Creation vs. Evolution. What's the ratio.

[Kid_Gilligan]

I have a bet with my pro-creation girlfriend.
(no puns please about pro-creation)

Does anyone know where I can find out what percentage of Americans believe in each theory. I would be particularly interested in knowing how the percentages stack up for people who identify themselves as Christians.

I contend that a minority of Christians take the Bible so literally. She thinks that it is rare for someone to believe in both Jesus and evolution.

Can anyone help here?

[Markxxx]

I think most people believe that God is the force behind evolution. In other words God uses eveolution to accomplish his goals.

[David B]

I really don't know where you can find unbiased statistics on this. Usually, the questions, when asked by creationists, are worded in such a way as to make more people seem to come out on the creation side.

For example, as Mark noted, a lot of people believe in God and creation -- just not the literal view that runs counter to evolution. So they "believe in" evolution as well as God. But when creationists ask the questions, they often ask about whether people believe that God created the universe. Well, these folks answer, yes, they believe that. Great, but that doesn't make them "creationists" in the way everybody means...

[DrFidelius]

As the plurality of Christians in the world are Roman Catholic, and the Pope himself has stated that it is all right for Catholics to ascribe natural causes to natural phenomena, I think your girlfriend is wrong. The only sects that require their members to ignore what God has really made, rather than what someone wrote about it, are a few Protestant cults. Of course, if her definition of "believing in Jesus" is limited to those who believe exactly as she does, then she may have a point.

Also, questions about the natural world are best answered by examining the natural world rather than by taking opinion polls.


------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
"There's a Seeker born every minute."

[Ennius]

Not that we Catholics follow along with the Pope's every decree. For example, I think priests should be allowed to marry, that women should be allowed to become clergy, and that homosexuality is okay. Note, however, that American Catholics are, on the whole, more liberal than their European counterparts, so I'd wager that most of us go along with Darwin on this one.

[AzRaek]

Heard the other day on TV that "Most Americans do not believe in evolution" Can't remember where I heard it- local news? CNN?

I did an opinion poll. I asked a friend of mine, who says evolution is definitely more supported by scientific evidence. I agree with him, so the results of my poll show 100% in favour of evolution. :-)

Seriously though, "creationism" can take on many aspects. Some people believe that the earth was created over a period of 7 days several thousand years ago, and other people might believe that some god created the universe and everything else happened "naturally" from that point on. I would assume that most people would fit the latter category, since atheists represent a small percentage of the population.

(P.S. please be aware that my answer might reflect my own personal bias. I am an atheist.)

------------------
Jacques Kilchoer
Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.

[mangeorge]

"Not that we Catholics follow along with the Pope's every decree."
---Ennius
--------------------------------
Didn't want to quote your entire post, Ennius, But it sounded to me like you pretty much covered most of the principals that separate catholics from other christians. As an ex-catholic I also have trouble buying into these and other rules. But I'm not a christian by any definition, so there ya go!
Peace,
mangeorge

------------------
Work like you don't need the money.....
Love like you've never been hurt.....
Dance like nobody's watching! ....(Paraphrased)

[tomndebb]

I contend that a minority of Christians take the Bible so literally. She thinks that it is rare for someone to believe in both Jesus and evolution.

Of course, you may run into the ARG220 phenomenon where he (initially) stated that those who did not share his specific set of beliefs were not really Christian.

I think that you had better be prepared to have this issue remain unresolved (from the perspective that you may never be able to agree on the terms to define the conclusion).

This board is not nearly representative of the U.S. public, but there are an awful lot of Christians on this board. The only two I recall claiming a complete disbelief in evolution are ARG220 and vanillnice. (I have not seen an opinion on evolution from furt and I don't remember a religious post from scutfargus.) Based on that horribly skewed poll, the ratio is between several hundred to 2 and several hundred to 4. Others may pop up in response to this post, but you are still stuck with an overwhelming ratio in one direction based on a wholly unrepresentative sample of the population.

