Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism

[Jetavan]

What's interesting is that while the theistic evolution position has remained constant, slight changes occurred in the percentages of strict creationism and non-theistic evolution, almost as if those who gave up strict creationism would later accept evolution as not being guided by God.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Four in 10 Americans, slightly fewer today than in years past, believe God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago. Thirty-eight percent believe God guided a process by which humans developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms, while 16%, up slightly from years past, believe humans developed over millions of years, without God's involvement.



These views have been generally stable over the last 28 years. Acceptance of the creationist viewpoint has decreased slightly over time, with a concomitant rise in acceptance of a secular evolution perspective. But these shifts have not been large, and the basic structure of beliefs about human beings' origins is generally the same as it was in the early 1980s.

[Iconodule]

What's interesting is that while the theistic evolution position has remained constant, slight changes occurred in the percentages of strict creationism and non-theistic evolution, almost as if those who gave up strict creationism would later accept evolution as not being guided by God.

"Theistic evolution" is already a concession to atheism, and a very awkward one, so why not skip it and go all the way?

[minasoliman]

What's interesting is that while the theistic evolution position has remained constant, slight changes occurred in the percentages of strict creationism and non-theistic evolution, almost as if those who gave up strict creationism would later accept evolution as not being guided by God.

"Theistic evolution" is already a concession to atheism, and a very awkward one, so why not skip it and go all the way?

This comment is a very stupid one, probably the stupidest post ever and most useless.

[Tzimis]

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet.

[minasoliman]

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet.

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

[Tzimis]

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet.

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur?

[minasoliman]

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet.

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur?

what?

[HandmaidenofGod]

1 in 5 Americans believe the President is a Muslim.

Just because people believe something doesn't make it true.

[GiC]

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet.

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur?

Looks like someone needs to go back to primary school and learn to read graphs again.

But with that said, there is a real problem with this graph, it's based on a survey which means there's a certain amount of uncertainty (a margin of error). The omission of error bars is a real problem. I don't know what the sample sizes were, but I do question if a 2% change is even significant.

[Tzimis]

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet.

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur?

Looks like someone needs to go back to primary school and learn to read graphs again.

Minas stated that there needs to be a time line and the graph states approximately the 11 eleventh month. I stated that 1982 has a figure without a time line and that it should have started with 0 to make the graph accurate since there is no time line before 1982.

[Jetavan]

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted December 10-12, 2010 with a random sample of –1,019— adults, aged 18+, living in the continental U.S., selected using random-digit dial sampling.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of error is ±4 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of – 840—Internet users, one can say, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

[Fr. George]

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet.

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur?

Looks like someone needs to go back to primary school and learn to read graphs again.

Minas stated that there needs to be a time line and the graph states approximately the 11 eleventh month. I stated that 1982 has a figure without a time line and that it should have started with 0 to make the graph accurate since there is no time line before 1982.

They can't put "0" on a graph of a survey unless they got a response of "0," so they can't put "0" for a time when no data exists because that would imply data indicating "0."

[GabrieltheCelt]

4) Who cares?

[Tzimis]

I don't know if I would trust that graph. It is projecting out past 2010.  The year isn't even over yet.

ummmmm....really?

it's the gallop poll taken at the "end of 2010."  Take a closer look at the graph.  It's an approximation of when in each year gallup polls were taken.

For example, the second time a gallup poll seems to have been taken (after 1982), seems to look like it was taken in 1993, perhaps even the middle of 1993 if we were to assume it's all scaled correctly.

If that were true than in 1982 it would state 0. How could you start a graph with data if it didn't already occur?

Looks like someone needs to go back to primary school and learn to read graphs again.

Minas stated that there needs to be a time line and the graph states approximately the 11 eleventh month. I stated that 1982 has a figure without a time line and that it should have started with 0 to make the graph accurate since there is no time line before 1982.

They can't put "0" on a graph of a survey unless they got a response of "0," so they can't put "0" for a time when no data exists because that would imply data indicating "0."

