Poll: Nearly half of America is creationist

Hotair ^ | 06/02/2012 | Jazz Shaw

[SeekAndFind]

What the heck... it's been a while since we last opened up the flood gates on this topic and according to Gallup surveys, we're no closer to a consensus now than we ever were. The subject at hand is our old friend, evolution vs. creation.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God's guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

It will come as no shock to anyone that the answers given tracked tightly with the religious views of the respondent, and that a majority of registered Republicans fall in line with creationist views.

Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church. The views of Americans who attend almost every week or monthly fall in between those of the other two groups. Still, those who seldom or never attend church are more likely to believe that God guided the evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved with no input from God.

What’s interesting about the Gallup survey as compared to some others I’ve seen in the past is the phrasing of the questions. You tend to get more clearly splintered results if you pose seriously confrontational questions such as, “Did God create man from dust or did man evolve from ape-like creatures?” Gallup’s choices are a bit more subtle, asking which phrase best describes your feelings.

• Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.
• Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.
• God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

You’ll notice that none of the choices go so far as to say, for example, “There is no God so the question is pointless” or, at the other end, “The Bible is literal and God created man from the dust and woman from one of his ribs.” I think such polls provide more value if they add in a couple more choices along those lines and forget about trying to be nuanced or avoid offending anyone.

My own views have “evolved” over the past five decades, (if you’ll pardon the phrase) and I’ve seen a number of theories. As a young man, I once lost my faith entirely (and still struggle with it at times) and rashly published a letter declaring that “God is the answer to a collection of questions which man is either too stupid or too frightened to answer. On the day that science answers the final question, God will be dead.”

I confess, I regret having penned that one now, but the young are frequently rash and foolish. But there are other theories which have come down the pike and stuck around. A very popular one which echoes a couple of the Gallup choices is along the lines of The Blind Watchmaker theory. It essentially states that the universe may well have begun with the Big Bang and men may have evolved from lower primates, but this was all precisely how God designed it, like the greatest software programmer ever, freeing Him up to move on to other projects once our reality was set in motion.

But I still have plenty of friends who come from the “six days and a rib” school of thought, and you have to respect them as well. At the opposite end of the scale you find people like my friend Doug Mataconis, who simply seems to be waiting for the day when all this creationist nonsense “evolves” out of our society.

This is why, as I noted the other day, I am skeptical of the argument advanced by Richard Leakey that increased discoveries in the field of anthropology would lead to an end to the evolution debate in the near future. The creationist position has little to do with evidence, and everything to do with faith and culture. It’s not going away any time soon, at least not in this country.

But returning to my original question, does the phrasing of the survey really impact the results for a strictly non-political topic such as this? Since the Hot Air faithful have never been shy about sharing and debating their feelings in a vigorous fashion, let’s toss up our own poll and compare it to the historical results as well as Gallup’s. But we’ll give you a bit more ammunition to work with in the answers. Have at it.

CLICK ABOVE LINK TO TAKE THE QUICK POLL

[BroJoeK]

varmintman: "Mind telling us what your motive is in all of this?"

The same "motive" as in every post I've ever made on Free Republic: to defend the truth, as best I can.

And your "motive" is what, exactly?

[varmintman]

To spread the truth, and assist others in seeing through the ideological doctrine of evolution and the faulty science which backs it, including the idea that humans and hominids are related, which they clearly aren’t.

[Sirius Lee]

Cro Magnons in ice age times, and then the Bible antediluvians starting with Adam and Eve. The two groups are genetically identical or close enough to ignore any differences, but the cultures and technologies were so totally different as to prevent believing that the one group could be descended from the other.

Nonsense. The technological and artistic differences between Cro-Magnon and early Homo Sapien, and indeed, some current primitive cultures are so similar as to be indistinguishable. What's more, Cro-Magnoids still exist to this day in Easter island and their more archaic Palaeo-Atlantid versions in Sweden and Ireland.

[Sirius Lee]

Coreection: Canary Islands, not Easter Island.

[allmendream]

“Man evolved over a period of millions of years from lower primates, but this was all precisely how God designed the universe to unfold.”

Creationists seem to have a big problem with randomness in nature - as if the power of God stops at the Casino door. The Bible says “The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.”

