More Americans Believe in Strict Creationism

[WI_DEM]

A new Gallup poll finds that 40% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago, while 38% believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms.

Just 16% believe that humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/Four-Americans-Believe-Strict-Creationism.aspx

[Bragi]

1. Can someone find some silver lining here?

I can't.

[Goblinmonger]

3. You can always get a job as a con artist if things get really tough.

'Cause people will believe anything.

[boppers]

27. Over half, a clear majority, realize the earth has existed for millions of years.

...and the number of creationists is actually dropping. I'm a silver lining kind of guy.

[Deep13]

32. Most reject the Fundy perspective?

Sorry, best I can do.

[Goblinmonger]

2. The Stupid. It burns.

And people like to think that the number of crazy fundamentalists is minimal.

[Bragi]

7. Yep, 4 in 10 totally buy creationist nonsense

I'd not call that a tiny minority.

[demosincebirth]

4. I'm in the 38 percentile

[Bragi]

6. You're a non-strict creationist?

[demosincebirth]

9. Call it what you want, I'm still in the 38%.

[Mumble]

5. Shows you how bad our educational system is,

or how well the churches are at brainwashing Americans.

[COLGATE4]

19. And it's only getting worse. Look at the latest moves by the Texas

Board that selects texbooks' (the problem being that it doesn't just implicate Texas but, because Texas is so large, their 'revised' texts will be picked up by other states as well) move towards re-writing the textbooks to include all kinds of Fundie nonsense,

[tularetom]

8. Those poll results may not be as bleak as they appear at first glance

The "god guided process" choice is VERY vague and leaves a lot of room for individual interpretation of the evolutionary process. I'd venture to say that 30% out of that 38% more or less believe in a modified Darwinian approach to evolutionary theory but retain enough religious indoctrination from their childhood that they hedge their bets by keeping god in the equation.

Still it's disturbing that 2 out of every 5 Americans believe that creationist bullshit. I'd like to see this broken down by state or region.

[Jennicut]

12. Believe it or not, a lot of people believe in a mixture of creationist/Darwinism.

It is not cut and dry at all. My husband is a church organist. A lot of people at the Lutheran church he works at are very moderate and even liberal. I would say they fall in that 30% you were talking about. Strict creationists are usually fundies.

[shraby]

10. How can they believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and

at the same time believe that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago? Watta disconnect.

[bornskeptic]

17. Poorly written article.

The poll question said "within the last 10,000 years," not "10,000 years ago."

[HughBeaumont]

11. 40% of Americans couldn't come up with 2 if you spotted them the 1 +1.

Wow. Not just creationism, but Young Earth Creationism, the kind that tax-dodging loons like Kent Hovind preach.

[dmallind]

13. once again proof that a large plurality if not majority of believers

really DO believe the literalist interpretation of received religion despite continuous claims from DU believers that such idiocy is not representative. It is, in the US at any rate, the informed or even rational believer that is the minority who does not represent the group.

Let's not pretend that all the 38% are folks who just think there was a divine plan and initial launch either - that definition includes an awful lot of room for knuckle-dragging fundamentalism too - even variants of old earth creationism aswell as the ID shite.

[randr]

14. I do not believe in polls

[GOPBasher]

15. This is terrible, but the trend has been good. 40% is less than it has been in the past. n/t

[craigmatic]

16. This means nothing. The samples for these polls are what like 7,000 people?

[dmallind]

24. which would give a margin of error of +/- 1.17% for the US population. Your point? nt

[phleshdef]

18. That poll is also saying that 54% believe in evolution. Thats not too bad.

Sure, a large chunk of them still believe in a God behind it all, but we all ready knew that most people in this country aren't atheist, so thats no huge news. At least it shows that a majority aren't discounting science.

[DemocratAholic]

20. may i play devil's advocate

i agree with everyone here who thinks "creationism" is nonsense. and i think these poll numbers are frightening.

but, i think those of us who like to stick to the science and facts may often make things worse when we are quick to criticize those people who believe in "God's hand" at work...etc., etc...