I understand your logic father. It's all a matter of perspective I would guess. If there is an 0 in January and a 44 in Dec. than it would indicate that there is a time line associated with the chart. So the 2010 reaches beyond the 2010 projecting to the 11th month. Wouldn't it be natural for the same to occur in 1982?

[ialmisry]

1 in 5 Americans believe the President is a Muslim.

Just because people believe something doesn't make it true.

I'm curious, what percentage of Muslims are convinced that Obama is Muslim.

[Ortho_cat]

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?

[Jetavan]

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?

From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.

[CRCulver]

I'm curious, what percentage of Muslims are convinced that Obama is Muslim.

Having travelled in a few Muslim countries since he was elected, I was surprised to find many think that he is a Jew (and that a whole half of Americans are Jews).

[David 2007]

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?

From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.

That graph is offensive and should be disregarded. Where is Australia??

Pfft. Totally irrelevant if Australia is not on it! 

(Actually that is quite rude of them to exclude the best Western Country on Earth!)

[David 2007]

Malta has a population of 400,000???

But they exclude Australia???


DUMB!

[Jetavan]

Malta has a population of 400,000???

But they exclude Australia???


DUMB!

Don't you guys have a whole town named "Darwin"? What more do you want

[jckstraw72]

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?

From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.

sweet. looks like America is right at home with a bunch of Orthodox countries!

[jckstraw72]

What's interesting is that while the theistic evolution position has remained constant, slight changes occurred in the percentages of strict creationism and non-theistic evolution, almost as if those who gave up strict creationism would later accept evolution as not being guided by God.

"Theistic evolution" is already a concession to atheism, and a very awkward one, so why not skip it and go all the way?

aaah the succint truth! tastes so yummy.

[minasoliman]

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?

From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.

sweet. looks like America is right at home with a bunch of Orthodox countries!

And the Muslim countries.  They've only shown one, but I bet you a dime a dozen the Islamic countries are right in there as well.  It's interesting you're proud of Orthodox being in association with Muslim and Protestant beliefs.

[jckstraw72]

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?

From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.

sweet. looks like America is right at home with a bunch of Orthodox countries!

And the Muslim countries.  They've only shown one, but I bet you a dime a dozen the Islamic countries are right in there as well.  It's interesting you're proud of Orthodox being in association with Muslim and Protestant beliefs.

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

4) Who cares?

Those of us concerned with scientific education. 

Hardly surprised though.  A sizable percentage of people have lost their grip on reality and believe in astrology, might as well believe in creationism while you are at it...

[minasoliman]

I heard once that the U.S. has the highest percentage of evolution deniers among the developed countries. Can anyone confirm this?

From NatGeo:

This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.

A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.

sweet. looks like America is right at home with a bunch of Orthodox countries!

And the Muslim countries.  They've only shown one, but I bet you a dime a dozen the Islamic countries are right in there as well.  It's interesting you're proud of Orthodox being in association with Muslim and Protestant beliefs.

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way about me, that I partake of some sort of seeds of falsehood.  Keep me in your prayers then.

[ialmisry]

4) Who cares?

Those of us concerned with scientific education.

You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

Hardly surprised though.  A sizable percentage of people have lost their grip on reality and believe in astrology, might as well believe in creationism while you are at it...

No, astrology leads to idolatry.

[Iconodule]

No, astrology leads to idolatry.

Not necessarily. Some astrology has a place in Christianity, for instance, in our calendar. And don't forget- "Those who worshipped the stars were taught by a star to worship Thee."

[ialmisry]

No, astrology leads to idolatry.

Not necessarily. Some astrology has a place in Christianity, for instance, in our calendar.

That's astronmy.

And don't forget- "Those who worshipped the stars were taught by a star to worship Thee."

I had that in the back of my mind.  In the front was the determinism of astrology that St. John denounced.

[PeterTheAleut]

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.

Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument.

[Iconodule]

No, astrology leads to idolatry.

Not necessarily. Some astrology has a place in Christianity, for instance, in our calendar.

That's astronmy.

Such a distinction, like "chemistry" vs. "alchemy", was meaningless before modernity and the triumph of materialism as the only real science (in the minds of its promoters). Astrology is astronomy.