I'd say find something else to discuss (like whether your different opinions on these matters are going to leave you very compatible for very long).

If you really want some sort of answers, see whether Gallup or any of his competitors have taken similar polls recently (e.g., in the wake of the Kansas Board of Ed.) and have posted them on a web site.

If you really, really have to have an answer, try the following sites:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

with commentary in

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm

(Short answer, depending on how you define your terms, you and she can both be right.)

------------------
Tom~

[Big Iron]

To quote (or at least paraphrase) Cecil, "At the Straight Dope, we don't take votes on the truth."

Not that I mean to imply that the OP intended that the "dispute" be settled that way. ;)

[TheIncredibleHolg]

As for percentages: I have here a snippet from the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a highly renowned German paper, from some time last week. It's an editorial on the decision of the Kansas Board of Education to delete evolution from school curriculae, and it includes a semi-paragraph on what people in the U.S. think. I'm trying to translate:

"Indeed, about forty-four percent of Americans today believe in the creation of the world by divine force, with plants, animals, and humans in their current appearance, in an act of genesis no more than ten thousand years ago. Only ten percent are convinced of a secular history of evolution that dates back simple genetic material up to four and a half million years and human life in its current form about fifty thousand years."

(Sorry for the rough and hasty translation.) It is not stated what the rest think, nor is a source cited. (There was probably a regular article with that, but I don't have it.) You might check some news sites on the web for items on that Kansas decision; there should be some background articles available.

[David B]

AzRaek said:Heard the other day on TV that "Most Americans do not believe in evolution" Can't remember where I heard it- local news? CNN?This goes back to what I said about polls. What did the original poll actually ask? How did the idiot newscaster interpret it?

Holg said:"Indeed, about forty-four percent of Americans today believe in the creation of the world by divine force, with plants, animals, and humans in their current appearance, in an act of genesis no more than ten thousand years ago."Same thing goes here. A lot of news reports misunderstand what the actual poll asked about. And they often forget their most basic news research techniques -- check the source!

[AWB]

[i]TheIncredibleHolg quotes:
Indeed, about forty-four percent of Americans today believe in the creation of the world by divine force, with plants, animals, and humans in their current appearance, in an act of genesis no more than ten thousand years ago. Only ten percent are convinced of a secular history of evolution that dates back simple genetic material up to four and a half million years and human life in its current form about fifty thousand years.

I think that four and a half million should be billion, BTW.

Only 10% are convinced? And 44% believe in divine creation, hm? That still leaves 46% on the fence. Some may believe in evolution, but think that it's driven by God. Others might believe in evolution, but not the 4.5 billion year figure.

Personally, I think you're all a figment of my imagination. :)

[TheIncredibleHolg]

David B wrote:Same thing goes here. A lot of news reports misunderstand what the actual poll asked about. And they often forget their most basic news research techniques -- check the source!Well, that's just the question, isn't it? Since the quote is so specific ("no more than ten thousand years ago"), and since the paper has such a good name, I would assume that they have done their research and the statement is accurate. (As I said, I presume there's a source given in another article I don't have.) Of course, shit happens everywhere. At any rate, if what they say is true, we have good reason to be worried...

AzRaek: I believe I saw the same report as you, on ABC News. The figures I recall were 53% creationism, 47% evolution. But, as David B points out, it's really more a function of the wording of the questions.

[TheIncredibleHolg]

AWB wrote:I think that four and a half million should be billion, BTW.Hmmm... the article definitely says 'million'. (And no, it's nothing to do with the meaning of 'billion' in British vs. American English. It's 4,500,000 years either way.) But this is not about the age of the Earth; it's the age of simple genetic material. Are you sure it should be 'billion'?

[AWB]

TheIncredibleHolg asked: Hmmm... the article definitely says 'million'. (And no, it's nothing to do with the meaning of 'billion' in British vs. American English. It's 4,500,000 years either way.) But this is not about the age of the Earth; it's the age of simple genetic material. Are you sure it should be 'billion'?

