Posted on 10/23/2009 8:18:13 PM PDT by john in springfield
After spending time on some of the recent discussions here at FR about Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and other points of view (which I will call Old Earth Creationism (OEC) and Naturalistic Evolution), I found myself wondering: how many FReepers (and how many Americans) hold each particular view?
Obviously, there aren't any statistics on FReepers. But there are on Americans as a whole, and on certain groups of Americans.
The best general resource I've found so far on people's viewpoints is located here. I will summarize some of those here.
(Note: This page uses slightly different terms for a couple of these viewpoints, but as far as I can tell, they mean the same thing.)
About 45% accept the Young Earth Creationist viewpoint, about 37% accept the Old Earth Creationist viewpoint, and around 12% to 14% accept the Naturalistic Evolution viewpoint.
This has held fairly steady over the past 25 years or so. The percentage who believe in NE may have increased slightly, but overall, the numbers have held fairly steady.
A CBS News poll gave a bit different percentages: YEC 55%, OEC 27%, NE 13%.
Observations:
There are a lot of people who believe in young earth creationism, and there are also a lot of people who believe in old earth creationism as well.
The vast majority of Americans believe in God.
The majority of Americans believe in evolution.
The numbers change significantly among the college-educated:
YEC: 25%
OEC: 54%
NE: 17%
It is interesting to me that most - a full 54% - college-educated Americans accept the Old-Earth Creationist (or theistic evolutionist) view.
Note also the effect that a college education seems to have: With a few exceptions, people who go to college don't stop believing in God. However, quite a few do seem to shift from YEC to OEC.
This graph also means that an awful lot of people who don't go to college believe in YEC rather than in either OEC or NE.
Note that while this poll is nearly 20 years old, based on what we know from some other polls, overall beliefs do not seem to have changed greatly during this time.
YEC: 5%
OEC: 40%
NE: 55%
Note: The word "scientist" seems to be very vague in this poll, which apparently includes a lot of people with professional degrees in fields completely unrelated to biology, geology, etc.
In any event, a majority of "scientists" don't seem to believe that God was involved in the development of life on earth. It's not a very large majority, though. "Scientists" are divided as to whether God was involved. Most of those who think He was believe that this involvement included the process of evolution.
However, given that only 5% of "scientists" support YEC, the under-1% figure may well be true. I just don't know. Nor do I have access to the original 1987 Newsweek article to see exactly how they got their information.
If there's another poll or two out there on this, it might be interesting to know about.
A 2007 Harris Poll showed the following percentages of Christians who accept the theory of evolution:
Catholics: 43%
Protestants: 30%
"Born-Again Christians": 16%
Finally, a 2005 CBS Poll stated that a full two thirds (67%) of Americans believe that it's possible for one to believe both in God and in evolution.
Welcome to "Planet Whattaschmuck," the place where the English language means what ever we want it to mean and we really know how to get around in style.
Greetings Earthlings! And now for your listening pleasure we have "Whattajoke" tinkling the key board with twelve of his all time leg slappin' favorites:
1. "Darwin Dump"
2. "Sittin' on me brains"
3. "The drafty crack polka"
4. "Troglodyte boogie"
5. "I mean what I thought I said although you didn't hear me like I though I said it last Tuesday" (Note this here song don't rhyme real good)
6. "Yeah, it's me you must be smellin'"
7. "Primordial stool"
8. "I graduated nursery school with Wacka"
9. "How brown is that trout in the window?"
10. "Hair Club for Mammoths"
11. "Socially retarded": 3 movements in "B" (use your imagination)
12. "Dino-demento"
You are just so busted!!!! There you are twisting, contorting, squirming, writhing, gesticulating, caught in a lie so big that the snakepit over at Darwin Central has them all singing along with you from straight out their "asp-holes"!
Whattajackass!!!!!
I don’t know what went wrong in your life, nor will I even guess, but I hope you find peace someday.
Somehow I knew you'd be back.
Although I am a published peer-reviewed author in biochemical science and in analytical chemistry, possess an assortment of graduate and undergraduate degrees in life sciences, lecture in pharmaceutical development and happen to hold 5 patents in synthetic chemistry and pharmaceutical development, alas, I don't have a career in academia whoring after government grant money.
Look me up when your career in life sciences pays you $400K/yr, and I'll be convinced that the scientific community values what you have to say to the same degree it values what I have to say.
Until then, you're still just a pedestrian evo-schlub, a fake with a foul mouth, and a pretender to conservatism with a clearly impoverished vocabulary.
I disagree with cheap imitations, especially when they call themselves conservatives or scientists.
Why resort to name calling?
The only ones who complain are those who come to the inescapable conclusion that my forward smash beats their flaccid backhand any day. You think you can dish it out without consequence but shrivel like cowardly scalded mutts when the field isn't yours anymore (as if it ever was).
Why not post scientific proof to back up your points instead?
I debate scientists from peer reviewed scientific literature all the time. You aren't familiar enough with what peer-reviewed literature is to even know how it is vetted, published, or even how it is even made available.