"religion" has been around for about as long as man has been able to think and speak. what does it stem from? a lot of it stems from fear of death. or simply, trying to explain the meaning of life, existence. why are we here? or perhaps more importantly, why do we suffer?

take "God" away, and what are people left with? nothing to explain their suffering. nothing to explain what happens when we die. what parent wants to tell their child, they don't know what happens when we die?

the truth is that while science can explain many things, there are many things it can not currently explain. what happened before the big bang? where did the big bang come from? what is this "dark matter" (and similar things) in the universe? remarkably, some of the most "spiritual" people are those who are intimately involved with trying to discover these mysteries of the universe. they recognize, there are things we have not yet been able to answer.

i don't think it is totally incompatible to believe in science, while at the same time believing (or hoping) that some kind of "power" or "force" exists beyond what we are capable of understanding. obviously, there is "something" that exists beyond what science is capable of explaining. i don't know what that is.

i think we do a disservice when we pit science against religion. everyone lines up on their own side, and what winds up happening is that those who believe in religion begin to discredit science. it's not particularly good for science. we see that a lot with climate change. they poo poo science because they characterize science as some kind of "godless" religion that is not compatible with their own religious beliefs. everything science does is suspect to them. they can pick and choose what they want to believe, and get away with it, because so many people DO believe in religion.

the only thing i am saying is, let's be careful not to overstate what science tells us, and to respect the fact that some people have a need to believe in some kind of higher power. let's not criticize people for things we don't know, and wind up hurting the cause of science in the process. it is possible to advance science without stepping on the toes of people who believe in religion.

[Teaser]

22. no. I will not respect that belief.

Will I harangue people who believe in God. No, I won't even bring it up.

But I think it's foolishness.

[quaker bill]

23. and you are most welcome to your belief

[quaker bill]

25. If we are the product of evolution

something I know to be true, then what selective pressures brought about the inherent need for religion? As best as one can tell from the sociological and anthropological evidence, religion develops independently in band societies and has been part of human culture as far back as can be determined.

Something which consumes as much resources as are generally associated with these religious activities must confer some survival benefit, or the trait would have been extinguished 100s if not 1000s of generations back.

One can agree with the notion and participate or not as one wishes, but to ignore the empirical evidence from fields of scientific study that clearly posit this as a natural human activity, is to deny the very rational scientific deductive processes that agnostics and rationalists purport to prefer.

Most Dawkins led "intelligent gene" theorists, who generally posit that behavior is genetically mediated, must then also conclude that a gene for religious belief has been conserved by evolution for survival benefit. In which case, why argue with biochemistry?

[DemocratAholic]

26. excellent and fascinating point

i might also add something else to that, something i heard from Joseph Campbell, one of the most respected academics on the subject of mythology and religion. Bill Moyers interviewed him for a series on PBS (Joseph Campbell and The Power of Myth).

comparing religion/mythology from around the world, he often found evidence of stories (allegory, parables) from different societies or cultures that were inexplicably similar. people from different continents, with absolutely no conceivable connection to each other, telling stories, using metaphor, that was at times almost identical.

something about our biochemistry causing us to create the same metaphor? or some kind of supernatural inspiration? i don't know the answer, but it's a fascinating subject.

[Silent3]

38. Understanding evolutionary traits and benefits is more complicated than that

Take for example sickle-cell anemia. No obvious advantage to carrying around the genes that result in a disease like that, right? But things only get really bad for you if you have two copies of the gene. If you have only one copy of the gene, you seldom have any negative symptoms, and you get a boost to your immunity to malaria.

If group resistance to malaria is sufficiently important to the survival of a population as a whole, more important that a growing portion of that population, pushing towards 25%, being born with a debilitating and often fatal genetic disorder, the evolutionary process will favor increasing frequency of the sickle cell gene within that population. If I had to frame that process in religious terms, it's much less like the Hand of God, and much more like making a deal with the devil.

Once there are better ways to protect people from malaria and treat people with malaria, both better drugs and better preventative measures, the advantage of the sickle cell gene disappears. Unfortunately, the gene itself doesn't immediately disappear. It will persist for a long time after its mixed-bag usefulness has expired. Evolution is a slow process.

Most Dawkins led "intelligent gene" theorists, who generally posit that behavior is genetically mediated, must then also conclude that a gene for religious belief has been conserved by evolution for survival benefit. In which case, why argue with biochemistry?

I don't have to argue with biochemistry to argue with faulty reasoning.

First of all, assuming a gene, rather than a complex of genes, would be a mistake.

Assuming learned cultural behavior might not greatly distort underlying genetically-driven behavior would be a mistake.

Assuming that whatever genetic component leads to religious behavior is a purely positive survival trait rather than a mixed bag of effects with a net positive survival value would be a mistake.

Assuming that whatever genetic component of religious behavior that might have had a net positive survival value at some time in our evolutionary past continues to have a net positive value would be a mistake.

