overall, about half the public (48%) says that humans and other living things have evolved over time, while 42% say that living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. Fully 70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree.

Despite these fundamental differences, most Americans (64%) say they are open to the idea of teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, and a substantial minority (38%) favors replacing evolution with creationism in public school curricula. While much of this support comes from religious conservatives, these ideas ­ particularly the idea of teaching both perspectives ­ have a broader appeal. Even many who are politically liberal and who believe in evolution favor expanding the scope of public school education to include teaching creationism. But an analysis of the poll also reveals that there are considerable inconsistencies between people’s beliefs and what they want taught in the schools, suggesting some confusion about the meaning of terms such as “creationism” and “evolution.”

Despite the growing national debate over the teaching of evolution, there is little evidence that school discussions of evolution are upsetting to students. Just 6% of parents with children in school say their child has mentioned feeling uncomfortable when the subject of evolution comes up at school. Comparably small numbers of parents say their children have expressed unease when the subjects of religion or homosexuality have come up at their child’s school.

The survey shows that large majorities of Americans believe that parents, scientists and school boards all should have a say in how evolution is taught in schools. But a plurality (41%) believes that parents ­ rather than scientists (28%) or school boards (21%) ­ should have the primary responsibility in this area.

The public remains generally comfortable with politicians mentioning their religious faith; in fact, more continue to say there is too little expression of religious faith by political leaders (39%), not too much (26%). However, a growing minority feels President Bush mentions his faith and prayer too much. The percentage expressing this view has doubled ­ from 14% to 28% ­ over the past two years.

Contrasting Party Images

Public impressions of the Democratic Party’s attitude toward religion have changed notably in the past year. Just 29% see the party as being generally friendly toward religion, down from 40% a year ago, and 42% in 2003. Meanwhile, the percentage saying the Democratic Party is generally unfriendly toward religion has ticked up to 20% from 13% last summer. By comparison, a 55% majority continues to see the Republican Party as friendly toward religion, with little change over the past two years.

This change in the image of the Democratic Party has occurred across the political spectrum, but it is particularly noteworthy among independents. In August 2004, a 43% plurality of independents said the Democratic Party was generally friendly toward religion. Today, only about a quarter (24%) hold this view, a level similar to that seen among Republicans (21%). In general, people who are the most religious themselves are the most critical of the Democratic Party in this regard.

At the same time, by a 52% to 30% margin, the Democrats, not the Republicans, are seen as the party most concerned with protecting the freedom of individuals to make personal choices. Fewer Republicans believe this than do Democrats and independents, but young people and women more often credit the Democrats for protecting personal freedoms than do older people and men.

By more than two-to-one (56%-24%), women view the Democratic Party as being most concerned about protecting the freedom of people to make personal choices; men are more closely divided (47% pick the Democrats, 37% the Republicans). While nearly six-in-ten people under age 30 (58%) view the Democrats as most concerned with protecting the freedom of people to make personal choices, just 39% of those ages 65 and older agree.

Religious Conservatives, Secular Liberals Seen as Having Too Much Clout

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties receive considerable criticism for being too beholden to ideological constituencies within the parties. Just as many believe that non-religious liberals have too much control over the Democratic Party (44%) as believe religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party (45%).

Not surprisingly, Republicans are particularly critical of the Democratic Party in this respect, and Democrats are equally critical of Republicans. But there is substantial concern coming from within the parties as well. Roughly a third of Democrats (34%) say the Democratic Party is too influenced by liberals who are not religious, and 30% of Republicans believe their party is too controlled by religious conservatives.

Centrist members of both parties more often express these concerns about their own party than do their more ideological counterparts. For instance, 39% of moderate and conservative Democrats worry that the party is too influenced by secular liberals, compared with 25% of liberal Democrats. On the Republican side, 35% of moderate and liberal Republicans say the party is too influenced by religious conservatives, as opposed to 26% of conservative Republicans.

Independents are more likely to describe the Republican Party as controlled by religious conservatives (54%) than to describe the Democratic Party as controlled by secular liberals (43%). In fact, independents are nearly as critical of the Republican Party in this respect as are Democrats overall.

Liberals Go ‘Too Far’

Aside from their influence on the Democrat
ic Party, there is an even more widespread perception ­ held by two-in-three Americans ­ that liberals are going too far in trying to keep religion out of schools and the government.

