Half of Americans believe in creationism and just 15 percent accept evolution

Jun 5, 2012 Full story: Daily Mail 46

Nearly half of Americans believe God created mankind in a single day about 10,000 years ago, a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to a new survey that shows the view toward evolution in the United States hasn't changed in 30 years.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#1 Jun 7, 2012
And to think 52% of Hebrews don't even believe their OWN God anymore...kinda makes you wonder doesn't it
Elohim

Branford, CT

#2 Jun 8, 2012
How sad. First in education to one of the worst in generation. No Child Left Behind?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#3 Jun 8, 2012
It appears the "Daily Mail" has some reading or comprehension difficulties as it pertains to the Creation/Evolution/ID controversy.

The Gallup poll they reference has *THIS* to say:

"About a third (32%) of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."

(46% "God created humans in present form")

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creati...

Meaning 47% accept Evolution (adding Theistic and Secular Evolution), while 46% are Creationist.

The Daily Mail apparently counts those that accept Theistic Evolution as Creationists.

STILL nothing to brag about from a rational (Evolution) standpoint, but better than the article leads us to believe.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#4 Jun 8, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
It appears the "Daily Mail" has some reading or comprehension difficulties as it pertains to the Creation/Evolution/ID controversy.
The Gallup poll they reference has *THIS* to say:
"About a third (32%) of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process."
(46% "God created humans in present form")
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creati...
Meaning 47% accept Evolution (adding Theistic and Secular Evolution), while 46% are Creationist.
The Daily Mail apparently counts those that accept Theistic Evolution as Creationists.
STILL nothing to brag about from a rational (Evolution) standpoint, but better than the article leads us to believe.
You know what they say, 52% of all statistics can be made to say anything, and 68% of them are made up on the spot.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#5 Jun 13, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what they say, 52% of all statistics can be made to say anything, and 68% of them are made up on the spot.
or... Statistics don't lie but statisticians do.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#6 Jun 15, 2012
Theistic evolution is like theistic gravity. Doesn't work with out meddling by sky pixies.

You deny evolution unless you accept that there is no supernatural involvement, and those 'mainstream' christians that want to pretend that claiming evolution is fine as long as a god is involved deserve the same ridicule that the YEC crowd gets.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#7 Jun 15, 2012
IRYW wrote:
Theistic evolution is like theistic gravity. Doesn't work with out meddling by sky pixies.
You deny evolution unless you accept that there is no supernatural involvement, and those 'mainstream' christians that want to pretend that claiming evolution is fine as long as a god is involved deserve the same ridicule that the YEC crowd gets.
I see some problems with this approach:

1 - Science (evolution included) makes no theological claims. Hence Christians who accept evolution aren't actually rejecting science for the sake of their beliefs.

2 - This stance alienates potential allies, that is if you care at all about defending science education from the pseudo-science crowd.(Hint - it wasn't atheist scientists defending evolution in court at Dover).

3 - Atheists are an *extreme* minority worldwide in general and the US in particular. At this point in time I'm not sure how calling most of the world stupid will increase the acceptance of atheism.

4 - Conflating atheism and evolution may inadvertently promote the fallacious view amongst the general public that the fuss over evolution is all about atheism vs theism. This would actually work in favour of the few fundies who are aware of this fact but are happy to promote the idea that the mean old atheists are trying to take away the public's God-given and Constitutional rights to religious freedom. As their battle has zip to do with science and everything to do with politics, they know there's nothing better than great PR, which some the mean old atheists are apparently all too happy to provide for them.

It is your choice whether your higher priority is atheism or science education.