[trotsky]

31. "i think we do a disservice when we pit science against religion"

So what do you suggest we do when a finding of science directly contradicts a teaching of religion?

If science says we should treat an infection with antibiotics, and a believer says they should pray over their child with an infection, what should we do?

[DemocratAholic]

34. the point i was trying to make...

is that the religious right has been pushing the idea that the "left" is on a mission to discredit and dismantle their religions. they have been making a effort to convince their followers that scientists are part of that mission.

for the most part, scientists pretty much stay out of this debate. meanwhile, there are some people on the "left" who are strong believers in science...who actually do say things that sound like they are making blanket criticisms of religion. this is what the religious right points to as evidence that science is opposed to their religious beliefs.

i think that some of the criticism on the left of religion is by people who find organized religion, in general, to be personally objectionable. i agree with much of that criticism. i find it abhorrent the way that many religious people have tried to place their religious beliefs into law. but we must be careful to make these criticisms wisely on specific grounds that reasonable people can agree.

to answer your specific question regarding people who fail to treat their children based on religious beliefs. when that happens, what usually comes next is that a prosecutor will charge the parents with some kind of crime for neglecting to treat their children. then it is left up to a jury to determine whether the charges have been proven. based on the cases that i have followed, i can tell you...you can never predict what a jury is going to decide in that situation. remember, all 12 jurors (that number may vary depending on where you live) must agree to convict. in many of these cases, the parents are never convicted. that has nothing to do with the law, it is simply because you have one or more jurors who are convinced that this is an assault on their religious beliefs. what do we do in that kind of situation? these people with these strongly held beliefs are everywhere around us.

are we helping the cause of science, are we protecting these children, by adding fuel to the fire? i think we would be best to save our criticism for exactly the kind of situation you are referring to. let's pick our fights wisely, and not turn this into an "us against them" situation"...which in the long run actually hurts the cause of science. we don't want people going to that jury room thinking to themselves, i must vote to acquit because this just another assault by the left on religion.

[trotsky]

37. You didn't answer my question.

You described the situation, and explained what typically happens, but you didn't answer the question. What are we supposed to do? You seem to indicate that we shouldn't do anything, lest the jury think it's "just another assault by the left on religion."

[pokerfan]

39. okay...

the truth is that while science can explain many things, there are many things it can not currently explain. what happened before the big bang? where did the big bang come from? what is this "dark matter" (and similar things) in the universe? remarkably, some of the most "spiritual" people are those who are intimately involved with trying to discover these mysteries of the universe. they recognize, there are things we have not yet been able to answer.

Science hasn't answered all questions? Shocking. Positively shocking. My problem with invoking a creator is that too often it's just an excuse to stop thinking. For hundreds of years, gods have been invoked whenever we reach the edges of our knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY">This short lecture by Neil deGrasse Tyson is well worth the price of admission, i.e. free.

[backscatter712]

21. Mind-boggling.

40% of people reject the scientific theory (as in law of nature) discovered by Darwin and backed up with mountains of evidence from the fossil record, DNA analysis and direct observation of mutation and speciation, in favor of that story with the man made out of dust, the woman made out of a rib, the magic tree and the talking snake...

[laconicsax]

28. And since Christians make up less than 80% of the population...

That means that a majority of Christians are creationists.

[LiberalFighter]

29. I wonder why a god would create billions of planets and stars

I wonder why a god would give a damn about insignificant beings when he has a harem to enjoy

I wonder why a god that sees all and knows all ...

[laconicsax]

30. Because an omnipotent being cares whether you have a foreskin, duh! n/t

[Bad Thoughts]

33. This chart is more interesting

I'm not sure what use this poll is considering it only uses a Christian/Creationist view, but the part on education level is more interesting. Creationism declines, sometimes quite sharply, with more education. Pure evolution gains with some education. The syncretic view, though, has its greatest leap from undergraduate to graduate education. Indeed, the view that God guided the evolutionary process dominates the upper level of education more than strict creationism dominates the lowest level.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

35. it's pretty interesting to me that...

22% of postgrads are creationists. Which is basically the same as postgrads who are evolutionists without a god. I would have thought that the gap would be much bigger.

[Bad Thoughts]

36. Consider what the popular graduate programs are

MBAs
Law and Political Science (many people with strong, pre-formed political views or ambitions)
Divinity (some of whom will be more interested in charity than religion)
Engineers (who had little higher education outside physics/chemistry/math/programming)