Not surprisingly, white evangelical Protestants and conservative Republicans are the most uniformly critical of liberal efforts on these types of issues. Nearly nine-in-ten (87%) in both groups believe liberals have gone too far on church-state issues. But many Democrats share this view, particularly moderate and conservative Democrats. Overall, 56% of Democrats say liberals have gone too far in trying to keep religion out of schools and government, and moderate-to-conservative Democrats are twice as likely as liberal Democrats to express this view (67% vs. 33%, respectively).

Beyond these political divides, there are also significant educational and regional differences in how liberals are perceived. By a 75%-18% margin, Americans who have not attended college see the left going too far in pushing for a strict separation of church and state. College graduates, by comparison, are far less critical (54% say “too far,” 42% not). Similarly, by a margin of four-to-one (77%-18%) Southerners believe liberals are going too far, and two-thirds of Midwesterners agree. Residents of the Northeast and West are less prone to take this view.

Interestingly, three-quarters of African Americans also see liberals pushing too far in keeping religion out of schools and government. It is important to note, however, that this negative perception of non-religious liberals is not linked to views of the Democratic Party among blacks. Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to say the Democratic Party is friendly toward religion and, by a 58%-24% margin, blacks say the Democratic Party, not the GOP, is most concerned with protecting religious values in the country.

Many Concerned with Conservative Values Agenda

Americans are divided over whether conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to impose their religious values on the country ­ 45% say yes, and 45% say no. As with criticism of liberals’ handling of church/state issues, there are partisan and ideological divisions on this issue. A majority of Democrats (57%) believe that conservative Christians are going too far, but this is driven primarily by liberal Democrats, 83% of whom take this view. By comparison, moderate and conservative Democrats are divided; 46% see conservative Christians pushing their religious values on the nation, while 44% do not.

Roughly one-in-four Republicans (26%) believes conservative Christians have gone to far in trying to impose their religious values on the country. This includes nearly half of moderate and liberal Republicans (47%), and just 16% of conservative Republicans.

There also are sizable differences across religious and ethnic lines. Among whites, roughly half of mainline Protestants and Catholics say conservative Christians are trying to impose their religious values on the country too much, compared with just 21% of evangelicals. Not surprisingly, seculars are the most likely to see the Christian conservatives excessively imposing their values (61%).

As with views of whether or not secular liberals have gone too far on church/state issues, education is strongly related to views on whether or not conservative Christians have gone too far in trying to impose their religious values on the country. Six-in-ten college graduates think Christian conservatives are going too far, compared with 48% of people with some college but no degree, and just 35% of people who did not attend college.

Divided Over Evolution

Most Americans believe that God was responsible for the creation of life on earth but divide on the question of whether and how life has changed since the creation. Overall, 78% say God created life on earth, while 5% think a universal spirit or higher power was responsible for the creation.

Despite this broad agreement regarding the origins of life, the public is deeply divided on precisely how life developed. A plurality of Americans (48%) say that humans and other living things have evolved over time, but nearly as many (42%) say that humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. The latter group is often called “creationist” because this view is seen as consistent with a literal reading of the Bible’s account of creation.(1)

There is further division among those who agree that life has evolved over time. Of those who say that living things have evolved over time, roughly half (26% of the public overall) accept the Darwinian account of evolution, saying that evolution has occurred through natural processes such as natural selection. But nearly four-in-ten of those who believe in evolution (18% of the public as a whole) say that evolution was guided by a supreme being for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today, a view that is consistent with some aspects of what has been called “intelligent design.”

Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are most distinctive in their support for the creationist position. A large majority of white evangelicals (70%) say that living things have always existed in their present form. In contrast, most white mainline Protestants (60%) and white Catholics (61%) believe that living things have evolved over time, while only 32% and 31% of mainline Protestants and Catholics, respectively, accept the creationist account.

But both mainline Protestants and Catholics are divided over the nature of the evolutionary process. Three-in-ten mainline Protestants (31%) say evolution occurred through natural selection, while 24% think evolution was guided by a supreme being. Among white Catholics, 28% subscribe to natural selection and the same number believe evolution was guided by a higher power. In contrast, most seculars (56%) accept the idea of evolution through processes such as natural selection.

