In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

PRINCETON, NJ – 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.

Where in the Bible does it say how old humans are?



It does not say how old human are. :slight_smile:

If you look there was a six-point drop from “evolved with God guiding” (a crude formulation but but the box I’d check) corresponding to a six-point rise in “God created humans in present form”.

I suspect the results not a shift in scientific belief but the extent to which creationism is a badge (or an identity marker as Jimmy Akin puts it) of conservatism for some people. It might not normally be a big issue for them but feeling themselves under attack.

This is very disheartening…

This is not a big deal.

Is Fundamentalism really that widespread here in the United States?

As with most polls, the way the questions are worded leaves room for ambiguity and probably none of the 3 possible answers actually coincides with a persons actual view of the matter.

Answer 1) is that humans developed from lower forms over millions of years with God guiding the process. Answer 3) is that God created humans pretty much in their present form sometime in the past 10,000 years or so.

Now, recorded human history only goes back about 6,000 years or so. Anthropological history goes back much further. It wouldn’t be unreasonable for a person to surmise that true human beings are those evidenced in recorded history. Most Christians believe that humans are a composite of body and soul, and that the body may have evolved but not the soul. Many Christians believe that the human body is the result of an evolutionary process occurring over millions of years, but that at some point in time God selected a pair and infused into them a spiritual soul.

The poll answers don’t provide any possible answer reflecting that belief. A Christian might validly answer ‘yes’ to both 1) and 3) with some reservations, but the respondent is limited to only one possible unsatisfactory answer out of three, none of which may reflect his actual beliefs.

This is why polls tend to be misleading.


In one sense what does what one believes about the origins of man matter? If you don’t believe in gravity that might have some negative consequences in your life. If you don’t believe that gasoline is flammable that might have some negative consequences. But your opinions about the origin of man are basically not important apart from the metphysical implications. Of course if you don’t believe in God then there are implications to how you live your life.

What really outrages people about these results is that some people refuse to believe the ‘trusted authorities’ which is the secular popular sciences. At the end of the day one’s belief about such things is just a matter of which authority you accept since the average person has no way of validating scientific claims and no one has the ability to reproduce so called scientific claims that are really historical claims. The outrage is not over science but that you will not believe the science authority. I find this amusing since these same people will generally be outraged for people believing anything from a religious authority.

Is it really any wonder that the naturalist meme of microbe to man is rejected by those of us who demand proof? The idea that vision, hearing, consciousness, etc, etc evolved over time, given that we know that the vast majority of mutations are destructive to organisms, seems preposterous. I believe that people who espouse Darwinism, in many instances, are those who believe that humanity would live in harmony if only we were unshackled by guilt and God’s law. Thus they have spun a creation fairy tale which seems plausible on the surface, and leaves God out.
Sorry, I will never accept a place at the children’s table in these discussions. I know what they are all about, and it is the dismantling of civilized mores. :hmmm: Rob



I’d think I’d move tables if you came along and unleashed that rant…

The Catholic statement on creation is that humans could have evolved from lower species. I feel this is a politically correct view. I also believe it borders on cowardice. How dare any man water down the gospels?

How so? The Church isn’t going to dictate to us on scientific matters. That’s not her job. By leaving this open for us to decide, she is acknowledging modern science and the truth of God’s creation, which are not in opposition.

I have to agree.

No, they are very much in opposition, if you listen to prominent evolutionists. They are willing to humor believers, but they really believe that a god is unnecessary for creation. If anything, to them, this god is a bystander.
BTW, a church can’t dictate belief on origins to anyone. But it can and does have a position on it, but as others here have said, it borders on cowardice. No hoax has been more pernicious in undermining the faith of Church members than the theory of evolution. :rolleyes: Rob

I’m not one of those who thinks humans have existed for only 6,000 years or so. Not at all.

But doesn’t it seem at least passingly strange that for millenia nobody thought to write down a single thing, or, seemingly, even to invent an alphabet or symbol-language like Chinese or heiroglyphics?

Yes, it’s asking a lot to insist on there being paper writings older than those of the Egyptians (though there are plenty of them) or even clay writings like that of Sumeria.

But nothing whatever? No 7,000 rune of any kind, anywhere?

We are assured by antropologists that “modern humans” have been around for 10,000 years at the very least. Some say quite a bit longer. And yet, those people, having every bit as much in the way of intelligence as we, never invented even the crudest symbolic writing, or if they did, never bothered to inscribe so much as “home sweet home” at the mouth of a cave?

A curiosity.

I don’t see why that is a problem. Inventions are created by and large out of neccessity to coin a cliche. Writing probably arrived on the scene as human interactions became more complex and widespread and there is proof by the way that writing or at least the use of ordered symbols as a form of proto-writing may go back further than has been often thought. Look up the Vinča symbols for one example.

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