Decide for yourself you must.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#8 Jun 15, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I see some problems with this approach:
As do I. Of course there are problems with ANY approach..... ;-/
The Dude wrote:
<:
1 - Science (evolution included) makes no theological claims. Hence Christians who accept evolution aren't actually rejecting science for the sake of their beliefs.
It is true that scientists have no place for theological claims in their work but that is simply a placeholder for the assumption that there is no supernatural realm. The theory of evolution describes in completely natural terms how life evolved on earth. As soon as a 'puppeteer' is invoked the theory ceases to be purely natural.
The Dude wrote:
<
2 - This stance alienates potential allies, that is if you care at all about defending science education from the pseudo-science crowd.(Hint - it wasn't atheist scientists defending evolution in court at Dover)..
I should have been more specific. I meant to say not that people should be ridiculed, but their ludicrous ideas should be. And the fact that there are scientists (in particular biologists, astro-physicists, etc) who are believers shows nothing more than the human ability to hold conflicting viewpoints in separate mental 'compartments'.
The Dude wrote:
<
3 - Atheists are an *extreme* minority worldwide in general and the US in particular. At this point in time I'm not sure how calling most of the world stupid will increase the acceptance of atheism.
As I said above, it is calling the idea stupid that we need to do.
The Dude wrote:
<
4 - Conflating atheism and evolution may inadvertently promote the fallacious view amongst the general public that the fuss over evolution is all about atheism vs theism. This would actually work in favour of the few fundies who are aware of this fact but are happy to promote the idea that the mean old atheists are trying to take away the public's God-given and Constitutional rights to religious freedom. As their battle has zip to do with science and everything to do with politics, they know there's nothing better than great PR, which some the mean old atheists are apparently all too happy to provide for them.
I don't conflate them; in fact I consistently point out that one has nothing to do with the other.
The Dude wrote:
<
It is your choice whether your higher priority is atheism or science education.
Decide for yourself you must.
My priority is to promote the intellectual values of Skepticism & Critical Thinking, Curiosity & Wonder, Reason & Rationality, the Scientific Method, Intellectual Honesty, Broad Study & Research, Free Thought & Questioning Authority, and Evidence vs. Faith. I actually think Sam Harris says it best when he says that atheists should 'go under the radar' by which he means openly standing up for and embodying the above values. While he doesn't think we should hide being atheists we should champion reason instead of being purely defensive about being atheist because of reason.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#9 Jun 15, 2012
Regarding the Dover trial, if I had a chance to talk to Ken Miller I would tell him that his approach is near genius in terms of showing that it is possible to have a religious faith and still cleave to the pure scientific method... follow where the evidence leads. And then I would tell him that Roman Catholicism is bat-s**t crazy and that he should apply the same intellectual rigor to his faith claims as he does to evolutionary biology.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10 Jun 15, 2012
IRYW wrote:
As do I. Of course there are problems with ANY approach..... ;-/
<quoted text>
It is true that scientists have no place for theological claims in their work but that is simply a placeholder for the assumption that there is no supernatural realm. The theory of evolution describes in completely natural terms how life evolved on earth. As soon as a 'puppeteer' is invoked the theory ceases to be purely natural.
Actually if it had an observable quantifiable effect on natural phenomena it would be natural. Science doesn't claim the supernatural doesn't exist. It simply points out that it does not pass the scientific method.

If I may offer a counter-point example, the various hypotheses that have ramifications for how the universe started. Big Rip, Big Crunch, multiverse, string theory - none of these can currently be tested, at least until we have a working theory of quantum gravity (which may still be a long ways off yet). Due to this even some scientists have criticized them, perhaps with some justification that these ideas are in effect supernatural, and therefore technically not proper valid scientific hypotheses. However it's still possible that one of these ideas are correct.