These differences of opinion carry over into politics as well (see detailed tables on pp. 22-23). Nearly six-in-ten conservative Republicans believe that living things have always existed in their present form, while just 11% say that evolution occurred through natural processes. Among liberal Democrats, by contrast, only 29% hold the creationist position, while a plurality (44%) accepts the natural selection theory of evolution.

Age, gender and education are also strongly related to views about the development of living things. College graduates are twice as likely as people who did not attend college to accept the natural selection theory of evolution (40%-18%). Nearly half of women (47%) say that living things have always existed in their present form, while only 36% of men share this view. Half of Americans ages 65 and up subscribe to the creationist position, compared with only 37% of Americans under age 30.

Many Think Scientists Disagree about Evolution

There is no public consensus about how scientists view evolution. Opinions about what scientists believe are strongly associated with one’s own beliefs on the subject. Most Americans (54%) think that there is general agreement among scientists that evolution has taken place, but a substantial minority (33%) says that no such scientific consensus exists. By an 82%-13% margin, those who accept natural selection theory see a scientific consensus on this issue. Among those who take a creationist position, a 46% plurality thinks the scientific community is divided over the evolution question.

While most people who accept evolution believe there is a scientific consensus on the topic, they themselves express less certainty about how life developed on earth than do people who believe the creationist account. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of those who take a creationist point of view say they are very certain about how life developed. By contrast, those who believe in evolution are less certain of their views ­ just 32% say they are very certain.

People who take the Bible literally are much more convinced of the accuracy of their views of the development of life on earth (69% very certain), compared with those who don’t take the Bible literally.

Reflecting this, a plurality of the public overall (42%) says that their religious beliefs have had the most important influence on their opinions about the development of life. This number rises to 60% among people who accept the creationist account. By contrast, a plurality of those who accept evolution says that their education is the most important source (47%); this number is 60% among people who believe that evolution proceeds through natural selection.

Evolution in the Schools

Even though nearly half of Americans believe that humans evolved over time, this poll and many others have shown that substantial majorities of the public favor adding creationism to the public school curriculum. In the current survey, 64% support teaching creationism along with evolution in the public schools, while only 26% oppose this idea. But significantly fewer people say creationism should supplant evolution in the curriculum: 38% say creationism should be taught instead of evolution (49% disagree).

Support for teaching creationism along with evolution is quite broad-based, with majority support even among seculars, liberal Democrats and those who accept natural selection theory. At the same time, not all creationists believe that creationism should replace evolution in the schools: 32% of those who subscribe to the creationist view do not think it should be taught instead of evolution. These findings strongly suggest that much of the public believes it is desirable to offer more viewpoints where controversial subjects in the schools are concerned.

White evangelicals and black Protestants are the only religious groups expressing majority support for teaching creationism instead of evolution in public schools. Majorities of mainline Protestants, Catholics and seculars oppose this idea. Politically, a majority of conservative Republicans favor replacing evolution with creationism in the classroom, but support for this proposal falls below 40% for all other political groups, including moderate and liberal Republicans. Regionally, only among Southerners does a plurality (45%) support replacing evolution with creationism in the schools.

But there are also inconsistencies in peoples’ responses that point to confusion regarding the meaning of terms such as “creationism” and even “evolution.” For example, among people who oppose teaching creationism either along with or instead of evolution, 27% personally take the creationist position on human origins. Similarly, 19% of people who think creationism should be taught instead of evolution nevertheless personally believe in evolution through natural selection.

Who Should Decide What Is Taught?

Large majorities of Americans believe that parents, scientists and science teachers and school boards should all have a say in how evolution is taught in public schools, and these majorities are found among all religious groups and people on both sides of the question of how life developed on earth. But there are deep divisions in the public about who should have the primary say on how evolution is handled. Overall, a plurality of the public (41%) says parents should have the primary say, compared with 28% for scientists and science teachers and 21% for school boards.

A majority (54%) of those who accept creationist accounts support giving parents the primary say on how evolution is taught. Among those who accept the theory of natural selection, however, nearly half (47%) support giving scientists and science teachers the primary role in how evolution is handled in public schools. Evangelical Protestants are most in favor of parents having the primary say on this issue (59%), while seculars are most supportive of trusting scientists and science teachers with these decisions, with 41% expressing this view.