If they're saying that science has only traced genetic history back 4.5 million years, that sounds about right. At first, it read as if science estimated simple genetic material as existing for only 4.5 million. Genes have certainly been around longer than that. (Real dinosaurs were not animatronic.)

[TheIncredibleHolg]

AWB, I wasn't thinking this through, sorry. I guess dating back simple genetic material just 4.5m years isn't quite right. But 4.5b does seem a little too much. (Isn't the Earth itself just 5b years old? I'm really not sure at the moment.) Makes me wonder about the quality of the citation after all...

[jayron 32]

My girlfriend is a devout christian... and, like anyone with even a minor background in the sciences, also "believes" in evolution (which is like "believing" in gravity). Christianity and Evolution are not in ANY way incompatable. Read Stephen Jay Gould's "Rock of Ages" for talk on why. But not even creationism and evolution are incompatible. Creationism states that God created everything. But it never says that he created it as it is now, or how he created everything. It is perfectly in line with creationist thinking to believe that God accomplishes His goals through the laws of the universe...

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

[JAlan]

My stance on the whole creation/evolution thing has evolved from years of thought on the matter. I used to be a "theistic evolutionist," meaning I thought G-d used evolution as a creation mechanism. But now I'm a "creation mechanism agnostic," (I made up the term myself - can you tell?) which means I don't think we'll ever really know (or be capable of understanding) exactly how G-d did it.

Could He have used evolution? Of course! Could He have done it exactly like it says in Genesis? Sure! (I know - physical evidence is against it, but remember, we are talking about G-d here. . .)
Is there any possible (not just conceivable by men) creation mechanism that would be beyond His capability? Nope!

It's odd to think that that G-d created the universe in a way that could be understood by a simple nomadic culture 3500 (or so) years ago.
I imagine if G-d were to re-deliver the creation account today, it might include things like natural selection and meteors.
Along the same lines, though, if G-d were to re-deliver the creation account 100 years from now, it might include things like tachyons and quarks (or just substitute any of the techie fill-in words they use on Star Trek).

So, I'm in a class that's neither creation or evolution, or maybe both?

BTW - Am I way out there on this one? It's OK, you can tell me.

[JumP Zero]

I don't think it's rare to believe in Jesus AND evolution (as I do), but that reminds me of a question I saw on the 'net not too long ago: If man evolved from monkeys and apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?

[JAlan]

I think evolution doesn't say man evolved from apes, but that man and apes evolved from common ancestors. The idea, as I understand it, is that members of this species would have spread out, and evolved based on adapting to the environments they encountered.

So, one group of this species lived where survival depended on being strong and eating alot of leaves (apes), and another group lived where they had to learn to use tools and wear clothes to survive (man).

I work for the State of Tennessee/dept. of transportation/state photo lab. Although you might think that the place was overrun with creationists--not so. Despite being in the bible belt, many Tennesseans are very embarrassed about the creationist thing. a handhul of goobers make the rest of us look bad. Creationists are loud, and tend to organise, but seem to be rather scarse on the ground. Since creationism is associated with the South, I suspect that it is even rarer elsewhere.

[tracer]

TheIncredibleHolg wrote:

I guess dating back simple genetic material just 4.5m years isn't quite right. But 4.5b does seem a little too much. (Isn't the Earth itself just 5b years old? I'm really not sure at the moment.)

The oldest macroscopic fossils are stromatolites, formed from sediments left behind by colonies of bacteria. Using various dating techniques (geologic layers in which they were discovered, radioargon decay, etc.), the oldest ones register as having formed somewhere between 2 and 3 billion (with a "b") years ago.

I believe microscopic fossils have been found that date back as far as 4.65 billion years.

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[tracer]

No, wait, 4.65 billion years can't be right. I'm thinking of the age of the oldest (non-living) rocks on Earth. Sorry.

I believe microfossils have been found that date back to about 4 billion years.

There.