Or maybe it's something completely different.
IRYW wrote:
I should have been more specific. I meant to say not that people should be ridiculed, but their ludicrous ideas should be. And the fact that there are scientists (in particular biologists, astro-physicists, etc) who are believers shows nothing more than the human ability to hold conflicting viewpoints in separate mental 'compartments'.
Compartmentalization, which I agree can occur to various degrees. But (a) God being responsible for evolution isn't itself a contradiction.
IRYW wrote:
As I said above, it is calling the idea stupid that we need to do.
Creationism yes, theism, not necessarily.
IRYW wrote:
I don't conflate them; in fact I consistently point out that one has nothing to do with the other.
Fair enough.
IRYW wrote:
My priority is to promote the intellectual values of Skepticism & Critical Thinking, Curiosity & Wonder, Reason & Rationality, the Scientific Method, Intellectual Honesty, Broad Study & Research, Free Thought & Questioning Authority, and Evidence vs. Faith. I actually think Sam Harris says it best when he says that atheists should 'go under the radar' by which he means openly standing up for and embodying the above values. While he doesn't think we should hide being atheists we should champion reason instead of being purely defensive about being atheist because of reason.
Then kudos to ya.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#11 Jun 15, 2012
IRYW wrote:
Regarding the Dover trial, if I had a chance to talk to Ken Miller I would tell him that his approach is near genius in terms of showing that it is possible to have a religious faith and still cleave to the pure scientific method... follow where the evidence leads. And then I would tell him that Roman Catholicism is bat-s**t crazy and that he should apply the same intellectual rigor to his faith claims as he does to evolutionary biology.
And at which point I would remind you again of my points 2 and 3, but one chooses their own path.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#12 Jun 15, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually if it had an observable quantifiable effect on natural phenomena it would be natural. Science doesn't claim the supernatural doesn't exist. It simply points out that it does not pass the scientific method.
I would argue that the scientific method depends on the non-existence of the supernatural (supernatural being defined as a conscious entity that may arbitrarily change the 'laws' of nature). Admitting the possibility of the supernatural as defined would mean that the meaning of 'natural' would have to be changed to "most of the time predictable unless 'god' decides otherwise". In other words, only because we have such a pious society and because religion is almost as old as mankind, do we shy away from admitting that science de facto 'denies' the supernatural.
The Dude wrote:
<
If I may offer a counter-point example, the various hypotheses that have ramifications for how the universe started. Big Rip, Big Crunch, multiverse, string theory - none of these can currently be tested, at least until we have a working theory of quantum gravity (which may still be a long ways off yet). Due to this even some scientists have criticized them, perhaps with some justification that these ideas are in effect supernatural, and therefore technically not proper valid scientific hypotheses. However it's still possible that one of these ideas are correct..
If supernatural simply refers to those natural phenomena that are yet unexplained then I agree with you. But if supernatural means what I said above then I disagree.
The Dude wrote:
<
Compartmentalization, which I agree can occur to various degrees. But (a) God being responsible for evolution isn't itself a contradiction..
Again I disagree. Unless one is a 'pure' deist (claiming there is a creator god that set the physical laws in motion and does not interfere with them) the claim of theistic evolution is almost always (at least in this country) that man is 'special' and that the abrahamic god not only specifically guided the physical evolution of man as distinct from other species but that it imbued man with a soul.
The Dude wrote:
<
Then kudos to ya.
Ditto.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#13 Jun 15, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And at which point I would remind you again of my points 2 and 3, but one chooses their own path.
Some people thing the path I've chosen is called Ological.........
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#14 Jun 15, 2012
IRYW wrote:
I would argue that the scientific method depends on the non-existence of the supernatural (supernatural being defined as a conscious entity that may arbitrarily change the 'laws' of nature). Admitting the possibility of the supernatural as defined would mean that the meaning of 'natural' would have to be changed to "most of the time predictable unless 'god' decides otherwise". In other words, only because we have such a pious society and because religion is almost as old as mankind, do we shy away from admitting that science de facto 'denies' the supernatural.
But that is locking supernatural to a narrow definition. Magicians and witches rely on the supernatural but aren't Gods. This is a small example of how the supernatural covers a wide range of stuff. Fairies, pixies, elves, unicorns, Pegasus, ghosts. Also God could interfere in natural ways, such as toppling over a wobbling rock to make sure it falls in a particular direction. Nothing particularly violating physics there. The only way science denies the supernatural is *not* that it makes a *positive* affirmation that it does not exist, but simply that the supernatural is so vaguely defined that it cannot be used to make any testable predictions. Hence it is not falsifiable. And if it's not falsifiable, it's not science.

That's why science does not and CANNOT make the POSITIVE claim "There is no God (or supernatural whatever)", because the concept cannot provide evidence or a meaningful definition to test. If the idea cannot be tested, it cannot be claimed either way whether it exists or not. Though we may point out there's no reason to presume something exists if it can't be demonstrated via the scientific method.
IRYW wrote:
If supernatural simply refers to those natural phenomena that are yet unexplained then I agree with you. But if supernatural means what I said above then I disagree.
Unexplained natural phenomena are just that - unexplained phenomena. However the options that I mentioned above in regards to the origin of the universe ARE explained (to a certain point anyway). It's just we don't know which (if any) are correct because there is no way to tell.
IRYW wrote:
Again I disagree. Unless one is a 'pure' deist (claiming there is a creator god that set the physical laws in motion and does not interfere with them) the claim of theistic evolution is almost always (at least in this country) that man is 'special' and that the abrahamic god not only specifically guided the physical evolution of man as distinct from other species but that it imbued man with a soul.
Actually theistic evolution usually doesn't consider man separate, as that kinda defeats the point of common ancestry, which they accept. Special, sure. As for the soul, some people say that only humans have them. Others say doggies also go to heaven (animals have souls). Opinions and details will vary, but there's nothing contradictory about a God creating the universe and using evolution. It may contradict a literal reading of the Bible, but that's no big deal - no such thing as a Biblical literalist anyway. ALL believers pick and choose how they interpret the Bible, which is why there's so many different sects, and why there's very few true Biblical Flat Earthers around. All depends on how much they think is inaccurate, or allegorical, how much of it they think DOES match reality, and how much they want to take on faith.
IRYW