Lukewarm Ratings for the Schools in Dealing with Sensitive Topics

Americans give public schools mediocre ratings for their handling of controversial subjects. Among parents of school-age children, only 38% say that schools are doing an excellent or a good job handling sex education; 31% rate schools as excellent or good on evolution; 24% give schools excellent or good ratings for their handling of religion; and 17% give schools favorable marks for their handling of homosexuality. White evangelicals give public schools lower marks for their handling of religion than do white mainline Protestants and white Catholics. In addition, both African Americans and Hispanics are highly critical of school performance in this regard.

Parents who believe that human life has always existed in its present form are more likely to give schools a “poor” rating (32%) for their handling of evolution than are those who believe that life evolved over time (9%). Those who reject the idea of evolution are also more likely than others to give the schools low marks for their handling of religion.

Midwesterners have a more favorable impression of schools’ handling of sex education than do Southerners or Westerners, while Democrats rate schools more negatively for their handling of homosexuality than do Republicans. On both sex education and homosexuality, non-whites are considerably more likely to give schools a poor rating than are whites.

Despite the controversial nature of these subjects, very few parents say that their children have been made uncomfortable when these topics come up at school. Just 8% of parents who have children in school have had a child mention feeling uncomfortable when homosexuality was discussed, 6% say this about discussions of evolution, and just 5% say their children have been uncomfortable at school because of the topic of religion. These results are consistently low across religious and political groups and geographic regions. Even among conservatives, just 12% say school treatment of homosexuality has made their child uncomfortable, though this is significantly higher than among liberal parents (only 1% of whom say this).

Religion and Politics: Continuing Ambivalence

As in the past, the public is divided over whether religious organizations should speak out politically. Roughly half (51%) think churches and other houses of worship should express their views on day-to-day social and political questions, while 44% believe these organizations should stay out of political matters.

Support for churches expressing political views is particularly high among white evangelicals and black Protestants (67% each) and conservatives (61%), while opposition is greatest among white Catholics (58%), liberals (56%) and those ages 65 and older (55%).

Among evangelicals, mainline Protestants and Catholics, support for church involvement is associated with high levels of religious commitment. While only 41% of highly committed white Catholics believe churches should keep out of political matters, 67% of less committed Catholics feel this way.

There are also intra-party divisions among Republicans and Democrats; 66% of conservative Republicans believe churches should express their views on political issues, compared with only 45% of moderate and liberal Republicans. Conversely, 52% of conservative and moderate Democrats think churches should voice opinions on such subjects, compared with just 35% of liberal Democrats. The public’s overall outlook has not budged since August 2004, when the gap between those who favor a political role for religious organizations and those who oppose such a role was also 51%-44%. Indeed, looking at surveys reaching back to the 1950s, there has been remarkably little change on this question over time.

The public is decidedly opposed to the idea of clergy discussing political candidates or issues from the pulpit. Only 31% believe this is ever appropriate, while 63% say clergy should never use their position in this manner. Opposition to this particular intersection of religion and politics is widespread; even 56% of evangelicals say clergy should refrain from political expression while in the pulpit. Again, opinion on this issue has been largely stable over time, although Gallup found even less support for discussing candidates and issues from the pulpit 40 years ago, when only 22% said it was appropriate.

Politicians and Personal Faith

Although still a minority, a growing number of Americans are uncomfortable with President Bush’s public expressions of faith. The percentage saying the president mentions his faith and prayer too much has risen from 14% in the summer of 2003, to 24% in mid-2004 to 28% currently. Criticism of Bush on this issue is most common among liberals (52%), seculars (47%) and Democrats (45%), although it has increased significantly since 2003 among mainline Protestants (+24%), moderates (+20%) and women (+19%). Slightly more than half (52%) say Bush mentions his religious beliefs an appropriate amount ­ a 10-point drop from July 2003 ­ while just one-in-ten believe he discusses faith and prayer too little.

Regarding political leaders generally, the public is divided over the appropriate amount of religious expression. A plurality (39%) believes there is too little discussion of faith and prayer by political leaders, while 26% think there is too much and 27% say politicians voice their religious sentiments the right amount. The share of Americans who want more expressions of faith from politicians has increased by eight points since August 2004. Opinion on this issue has changed significantly since the months just after Sept. 11, 2001, when a majority felt political leaders were discussing faith appropriately.