[Frankie]

well i for one am kind of both.
I am a firm believer in evolution but i believe that a higher being created life in the first place. Either with a divine spark or just putting all of the pieces together.

So which am I evolution or creation?

[jayron 32]

If man evolved from monkeys and
apes, why do we still have monkeys and apes?

Man did not evolve "from" monkeys and apes; monkeys and apes and man evolved from a common ancestor which was neither very monkey-like, ape-like, or man-like. As this "proto-homonid" set up shop in different areas of the world, different traits began to be favored by different environments; those traits became more pronounced over time until the two sub-populations of proto-hominid no longer resembled eachother in a way that they used to. They were now two different species. It is entirely possible that one environment favored the "old form" and thus the poulation there changed very little, while another environment was not very kind to the "old form" and thus favored forms that were drastically different. If neither environment favored the old form terribly much, then both populations may have evolved into forms different than the original. The original form is said to have "died out" in the latter case, but survived in the former. The case of man and apes is much closer to the second example. This is a highly simplified version of evolution, and ignores the issue of the mechanism of the change (be it natural selection, puntuated equilibrium, or whatever) but being uncertain on the mechanism (what CAUSED the change, and HOW the change occurs) in no way refutes that, based on 100% of the evidence ever accumulated to date, this is indeed what happened.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

[Doug Yanega]

"Man did not evolve "from" monkeys and apes; monkeys and apes and man evolved from a common ancestor which was neither very monkey-like, ape-like, or man-like."

Nope. Nice try. Taxonomically, humans *are* apes. The living group with which we share a most recent common ancestor is the two chimpanzee species (we are related to their *ancestor*, so we are no more closely related to one or the other chimp species). That ancestor was an ape. The many species of man-like apes that descended from that ancestor all died off except one: Homo sapiens. I suggest you get hold of some recent literature if you want to get ideas of the relationships of all those extinct lineages that separate us from the chimps' distant ancestor.

[BunnyGirl]

Frankie says:
I am a firm believer in evolution but i believe that a higher being created life in the first place. Either with a divine spark or just putting all of the pieces together.

So which am I evolution or creation?

I agree. Frankie, I think that would make us "creative evolutionists"!

[Stoid]

Arg:

Even the most thorough acceptance of evolution does not have to take god out of the picture. Who are you to say that god did this, but not that? Maybe he designed the ooze to do X. You REALLY need to work on your arrogance when it comes to interpreting Divine action, thoguht, meaning and intention. Isn't humility supposed to be a virtue that you strive for? You are far away.

Anyway, just wanted to mention that an acquaintence of mine recently, at the age of 43, decided to bail on the Catholic Church because she only now learned that it accepts evolution as the mechanism by which God created the world.

She started to argue the point with me, but as usual with every creationist I've ever met, the only way she could do so was by mis-stating the facts of evolution so thoroughly that they bore hardly any relation to the truth. When I tried to gently point out that what she did not believe was in fact something that was never asserted to begin with, she changed the subject.

AMazing what people will put their otherwise perfectly good minds through in order to hold on to what they believe. Willful ignorance is the most irritating thing in the world...



------------------
*************
He who laughs last thinks slowest.

[David B]

Stoidela said to ARG:You REALLY need to work on your arrogance Oh, come on! If there's one thing ARG doesn't need to work on, it's arrogance! He's quite an expert!

[Darkfox]

I found a URL that claims to have the results of a 1991 Gallup poll: http://hyperion.advanced.org/19012/gallup.htm

------------------
They say I got the power, because I got the monkeys.
They are WRONG! I got the power because I am not afraid to let the monkeys loose.

[jayron 32]

Taxonomically, it's all rather random and arbitrary. Humans and the Great Apes taxonomically belong to the same catagory at some level. It may be correct to say that Hmans and Apes are hominids, but apes are defined as non-human hominids. There is no accepted reference for assigning species to any taxonomic catagory based on any real factors, especially beyond the "genus" level. Your silly little semantic arguement in no way changes the crux of the issue. The common ancestor of Humans, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, and Orangutans was not a Human, Chimpanzee, Bonobo, Gorilla or Orangutan. And it was not necessarily closer related to any of these 5 major classes of "homonid" than any other. Humans did not evolve from the modern apes. Both evolved from a common ancestor that has since dies out.

