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.
You wiffed it.
And that comment coming from a professional at it. Except that you don't use big words....
I beg your pardon?
...but your wild pitch scored the game winner from second.
Stick around til the end, and I guarantee you’ll see the score much differently.
Obviously you’re an evo groupie, because you falsely believe that it makes you look “educated” but your lack of scientific method betrays you as gullible, and ignorant. Science is not consensus; it requires hard facts that are completely missing from the evo compendium.
If sketches and plaster sculpture are good enough for you; if a tooth can define the aspect of the pelvis; you’re good to go, but I’d never want to go there.
Like cats on a barbecue pit - they never stop dancing and squalling long enough to make a cogent point.
You would be more accurate if you used a bong and Ouija board to determine what I believe and what my education and science skills are. I am a devout Catholic who believes in Theistic Evolution. Educationally I have degrees in Chemistry and Mechanical Engineering and have been awarded more than 20 US and foreign patents.
We do not disagree with the premise that God created the universe and everything in it, we only disagree on the process He used. Because your approach is 100% faith based you are not interested in data and science so no amount of either will have any impact on your thought processes. Just to satisfy my curiosity, how did you get past heliocentrism?
I will pray for you, John. We are all in the same boat when it comes to salvation. We all need it, and none of us can do it on our own. And while you are to be admired for being scrupulously honest in your business dealings, and no doubt your stay on Earth has been made happier by the same, but the Bible says that it impossible for us to earn our way into the kingdom of God. It is also good that you go to church every Sunday, but that in itself does not qualify you to spend eternity with God either. There is only one way to God, and it is through God the Son, who, incidentally, the Bible declares created the entire Universe and everything in it...and who is currently sustaining the laws that govern the Universe by the Word of His Power. It gives me goosebumps just thinking about it. I always try to keep that in mind when I pray to Jesus for anything. It helps me realize just who I’m talking to!
Trying to carry on a cogent discussion them is like trying to play Hit The Mole. When they don't know the theology they attempt to argue the science. When they don't know they science they attempt to argue the theology. When it is established that they know neither they argue ad hominem. When that doesn't work they introduce another bizarre piece of theological or scientific conjecture upon which to repeat the cycle.
No, my approach is really evidence based.
Btw, last time I checked, there was a vast gulf between chemistry, engineering, and science in general, and the fairy tale of “thiestic evolution.” - Its neither thiestic, nor in any way scientific. Science still requires evidence.
Your pretense that there are any data or samples in existance that support your construct betrays your false faith. Take off your blinders.
This is a very different tone than I have heard from you before, and I acknowledge and appreciate it. At the moment I have to go, but I will try and write a bit more later.
Then you know precious little of chemistry, engineering or science. This offers an excellent opportunity to set a common baseline for further discussions, if you are open to it.
Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) considered scientific inquiry to be a species of the genus inquiry, which he defined as any means of fixing belief, that is, any means of arriving at a settled opinion on a matter in question. He observed that inquiry in general begins with a state of uncertainty and moves toward a state of certainty, sufficient at least to terminate the inquiry for the time being. In 1877 he outlined four methods for the settlement of doubt, graded from least to most, by their success in achieving a sound fixation of belief:
1) The method of tenacity — persisting in that which one is inclined to think.
2) The method of authority — conformity to a source of ready-made beliefs.
3) The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or "what is agreeable to reason" — leading to argumentation that gets finally nowhere.
4) The scientific method — whereby inquiry actually tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.
If we can agree that the evolution - theistic evolution - creation debate cannot be resolved to your satisfaction by anything other than methods 1 & 2 we really have no platform fro scientific discussion and no reason to discuss this further.
I knew if we persisted we would find something we agree on. God Bless.
Hey GGG, looks like whattaschmuck really opened up a can of whoop ass on himself this time!
He just keeps steppin in it and now he's left just wiping it all over himself!
University of Connecticut, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicne, New York Medical College.
How about you, whatta-Sludgemouth?
(Bet he's wishing he'd have actually taken and passed that GRE right about now...)
Maybe nursery school with Wacka-mole was about all whattanidiot could handle.
Wow, GGG, look, I may have found their pictures right here!
Check post 334
We jinxed them. Next time I will wait until the end of the game to post.
What are all of those fossils supposed to represent?
Thats cool. I was just wondering what your Doctorate was in and what you work on. Although some of my grad school friends joined completely different labs after they defended.
Of which fossils are you speaking?
All of them I guess. What were these creatures?
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.