Astonishing 88% of Americans Believe in Creation or God-Directed Evolution

Astonishing 88% of Americans Believe in Creation or God-Directed Evolution

PHILADELPHIA, October 17, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll reveals that 88% of the US population believes that God had at least some hand in the creation of life. The poll also shows a distinct educational bias towards the atheistic view that God could have had nothing to do with the creation of life. This supports complaints by many that most institutions of higher learning are heavily biased against any religious understanding of the origins of life.

The poll says that although only 12% believe in the “random selection” theory of extreme Darwinism, college graduates are twice as likely as those with only a high school diploma to accept the natural-selection theory of evolution.

The poll was made public at a moment in the US where proponents of Intelligent Design theory - one that proposes the great complexity of the order of creation as evidence for an intelligent mind behind it – have been fighting for a reasonable footing in a public school system dedicated to the atheistic bias of pure Darwinism.

more…

Perhaps even more surprising is that roughly half of Americans believe the literal Biblical account of creation, and that this number has been constant for the past 20 years.

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released last week,53 percent of adults surveyed said “God created humans in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.” Thirty-one percent said humans evolved from other species with God’s guidance and 12 percent said humans evolved without divine intervention. Although Gallup specified the Bible for the first time in this poll, the results closely paralleled those in polls taken over the last 20 years, in which nearly half of all Americans consistently agreed that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”

grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/12931234.htm

Sagan, Carl. 1996. The Demon-Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark
(New York: Random House), 327.
Cited in Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds
(Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 131pp.,
47.
I meet many people who are offended by evolution, who
passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God
than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over
aeons from slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.
Evidence has little to do with it. What they wish to be
true, they believe is true. Only nine percent of
Americans accept the central finding of modern biology
that human beings (and all the other species) have
slowly evolved by natural processes from a succession
of more ancient beings with no divine intervention
needed along the way.

Huba, Stephen. 22 Aug 1998. “Americans lead industrial
world in belief of creationism” The Washington Times, C5:
Citing Gallup and other public opinion polls since the early 1980s,
Mr. [George] Bishop said [in the Aug/Sept Public Perspective]
about 45 percent of Americans believe that God created man "pretty
much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
Another 40 percent believe that man developed over millions of
years from less advanced forms of life but that God guided this
process–what Mr. Bishop calls “theistic evolution.” And 10
percent of Americans hold the Darwinist evolution position that man
developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life
but that God had no part in the process. … Only 5 percent of
American natural and physical scientists believe in the biblical
creationist view, according to one survey. Fifty-five percent
endorse the Darwinist position, and 40 percent accept theistic
evolution.

In short,
10% of the American general public accepts the blindwatchmaking
position.
55% of American scientists accept the blindwatchmaking position.

45% of American scientists accept the seeingwatchmaking position.
85% of the American general public accepts the seeingwatchmaking
position.

concept of "blindwatchmaking"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net

Godless evolutionists have had a monopoly “teaching” their beliefs to American students for decades and decades. Only problem is, Darwinism is such pap, that the teachers can convince only 10% of the students that what they have to say actually makes sense. What a waste.

Weathermen, with all their science, can not predict the weather accurately four days from now, but a high school “science” teacher knows what happened billions and billions of years ago. Right.

Here in europe, this is impossible seeing.

:bigyikes: You mean to tell me, that in a country where nearly 90% believe in God, they also believe in the hand of God having an influence in creation? What a shocker! (sarcasm, of course)

[quote=mdzialo1]Godless evolutionists have had a monopoly “teaching” their beliefs to American students for decades and decades.
[/quote]

The majority of “evolutionists” believe in God. I’ll have to look for the study, but it seems like it was only a couple of months ago.

Only problem is, Darwinism is such pap, that the teachers can convince only 10% of the students that what they have to say actually makes sense. What a waste.

Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it “pap”.

Weathermen, with all their science, can not predict the weather accurately four days from now, but a high school “science” teacher knows what happened billions and billions of years ago. Right.

Do you not recognize the difference? I tell you what, I bet I can predict with 100% certainty what the stock market did 50 years ago today based on the evidence. Can you say the same thing for the stockmarket for next Wednesday?

Peace

Tim

“Godless evolutionists have had a monopoly ‘teaching’ their beliefs to American students for decades and decades.”

Dawkins favors teaching of both design & evolution arguments
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu

“Only problem is, Darwinism is such pap, that the teachers can convince only 10% of the students that what they have to say actually makes sense.”

indigestion with the Synthefish
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980609231835.5454A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

“I bet I can predict with 100% certainty what the stock market did 50 years ago today based on the evidence”

Raup’s letter to Science
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990626223450.19598328B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

“Darwinism is such pap”
“Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it ‘pap’.”

Well, I understand it, and it is:

  1. dangerous

Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Holocaust’s Arrival
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

and
2) most certainly “pap.”