I had that in the back of my mind.  In the front was the determinism of astrology that St. John denounced.

Of course, determinism was rejected, but at the same time St. John accepted that celestial bodies can influence events on earth. Like other aspects of pagan thought, astrology had good and bad elements.

[Ortho_cat]

 Astrology is astronomy.

 

[Iconodule]

 Astrology is astronomy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy

[jckstraw72]

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.

Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument.

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!

[minasoliman]

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.

Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument.

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!

No, I said their science is wrong.  Another stupid post.

[mtgdude]

Whats the official ruling of Orthodox Christianity on evolution?

[Jetavan]

Whats the official ruling of Orthodox Christianity on evolution?

"Orthodoxy absolutely affirms that God is the Creator and Author of all things, that He is actively engaged with His creation, and that He desires to restore His creation to full communion with Himself through the saving death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This, unlike Darwinism, is not a matter of ideology but, rather, a matter of theology.

Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."

[David 2007]

Whats the official ruling of Orthodox Christianity on evolution?

Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."

I thinks this sets Orthodoxy part and above those Christian denominations that insist on ramming Literal interpretations down our throats.

The above view that I've quoted has always been my belief.

[GiC]

4) Who cares?

Those of us concerned with scientific education.

You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

You do know we've covered that in another thread, right? I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up, but everyone pretty much agrees that the lack of rigor in their methodology is intolerable, that conclusions based on bad science should be dismissed, and that funding should be directed to those using proper scientific methodologies.

Was there anyone here that said otherwise?

[GiC]

 Astrology is astronomy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy

Which says the two fields are, and I quote, 'completely separate disciplines.'

[Iconodule]

 Astrology is astronomy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy

Which says the two fields are, and I quote, 'completely separate disciplines.'

Only "in Western 17th century philosophy." Before that, and aside from that, they are "one and the same discipline." I posted the link simply to introduce this history to those who were unaware of it.

[ialmisry]

4) Who cares?

Those of us concerned with scientific education.

You're right on those Climategate emails then, aren't you?  Following up on those wikileaks on Al Gore the savior and his entourage, no?

You do know we've covered that in another thread, right?

What haven't we covered in another thread. Your point?

I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up,

The same reason you'd like it forgotten.

but everyone pretty much agrees that the lack of rigor in their methodology is intolerable, that conclusions based on bad science should be dismissed, and that funding should be directed to those using proper scientific methodologies.

Was there anyone here that said otherwise?

Many act as if it never happened.

[jckstraw72]

as i demonstrated in the other thread, its actually the Protestants and the Muslims who are in association with Orthodox beliefs (and you recognized this in the other thread - you said that the Fathers are wrong because of their literal interpretation of Genesis). so yes, i'm glad that the heterodox have retained some seeds of the truth.

Unfortunately, the only thing you've demonstrated with any definitive authority on the other thread is that you just can't walk away from an argument.

oh thank you, but actually i was responding to Minasoliman, who in the other thread acknowledged that the Fathers have consistently interpreted Genesis literally, which prompted him to say that the Fathers are wrong. your input sure is swell though!

No, I said their science is wrong.  Another stupid post.

right -- you think their "science" is wrong because their interpretation of Genesis is clearly incompatible with evolution. in post 2642 you said:

I'm going to be very clear with you.  The saints are wrong.  Period!

There was death.  Leaving evolution out of the picture, the evidence clearly shows death existed long before apes even existed.  The fossil records are consistent about this and don't lie.  I don't care if you don't agree with evolution.  But surely you are also rejecting other sciences when doing this.

the Saints dont believe there was death before sin, but because of evolution you do. so i haven't misrepresented what you said. i don't know what the point is of trying to deny what you said then.

and really dude, your bad mood isn't very becoming.

[Sleeper]

Has anyone read The Genesis Enigma?  I found it to be fascinating.

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Enigma-First-Scientifically-Accurate/dp/0452296552/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292991495&sr=8-1

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Four in 10 Americans Believe in Strict Creationism