Posted on 12/05/2004 1:16:27 AM PST by OnlyinAmerica
Poll shows Americans divided over question of evolution vs. creation By Kevin Eckstrom
Religion News Service
WASHINGTON (RNS)--A Gallup Poll suggests Americans are divided over how the world was created--either through evolution or at the hand of God--but either way, they appear skeptical that it happened exactly as described in the book of Genesis.
The poll found Charles Darwin's theory of evolution remains controversial among Americans. About one-third say it is supported by evidence, one-third see it as bunk and one-third don't know enough to judge.
A plurality of Americans--45 percent--say man was created by God in his present form, while 38 percent say man developed over time as God guided the process. Just 13 percent said God had no role in the process.
Yet a smaller percentage, 34 percent, said the Bible is the actual word of God and should be read literally.
Pollsters said that discrepancy suggests Americans believe man was created as-is, but not because the Bible says so.
Breaking down the numbers, Gallup officials said about one-quarter of Americans are "biblical literalists" who believe man was created 10,000 years ago in his present form. They tend to be women, conservatives, Republicans and attend a Protestant church at least once a week.
A slightly smaller number--one in five Americans--believe man was created in his present form 10,000 years ago, but not because they read the Bible literally. Just 9 percent of the country read the Bible literally but are open to the theory of evolution.
The largest group--46 percent--do not read the Bible literally and believe humans may have evolved over time. This group tends to be male, urban, more educated, Catholic and seldom or never attend church.
"It is not surprising to find that the biblical literalists who believe that God created humans 10,000 years ago tend to be more religious and Protestant," said Frank Newport, Gallup's editor-in-chief.
The survey of 1,016 adults has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
How about a non-static creation? Free Will is a matter of perspective anyhow. To say that we can surprise God with our choices is to assume too much, but we can always surprise ourselves...
Duh!
I am surprised that 13% said God was not involved at all. The numbers I have seen for atheist/agnostic show them to be only about 3-4% of the population. Alot of those "no religious preference people" must be atheist but don't want the label.
I don't think the question of 'religious preference' necessarily relates to the issue of atheist vs agnostic. Some belief systems support a non-interference, dynamic, but not an institutional approach to doing so, and concomitantly, no worship requirement.
Red State = "I am fearfully and wonderfully made"
Yes- the literary style is a recognition that God considers all future descendants the son of the forefather. He considers the traits of inheritance over a timespan of multiple generations. This is why we can claim promised positions which were originally given to earlier generations. He judged nations by this standard regularly in the Old Testament, particularly in the prophets.
It's important to note, however, that individuals could trump this 'group' position by their personal response to His invitations and overtures.
The New Testament example is the consideration of God that every believer is "In Christ", that is, He moves us to the front of the line, so to speak, and considers our position as parallel to the highest place in heaven, the one occupied by Jesus at the Father's right hand.
That's precisely why Christians are in charge, why we can crush empires and shape the planet in the will of God, as long as we pray according to His wishes. If only we would see it more clearly.
Red State = "I am fearfully and wonderfully made"
Red State = "I am a fallen creature; one who was created by a Superior Being for some purpose."
Blue State = "I evolved form a primeval Slime Puddle, but through blind chance, I am now fully evolved. You, however, are still unevolved -- blind chance hasn't favored you as well as it has favored me -- so I appoint myself as your Guardian. Hand over your money and your liberty. Trust me.
Many well known scientists and philosophers have claimed that Darwinism is bunk: Sir Fred Hoyle, Sir Francis Crick, David Berlinski, Michael Behe, Soren Lovetrup, Sir Karl Popper, Hubert Yockey, David Bohm. With the exception of Michael Behe (a biochemist at Lehigh University, and a practicing Roman Catholic), none of these thinkers is a literal creationist. It's perfectly possible not to be a biblical creationist and not to be a Darwinist at the same time.
I recommend Behe's 1997 book, "Darwin's Black Box," which shows that modern biochemistry poses irreconcilible problems for Darwinism. Mathematicians like David Berlinksi and Hubert Yockey (and Fred Hoyle, who was an astronomer) have shown that the math in evolution doesn't add up. For example, there's not enough time in the entire universe since it's supposed beginning to account for a SINGLE MOLECULE of cytochrome-C to have evolved by chance; yet, without it, there can be no life.
Behe begins his book with a breathtakingly clear explanation of how human vision works on the biochemical level. It's a sort of Rube Goldberg operation, in which a single photon impacts an enzyme in the retina, deforming its shape; this sets up chain reaction (the "vision cascade") that eventually triggers an electro-chemical reaction in the optic nerve. Behe points out that even if ONE chemical step were missing -- or if the order of the chemical steps were slightly different -- the end result is nothing; no vision. Darwinism claims that this chain reaction must have evolved in small, incremental steps, each step increasing the chances of survival of the organism. This assumes that the cascade must have comprised fewer steps at some point in the remote past, each additional step having been added to the cascade by chance, and accidentally leading to a greater chance of survival. As stated before, a cascade with fewer steps has NO survival value, because it leads to a biochemical dead-end: no vision. To be valuable to the organism, the vision cascade must have evolved all of its steps simultaneously; yet this is precisely contrary to Darwinism, which argues that nature evolves from the simple to the complex, and always in small, incremental changes, each change being slightly more useful to the organism. Behe argues for the idea of "irreducible complexity" in biology; the idea that certain structures and processes are only useful in their entirety, and therefore could not have come about in a blind, step-by-step fashion.
Who knew?
I suspect there is some overlap there.
The two ideas are not inconsistent. I personally don't see any societal interest in the question of whether you believe in creation or evolution. It's a philosophical question, that has no practical application.
Yup, only an idiot would think the incredible complexity of the human body somehow evolved by accident.
Only an idiot would think the incredible complexity of a rainbow can occur by accident.
For that matter, literal creationism is supported by evidence too. It depends on what we mean by terms such as "evidence" and "supported." Old William Paley's arguments for the existence of design in nature -- and therefore a Designer -- are still basically sound. Scientists like Michael Behe simply show how the argument applies with even more force on the microscopic/biochemical level.
Why is it an either/or question?
Also...
boxers vs. briefs
Imports vs. US made automobiles
NFC vs. AFC
DH vs. pitchers hitting
Breasts vs. legs
Coke vs. Pepsi
paper vs. plastic
Air America vs. armpit music
Barbra Streisand vs. home root canal kit
NCIS vs. CSI
Rap music vs. lobotomy
single ply toilet tissue vs. NYT
blondes vs. brunettes and/or redheads
By the way, the notion of "purpose" does not necessary imply "complexity." Something can be quite simple in structure and still designed; something else can be quite complex and still be reducible to chance. It isn't the complexity of the eye that suggests it is designed by an outside Designer; it's the irreducible nature of the complexity that does so. As Behe shows in his book, only the entire vision cascade has any value; 1/2 or 1/3 of the chemical steps, coming together over time through blind chance (as per Darwinism) has no value -- it doesn't lead to 1/2 or 1/3 the amount of vision. It leads to no vision. It's a biochemical dead end. Either we admit the notion of "design" in nature, or we admit the idea that Nature makes incredible jumps ("saltations"). The second notion is just as anathema to Darwinism as the first, as it smacks a little too much of "miracle" at least for orthodox materialists such as Richard Dawkins.
I believe in directed evolution that provided a path for either greatness or failure depending upon how we exercise our free will.
You obviously haven't read any of the refutations of Behe's book. Irreducible complexity can evolve, and has been shown to evolve.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.