Issues: Most Favor Promoting Democracy

Most Americans (60%) favor the idea that the U.S. should work to promote democracy around the world. However, previous Pew surveys have shown that when viewed along with other foreign policy goals, the promotion of democracy ranks as a relatively low public priority (see “Foreign Policy Attitudes Now Driven By 9/11 and Iraq,” Aug. 18, 2004).

More Republicans support promoting democracy around the globe than do Democrats or independents. White evangelicals also strongly support the promotion of democracy. There is even greater agreement that the U.S. and other Western powers have an obligation to use military force to prevent genocide. By more than three-to-one (69%-21%), the public believes the U.S. and other Western powers have a moral obligation to prevent one group of people from committing genocide against another group.

While majorities or pluralities in most major demographic and political groups agree the U.S. and other major Western nations should intervene militarily to prevent genocide, African Americans are evenly divided on this issue; 45% of blacks say the U.S. and other Western nations have a moral obligation to act, while 48% disagree. Whites overwhelmingly believe the U.S. and other nations are morally obligated to use force to prevent genocide (by 73%-17%).

Support for Israel Declines Slightly

The public, on balance, continues to side with Israel in the Middle East conflict, although support for Israel has declined slightly. About four-in-ten (37%) say they sympathize more with Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, while 12% sympathize more with the Palestinians. A year ago, slightly more (40%) said they sympathized with Israel.

In addition, there has been an uptick in the number who say the United States should take Israel’s side less in the Mideast situation. Currently, 22% express that view, compared with 19% in 2003 and 14% in 2002. About half (47%) say the U.S. should take Israel’s side as much as it has in the past.

There long have been major differences among members of major religious traditions in views of the Mideast conflict. White evangelicals continue to express strong support for Israel. More than half (54%) say they sympathize more with Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians, compared with 40% of mainline Protestants, 35% of white Catholics and a quarter of seculars.

Similarly, about three-in-ten white evangelicals (28%) say the U.S. should take Israel’s side more than it has in the past. Only 15% of mainline Protestants, 13% of seculars, and just 8% of white Catholics favor greater U.S. support for Israel.

Religion and Mideast Views

Religious beliefs are cited most often by supporters of Israel as having the biggest influence on their views of the Middle East conflict (34%). This is especially the case for white evangelicals who sympathize with Israel; 54% of these evangelicals say their religious beliefs are the most important factor shaping their views on the issue.

By contrast, just 9% of those who sympathize with the Palestinians cite religious beliefs as the biggest factor in their thinking about the Middle East. A plurality of those who sympathize with the Palestinians (36%) say what they have read or seen in the media has had the greatest impact on their thinking; roughly a quarter (26%) cite their education as the biggest factor.

Faith-Based Aid Backed

A solid majority of Americans (66%) favor allowing churches and other houses of worship to apply, along with other organizations, for government funding to provide social services, such as drug counseling. Support for such faith-based initiatives has declined somewhat since early in Bush’s first term. In March 2001, 75% said churches should be permitted to apply for such assistance.

Nonetheless, there is broad-based support for this policy. Roughly two-thirds of Democrats (67%), independents (66%) and Republicans (65%) say churches and other houses of worship should be allowed to apply for such funding. Support for this idea is particularly widespread among African-Americans (80%) and white evangelicals (70%).

However, the public is broadly opposed to directly shifting some funds from federal anti-poverty programs to religious groups in order for them to provide social services. Fully 58% oppose this idea, compared with just a third who favor it. Majorities or pluralities in most demographic groups oppose taking funds from government anti-poverty programs and giving them to religious groups.

Churches Help Solve Social Problems

Overwhelmingly, Americans believe that religious organizations are playing a constructive role in addressing society’s challenges. Two-thirds (66%) say churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship contribute a great deal or some to solving important social problems.

Agreement on this issue is widespread, with at least half in every major demographic group, including seculars (52%), saying that houses of worship contribute a great deal or some. Still, the percentage expressing this view has declined slightly since March 2001, when 75% said these institutions were helping solve social problems.