I'll wager you have never cracked open a peer-reviewed journal on your own in your entire life. Sorry, reading the thumb-worn Highlights in the dentist office waiting room might be more your speed, but if that's the closest you've come to what you might think passes for peer-reviewed literature, well....
When you have been presented with peer-reviewed literature right here on FR to comment upon as a cogent scientist, but you are too lazy to digest it, and you lack the innate curiosity of a true scientist to acquaint your self with the particulars of the scientific debate that surrounds a given topic.
Dr. Walt Brown (PhD, Mechanical Engineering, MIT) writes a 350 page book richly sourced from peer-reviewed literature across a multitude of scientific disciplines, now in its 8th edition and also freely available on the internet, and all your lazy stupid ass can say is "a book by an engineer on creation biology is not proof." Brown doesn't set out to prove anything, but lets the discussion go in the logical direction that only an objective study of science will take it.
But see, I don't believe you are an objective scientist. In fact I don't happen to be convinced by anything you have even posted on FR that you are a scientist at all let alone capable of holding a PhD in anything -- at least not from any reputable institution.
Maybe all you are is just another Sally Struthers success story. You certainly appear to reason and write at that level.
Your Catholicism as you have stated it is not Christianity. From another earlier thread from about a month or so ago:
‘I don’t have to be “born again”. I was born once and that’s all I need to go to heaven.”
Jesus on the other hand clearly said,”In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." (John 3:3)
So who’s telling the truth here Jesus or Wacka?
You again:
“I believe that all the Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, animists, Wiccans, etc, and even atheists that live good lives will go to heaven. They will find that their view was incorrect, but they will be there.”
Jesus on the other hand says, “ Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)
So who’s telling the truth here, Jesus or Wacka?
You again: "[I am] A proud Catholic (that means Christian too)".
You again, same thread: “As a [sic.] “atheistic liberal” I’m not going to church.”
So who’s telling the truth here, Wacka, or……..Wacka?
You will continue to be ridiculed and called out because you are untruthful.
I suspect you are no more truthful about your Christianity than you are about your supposed "PhD."
You write like neither a scientist nor a Christian.
A lie so retarded you just busted yourself with it.
You live a lie. Your foul mouthed posting history as well as where you post is enough proof of that.
Sounds like your Darwin Central snake pit is calling you.
Might wanna go suck face with some of your "asp-wipes" over there.
Putting it crudely, Bacon thought that God is not "threatened" by science in any way; for it couldn't touch Him in the first place.
Why all the hate and name calling?
Are you the GGG approved agitator to try to get people to attack you and get banned?
We are on to your antics and will not bite.
bkmk
Is CW implying all they need is more (in numbers) ignorant people?
posting methods **exactly** like the ‘FairTax’ stormtroopers on FR.
God loves you and will forgive you.
One could only hope.
It looks to me like the doctrine of creationism is going to further lose significant ground over the next 20 years. Those in the right-hand group will largely go away, and those in the first two groups will shift rightward.
Honestly, the level of ugliness on the part of a couple of “Christians” here is astonishing to me. Presumably they read from the same Bible that talks about the love of God, but personally, I can’t see any evidence of it from here.
That same Bible also seems pretty clear to me that God himself doesn’t have much patience with those types of people.
I guess that’s about all I have to say about that.
What is this now -- are you gonna play the wimpering gay-blade card too?
Why don't you go ask your Mod-slapped foul-mouthed lib-tard ally, whattajerk, exactly why it is he does that, and get back to us sometime, Miss PhD-Pretender.
Are you the GGG approved agitator to try to get people to attack you and get banned?
Been around here a lot longer than you, evo-breath. Seen alot of your evo-atheist types sing their stupid swan songs, get banned -- the works. Then all you Darwin diaper-drippers head over to Darwin Central-in-exile "Corrupting Youth Since 1859," where, as the pseudo-scientific pussy-wimps that you are, you go to sulk, and to lick each others wounds and your soiled egos.
Ya'll do it to yourselves, and like the common bottom feeding evo-liberals that you all are in reality, you're always looking for someone else to blame.
We are on to your antics and will not bite.
Yeah, I simply call you out as a poser, blow your cover as the phoney scientist wanna-be that you are, wipe your face in it, and dispatch you to Whattajoke's "planet" where you can drive him around the Darwin Awards crack track a few more times.
You liberals tie yourselves up in so many stupid contradictions, and it just makes it so easy for any real scientist like myself to just grab your head, yank it back and scalp your slobbering argument.
Even some of your Wacka'd out fellow evo-atheists admit to the contadiction that they choose to define themselves with:
Wow, you must really have them rattled, Agamemnon. Whattajoke has gone from calling us “rampage shooters” and “social retards” to quoting Bible verses!
This is the kind of behavior you defend on Free Republic?
Look who’s complaining to JR! That’s rich!
LOL...apparently xcamel has a split personality. Do you suppose she’s even aware of her other vile self?
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.