Essay on Problems with Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu

1952 Goldschmidt on the theory of NS’s “crazy-quilt” prediction
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401271936.9a5dfd2%40posting.google.com

historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936 A. Franklin Shull
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com

1970 Mayr on organisms’ observed resistance to change
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309181335410.2863259-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu

fruit fly URLs
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403082115.67a4b153%40posting.google.com

One literature search for “mutation”; mutation URLs
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37elv4F5260vbU1%40individual.net

Macbeth on Faulty Extrapolation in Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
fallacy of false extrapolation
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu

1950 Anthony Standen on the T0E
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403061926.298a316f%40posting.google.com

1988 Lima-de-Faria
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1130159020.075563.15930%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

1999 Leigh: "creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406141942.49257583%40posting.google.com

As usual, the problem here is one of mixed definition.

If you define ‘evolution’ as meaning: that simple life forms came first. Then micro or macro mutation ocurred which resulted in increasingly complex life forms over a long period of time.

I’m OK with that. It is purely a scientific theory that attempts to determine the process that occured and sticks with observable phenomenon.

However, the reality of evolution as it is taught in universities (at least my experience in the UW-Madison 1990’s) is that students are taught explicitly that evolution was POSITIVELY a random occurence of mutations, not a directed design. I had a zoology professor who spent about half of a lecture explaining/indoctrinating students with the idea that the fossil record positively proved that evolution was random in nature and that no intelligence directed it.

In that definition, which is by no means isolated, the so-called scientists have crossed a boundary. Observable facts do NOT support their assertions that no intelligence guided the evolution of species. That is simple intrusion of religious bias (in this case atheism) into what should be a discussion of merely scientific mechanism, not theology.

Frankly, I find it amazing that anyone could accept non-guided evolution AND believe in a personal, all-powerful God. How dense can you get!?! Do these people reflect on things at all? You gotta wonder how much of that 12% are atheists. Deists, at least (which position also makes utterly no sense to me).

Evolution, creationism both right, renowned scholar says
His theory: Intelligent force used natural selection to make world

PHILADELPHIA - A Nobel laureate in physics believes that some intelligent force probably created the universe but He (or it) used evolution to do it.

Charles Townes, an intellectual giant in both the sciences and humanities, told religious scholars at a conference in Philadelphia that “life probably started once, but not much more than once.”

Mr. Townes, 89, is one of the few men in the world who could step into the fray between creationists and scientists, and command everyone’s attention: He won the Nobel Prize in 1964 for his work on the laser, and, earlier this year, he was awarded the Templeton Prize for his contributions in uniting science and faith.

The prize is the largest cash honour in the world, worth $1.4 million U.S. It was established 33 years ago by the British philanthropist Sir John Templeton as a sort of “spiritual Nobel.” Other Templeton laureates include Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Billy Graham and Mother Teresa.

The professor, who lives in Berkeley, California, with Frances, his wife of 63 years, is also an Officer of the French Legion of Honor, and holds the Niels Bohr International Gold Medal as well as nearly 125 other awards and honorary degrees.

Mr. Townes didn’t place himself in the middle between creationists and scientists, so much as above them, with a third theory gaining credence these days, intelligent design.

more…

“As usual, the problem here is one of mixed definition.”

legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

“students are taught explicitly that evolution was POSITIVELY a random occurence of mutations, not a directed design”

concept of "blindwatchmaking"
groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com

Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net

Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net

The Bible says that God created man out of the dust of the Earth.
Charles Darwin said that man is descended from some common ancestor with the ape.

The Bible says that death came as a result of man’s sin.
Charles Darwin said that life has “evolved” over millions of years, and consequently animals have been dying for millions of years.

The Bible says that the first man named all the animals.
According to Charles Darwin, many animals were extinct before man came on the scene.

The Bible says that animals reproduce after their kind.
Charles Darwin said that over millions of years, animals evolve into different species.

So which is it? We have two completely different stories.

So, where’s the contradiction?:shrug:

There’s this rather astonishing goof in the poll…

The poll says that although only 12% believe in the “random selection” theory of extreme Darwinism, college graduates are twice as likely as those with only a high school diploma to accept the natural-selection theory of evolution.
Darwin’s great discovery was that it wasn’t random. Natural selection is the antithesis of chance. The whole point of natural selection is that it’s selection, not randomness.

BTW, the Gallup Poll for 2008 shows that 50% of Americans think that humans evolved from other organisms, (the great majority of them thinking that God was behind it) 44% thinking humans were created pretty much as they are now, and the remainder didn’t express an opinion.

Creationists have been a strong minority, but a minority for as long as Gallup has asked the question, starting in 1982.
gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

The Bible says that animals reproduce after their kind.

Um, no it doesn’t. It says they were created after their kind, but doesn’t specify how.

However, the reality of evolution as it is taught in universities (at least my experience in the UW-Madison 1990’s) is that students are taught explicitly that evolution was POSITIVELY a random occurence of mutations, not a directed design.

Seems unlikely, since Darwin’s theory and all subsequent modifications of it, say that it’s not random.

Abukamoon, why are you resurrecting a thread from 2005? If you want to discuss this, start a new thread.

Peace

Tim

No, no don’t start a new thread, just find a current one. :smiley: And one that actually pertains to the subject, while we are at it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.