More Favor Gays Serving Openly

Consistent with a recent rise in the number of Americans who favor legalized marriage and civil unions for gays and lesbians(2), public support for allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military has increased modestly since the mid-1990s. Currently, 58% say gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly, up from 52% in July 1994. Equally important, intense opposition has decreased ­ from 26% in 1994 to 15% today.

Solid majorities of seculars (72%), white Catholics (72%) and mainline Protestants (63%) believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the nation’s military; most white evangelical Protestants (55%) disagree.

Other Issues

The public continues to support the government guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes. By more than two-to-one (64%-30%), Americans favor a government guarantee of health insurance for all. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly favor the government guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans, while Republicans are deeply divided. Two-thirds of moderate and liberal Republicans (66%) support this idea, compared with just 41% of conservative Republicans.

There also is strong public sentiment in favor of increased government aid to the poor. Currently, 69% favor providing more generous government assistance to the poor; that is consistent with surveys dating to 2001 (73% in March 2001). There is considerable agreement among members of major religious traditions ­ and seculars ­ in favor of greater aid for the poor.

A majority of Americans (54%) support passage of a constitutional amendment permitting the federal and state governments to outlaw flag burning. In 1989, when congressional efforts to ban flag burning attracted considerable attention, significantly more people (65%) favored a constitutional amendment targeting flag burning. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans (65%) support a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag burning, compared with about half of independents (50%) and Democrats (46%).

The survey finds that Pope Benedict XVI is an unfamiliar figure to many Americans, but those who do have an opinion of the new pope are much more favorable (44%) than unfavorable (11%) in their opinion of him. By a 67%-5% margin, Catholics express favorable views of the pope, but nearly three-in-ten (28%) were not familiar enough with the pope to offer an opinion.

Americans see the 20th century as a time of great economic, social and technological progress. As individuals, as families, as members of various social and demographic groups, nearly two-thirds of Americans say they have improved their circumstances since the 1950s, and even larger numbers see economic and social gains for many segments of society over the past half-century.

Science and technology are widely seen as the engines of the century’s economic prosperity. Americans point to advancements in these fields as principal reasons for improvements in their own family’s well-being, and they celebrate the inventions and conveniences of the 20th century. A host of innovations ranging from the automobile to birth control pills to the Internet are lauded for making life today better.

When considering America’s collective achievements, overwhelming majorities credit the Constitution, free elections and the free enterprise system for the nation’s successes of the past 100 years. It is the system — along with the culture and character of the American people — that fosters our progress, not mere good luck or even deeply-held religious beliefs.

Yet beneath this picture of economic well-being and national accomplishment, there is a parallel story not nearly so triumphant. Most Americans do not see life in the United States overall as any better at the close of the century than it was in the 1950s. A substantial minority — three-in-ten people — say it’s even worse. Further muddying the picture, today’s teenagers are one of two groups that the public sees as worse off than their peers of 50 years ago.

Misgivings about America today are focused on the moral climate, with people from all walks of life looking skeptically on the ways in which the country has changed both culturally and spiritually. While the civil rights movement and women in the workplace are uniformly endorsed, many other social trends, including the growth of the suburbs and rock music, get a mixed review, and still others are lamented, including the greater acceptance of divorce and legalized abortion.

The distinction that the public makes between material achievements and societal shortcomings is apparent throughout the Pew Research Center survey examining the 20th century. For instance, new technologies — the space program, computers, medical breakthroughs — are seen as America’s greatest achievements of the past 100 years, while moral decline is prominent on the list of failures.

These are the principal findings of a Pew Research Center nationwide survey of 1,546 adults conducted April 6 through May 6, 1999 — a period punctuated by the shootings at a high school in Littleton, Colorado. While few differences were observed between the results before and after the tragedy, those that were noted underscore the central finding that the good life today is being tarnished by moral decay. After the Littleton incident, a significant drop was observed in the way the public views life in America overall, and an increase was seen in the number of people who say that life for teenagers is worse today than it was in the 1950s. A summary of the survey findings follows, with detailed analysis beginning on page 5.

Families Doing Better

One of the most striking findings in the survey is the gap between how Americans positively view their own lives compared to their more muted perspective on life in America overall. While 63% say their own lives are better than that of their families in 1950, only 44% say that life in the U.S. improved during that period. To the public, the success of the sum is less than that of its constituent parts.