------------------
Jason R Remy

"No amount of legislation can solve America's problems."
-- Jimmy Carter (1980)

Of course, you may run into the ARG220 phenomenon
Wow. I'm famous. Of course, I'm not just famous, I'm INfamous. ;)

Tom says:The only two I recall claiming a complete disbelief in evolution are ARG220 and vanillnice
Now hold on there Tom. What do you mean by "complete disbelief in evolution." I believe in adaptation of species. I'd be a fool not to. What I will not buy into, is anything that takes God out of the picture. If those species adapt, it's because God designed them to. I will not subscribe to theories of random particles, and primordial oozes, and Chaos...etc. All of those things leave our exsistence to chance. And I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian who thinks this universe, and we humans came into existence by chance.

Adam

------------------
"Life is hard...but God is good"

[David B]

Careful, guys -- this is starting to lean towards a great debate...

[Big Iron]

[[Now hold on there Tom. What do you mean by "complete disbelief in evolution." I believe in adaptation of species. I'd be a fool not to. What I will not buy into, is anything that takes God out of the picture.]] Arg


Sounds nice, but what you really mean is that you won't accept anything, true/logical or not, that conflicts with YOUR SPECIFIC IDEAS about "God." Nothing about evolution in any way "takes God out of the picture."

[[ If those species adapt, it's because God designed them to.]]


More likely, though, "God" (if such a being exists) simply sent out a spark that has continued on it's own initiative.

[JimFox]

since atheists represent a small percentage of the population.
Atheisism are actually the majority religion, more than Christianity. I'm looking up figures

[SkeptiJess]

Thanks for the poll link, Darkfox. I found it quite interesting -- especially the news that only 25% of college educated people polled believed in "young-earth creation." I'd like to see a further break-down of that 25% by major. My guess is that only a teeny tiny percentage of the 25%ers will have taken more than two or three college science courses.

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

[TheIncredibleHolg]

Thanks for the link, Darkfox! If it is authentic (and if there was perhaps an update of the poll to account for the slight difference in numbers), my F.A.Z. article may have been correct after all!

Let me just mention that the F.A.Z. was recently elected the third best paper in the world by a panel of (self-proclaimed?) experts. Financial Times came in first, New York Times was runner-up.

[the first supraliminal]

Has anyone here heard about the "intelligent design theorists?"

Can I get any feedback about this group?



------------------
One beer is less than two beers.

[vanillanice]

I believe that God created plants,animals,and humans as they are,in roughly 3 days. Some species can be changed:especially dogs,you can breed them for different traits,but they can still intermate. Therefore they are dogs and always will be. God created Adam and Eve fully human,a day after He created apes(gorillas,etc.).He was making improvements,as it were. I know some of you disagree on that! Notice the first 2 words in my paragraph.....

[David B]

Beeruser: "intelligent design theory" = creationism. When the courts said they could teach creationism as science in public schools, they came up with new terms for the same baloney. This is one of them. Certainly sounds scientific, doesn't it? But it's the same nonsense with a new name.

[the first supraliminal]

Well, David B, having just read about them (design theorists) I'm afraid I don't know too much about them yet. But nowhere do they mention Creationism (a divine creation as according to the Bible.) Their basic argument against evolution is their non-acceptance of a naturalistic universe. And that science is second to the basic assumption of materialism.


For anyone curious, you can read an article here:
http://www.origins.org/ftissues/ft9711/johnson.html

I believe mainstream science requires constant resistance. Only through such checks can the truth be revealed.






------------------
One beer is less than two beers.

[David B]

Beeruser, of course they don't specifically mention creationism! What's the point of creating a new term for something in order to fool people if they go around using the old term?!

------------------
"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."
-- William Kingdon Clifford