As to being created from “dust” - The Bible says that I also was created “from dust” and that “to dust” I will return; but I was also created via a natural process involving DNA.

Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?

[varmintman]

There is a list of things which the Bible and Jewish literature would have to know about if you wanted to believe that Adam and Eve were descended From Cro Magnons and which the Bible and Midrashim appear to know nothing about:

• Stone tools. Adam and Eve and their descendants were metal-tech people from day one. By contrast, human groups descended from Cro Magnons went on using stone tools until forced out of it by neighbors if they ever stopped at all. Aztecs were using stone knives and weapons when the Spanish arrived even though they used gold for ornaments and native Australians are killing kangaroos with such weapons now.
• The atlatl i.e. the signature weapon of the Cro Magnon people. The Bible knows nothing of this weapon; the weapons of the Bible are the sword, the spear, the sling, and the bow. By contrast, amongst Cro Magnon descendants, the Aztecs were using atlatls agains the Spanish and native Australians use it to hunt kangaroos today.
• Neanderthals and/or other hominids. The Bible knows nothing of hominids. By contrast, the Basque "Basajuan" appears to be a reflection of the Neanderthal and the Australian "Yowie" appears to be some sort of hominid.
• An upper paleolithic world war in which all hominids were exterminated from the planet.
• A "Purple Age", that is, a protracted age without any source of light such as we experience now, prior to the classical "Golden Age" of ancient literature. The Bible mentions the creation of light before the sun and moon are created and that the beginning is called an age when "the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep"; but Adam and Eve and the Bible antediluvians did not live on Earth in that age and the Bible beyond Genesis 1:2 does not speak of it again.

Likewise there is no version of anything which puts the metal ages prior to four or five thousand years ago which is ballpark for Adam and Eve and their descendants arriving on the scene.

[BroJoeK]

varmintman: "To spread the truth, and assist others in seeing through the ideological doctrine of evolution and the faulty science which backs it..."

"Faulty science" you can't demonstrate because first you obviously know nothing about real science, and second you are just as obviously driven by your own non-scientific ideological doctrine, FRiend.

Further, you'll never accomplish your goal by posting obviously faked drawings of Neanderthals, drawings which any idiot -- such as me -- can see are grossly wrong in color, nose shape, eye size, stance and attitude.
Here again are the best reconstructions based on scientific evidence:

varmintman's closest ever attempt at honest representation:

All you'd have to do with this picture is eliminate the "bug eyes" and grossly flared nostrils, and you pretty much have it:

[Sirius Lee]

There is a list of things which the Bible and Jewish literature would have to know about if you wanted to believe that Adam and Eve were descended From Cro Magnons and which the Bible and Midrashim appear to know nothing about:

I don't want to hurt your feelings but the Bible does not mention a lot of things which nevertheless exist and existed.

And as far as no version of anything which puts the metal ages prior to four or five thousand years ago

Metallurgy was know to the neolithics of Catal Hoyuk as far back as 7,500 BC. Heck, nearby Gobekli Tepe dates back to 10,000 BC - double the antiquity you erroneously ascribe to the Adam and Eve story, unless you think Martians built it. But the Bible doesn't mention Martians either.

And of course you have Cro Magnon depicted what are now extinct cave bears, wooly rhinos and mammoths 25,000 year ago with a degree of skill that surpasses most of the "art" you find in contemporary primitive "descendants of Adam and Eve" cultures and what you typically find at MOMA.

BTW Stone tools. Adam and Eve and their descendants were metal-tech people from day one.

There is no mention in the Bible of metal before the birth of Cain's sons. Therefore, according to your own rules, it didn't exist on day one as you opined. But I'll let you in on a little secret. Metallurgy has been around for nearly ten thousand years, and whether it's on your list of things to know about or not is inconsequential.

[varmintman]

All of the dating schemes you seem to believe in are based on assumptions, mainly that natural isotope ratios have always been as they are now, which go out the window the first time you admit to any sort of a global disaster like the flood at the time of Noah. Standard dating schemes have Cro Magnons dating from around 45K years ago but all we can be reasonably sure of is that they predate the people of the Bible.