Among those who rate their own lives as better than their family members in the 1950s, the economy, modern conveniences and technology are most often cited as the reasons why. Consistent with this rationale, the view that life for one’s family has improved is especially prevalent among the wealthy and those with at least some college training. Americans with annual incomes of less than $20,000 form the only significant demographic group in which a majority does not see their own lives as better than those of their predecessors.

Among those who rate life in the U.S. as worse, the moral climate is to blame. Overwhelmingly, people in this group mention factors such as crime, family breakdown, lack of respect, and drugs as the causes for the decline. Even the minority who rate their own lives as worse blame moral breakdown for their problems as often as they do economic woes.

A majority of the public overall sees teenagers, who are potentially most vulnerable to these problems, as worse off now than their counterparts were in previous generations. This evaluation of the quality of life for teens is particularly noteworthy because among 15 major social groups tested, today’s adolescents and farmers are the only groups that Americans see as worse off today.

By large margins, the public sees the lives of almost every other group as improved since the 1950s. Women, the disabled, African Americans, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, senior citizens, and the working class are all seen as better off at the end of the century, with only small minorities saying any of these groups is worse off. Historically considered disadvantaged, many of these groups benefited from the social and economic changes of the latter part of the century and received some measure of government protection.

Successes as Old as the Constitution, as New as Technology

Despite today’s political cynicism, Americans are near unanimous in crediting the system for the country’s accomplishments. Indeed, more than eight-in-ten people say the Constitution, free elections and the free market are the reasons for the nation’s success. The country’s natural resources and its human resources — the cultural diversity and character of the American people — are also acknowledged as keys to U.S. success.

When Americans today think about the nation’s accomplishments during the 20th century, about how life has improved, and even about the government’s successes, technology is the answer. Nothing else is close — not winning the conflicts that defined America in this century (the World Wars or the Cold War), not the civil rights movement that recast society, not the Social Security program that lifted so many seniors out of poverty.

The space program is cited as the country’s single greatest achievement of the century, and inventions as old as the radio and as recent as the Internet are heartily endorsed as changes for the better. Just about the only scientific innovations not heralded by majorities of the public are nuclear energy and nuclear weapons.

While medical advances are cited by some as America’s greatest achievement, the public is relatively uneasy about many recent breakthroughs in pharmacology and biotechnology. Just slim pluralities endorse the advent of Prozac, Viagra and fertility drugs as changes for the better, and almost half (49%) of Americans see the cloning of sheep as a change for the worse.

The century’s various social trends get an even more mixed verdict. From a high of 84% calling the civil rights movement a positive change to lows of 21% saying the same of telemarketing and just 14% finding rap music a plus, attitudes about social trends vary widely. The same is true of significant personal finance changes: 69% say mutual funds are an improvement; just 22% say the wide use of credit cards is a change for the better in this country.

Collective Memories

Looking back over important events of the century, John F. Kennedy’s assassination is the single most powerful memory. Nine-in-ten Americans who are old enough to remember say they know exactly what they were doing when they heard the news of the 35th president’s murder. The only other events to come close are the attack on Pearl Harbor and those that occurred in the late 1990s.

Kennedy’s assassination also stands as the most chronologically distant memory that is shared by a majority of the public. Neil Armstrong’s 1969 walk on the moon is the only other event of the 1960s to hold a majority position in America’s collective memory today; Richard Nixon’s resignation in the 1970s does as well.

Many of the people and events that shaped the nation’s history in the 20th century — Franklin Roosevelt, World War II, the 1929 stock market crash — are remembered personally by very few Americans today. Instead, the country is united in its recollections of only recent and less historically significant events, such as the death of Princess Diana, the bombing of a federal office building in Oklahoma, and the space shuttle Challenger explosion.

These events, however, are central to our cultural identity today, and it is in cultural terms that Americans reflect on the various decades of the 20th century. With the exceptions of the Great Depression in the 1930s and World War II in the 1940s, Americans use cultural references to define the decades, coming up with words like roaring and flappers for the 1920s, happy and rock and roll for the 1950s, hippies and turmoil for the 1960s, disco and drugs for the 1970s, fun and greed for the 1980s, and high-tech and fast-paced for the 1990s.