Malvern, PA

#15 Jun 15, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But that is locking supernatural to a narrow definition. Magicians and witches rely on the supernatural but aren't Gods. This is a small example of how the supernatural covers a wide range of stuff. Fairies, pixies, elves, unicorns, Pegasus, ghosts.
That was the point of the definition. If the definition of supernatural is so broad to include everything you mentioned (and more) is loses any meaningful value for discussion; sort of like the pantheistic 'god is everything.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually theistic evolution usually doesn't consider man separate, as that kinda defeats the point of common ancestry, which they accept. Special, sure. As for the soul, some people say that only humans have them. Others say doggies also go to heaven (animals have souls). Opinions and details will vary, but there's nothing contradictory about a God creating the universe and using evolution.
I beg to disagree. I have had discussions with many, many believers who claim to accept evolution and categorically they treat man as a special case, not bound by the 'rules' that govern what we know as evolution by purely natural means (random mutation, natural selection). They see man's evolution as GUIDED by a god.
The Dude wrote:
< Also God could interfere in natural ways, such as toppling over a wobbling rock to make sure it falls in a particular direction. Nothing particularly violating physics there.
That is a total violation of cause and effect by natural means.
The Dude wrote:
< The only way science denies the supernatural is *not* that it makes a *positive* affirmation that it does not exist, but simply that the supernatural is so vaguely defined that it cannot be used to make any testable predictions. Hence it is not falsifiable. And if it's not falsifiable, it's not science.
That's why science does not and CANNOT make the POSITIVE claim "There is no God (or supernatural whatever)", because the concept cannot provide evidence or a meaningful definition to test. If the idea cannot be tested, it cannot be claimed either way whether it exists or not. Though we may point out there's no reason to presume something exists if it can't be demonstrated via the scientific method..
I agree that scientists do not make the POSITIVE claim that there is no god. But the default position is that everything is natural. There is no debate on this if you understand the scientific method. EVERYTHING is assumed to be observable, testable, and subject to definable natural behavior.
Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#16 Jun 15, 2012
Communists hate the idea of God.

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#17 Jun 15, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I see some problems with this approach:
1 - Science (evolution included) makes no theological claims. Hence Christians who accept evolution aren't actually rejecting science for the sake of their beliefs.
2 - This stance alienates potential allies, that is if you care at all about defending science education from the pseudo-science crowd.(Hint - it wasn't atheist scientists defending evolution in court at Dover).
3 - Atheists are an *extreme* minority worldwide in general and the US in particular. At this point in time I'm not sure how calling most of the world stupid will increase the acceptance of atheism.
4 - Conflating atheism and evolution may inadvertently promote the fallacious view amongst the general public that the fuss over evolution is all about atheism vs theism. This would actually work in favour of the few fundies who are aware of this fact but are happy to promote the idea that the mean old atheists are trying to take away the public's God-given and Constitutional rights to religious freedom. As their battle has zip to do with science and everything to do with politics, they know there's nothing better than great PR, which some the mean old atheists are apparently all too happy to provide for them.
It is your choice whether your higher priority is atheism or science education.
Decide for yourself you must.
Atheism is science education. Ask Stephen Hawking. I'll guarantee he's way smarter than the "smartest" teabagging fundie.

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#18 Jun 15, 2012
Eighthman wrote:
Communists hate the idea of God.
Believe what you want. The tooth fairy left 50 cents under your pillow.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#19 Jun 15, 2012
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Atheism is science education. Ask Stephen Hawking. I'll guarantee he's way smarter than the "smartest" teabagging fundie.
No, you have that quite backwards, atheism is usually the result of being more educated, or at least more intelligent. Being scientifically literate changes how you view the world, and that change often makes you see just how small and useless the gods of humanity are. Atheism being the result of ditching those minuscule gods.

Level 2

Since: Feb 08

Hypoluxo Fl

#20 Jun 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you have that quite backwards, atheism is usually the result of being more educated, or at least more intelligent. Being scientifically literate changes how you view the world, and that change often makes you see just how small and useless the gods of humanity are. Atheism being the result of ditching those minuscule gods.
I thought I said that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 min KAB 139,393
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min JM_Brazil 127,608
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr DanFromSmithville 76
More Theories to Disprove Creation 2 hr The Dude 64
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 6 hr ChristineM 1,901
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 10 hr Aura Mytha 175,462
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) Tue The Dude 996

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE