Are there studies on the spectrum of religious views regarding evolution?

[J_B_]

Has anyone come across a study of the spectrum of religious views regarding evolution? Is anyone here even interested in that?

I found plenty of studies about who accepts it and who doesn't, how readily they accept or reject it, etc. I've found studies on the denominations who officially accept/reject it, and how that compares to whether their members accept/reject it. But I couldn't find anything regarding the different types of views the religious community holds. Most speak only of YEC or TE. Some occasionally mention OEC.

Obviously this forum is dominated by YEC, and most questions are addressed either to YEC from one side or to atheists by the other side*. However, being one who doesn't fall easily under either a YEC or TE label, I wonder if anyone has ever studied the spectrum of views?

*Note: YEC/atheist doesn't even seem a good dichotomy given a recent study (from, I think 2017) that found a respectable number of doubters of ToE among atheists. It seems, rather, the spectrum should flow from those who take Genesis as only allegory to those who accept it as history, or from those who accept all the theories that make up evolution to those who reject all of them ... and those who fall in between - things like that. Anyway ...

 

[Occams Barber]

Has anyone come across a study of the spectrum of religious views regarding evolution? Is anyone here even interested in that?

I found plenty of studies about who accepts it and who doesn't, how readily they accept or reject it, etc. I've found studies on the denominations who officially accept/reject it, and how that compares to whether their members accept/reject it. But I couldn't find anything regarding the different types of views the religious community holds. Most speak only of YEC or TE. Some occasionally mention OEC.

Obviously this forum is dominated by YEC, and most questions are addressed either to YEC from one side or to atheists by the other side*. However, being one who doesn't fall easily under either a YEC or TE label, I wonder if anyone has ever studied the spectrum of views?

*Note: YEC/atheist doesn't even seem a good dichotomy given a recent study (from, I think 2017) that found a respectable number of doubters of ToE among atheists. It seems, rather, the spectrum should flow from those who take Genesis as only allegory to those who accept it as history, or from those who accept all the theories that make up evolution to those who reject all of them ... and those who fall in between - things like that. Anyway ...

This is a summary of attitudes to evolution from various religious groups including a range of Christian denominations.
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

On the issue of atheists and ToE - Atheists are often treated as if they are the keepers of the flame when it comes to Evolution. In fact belief in Evolution is not a criteria defining an atheist. It is entirely possible to be a legitimate atheist and not accept ToE. Evolution is a scientific concept which exists apart from any religious or non-religious viewpoint. Many Christians are comfortable with the concept.

The main opposition to ToE comes from, mainly US based, Fundamentalists.

OB

 

[J_B_]

On the issue of atheists and ToE - Atheists are often treated as if they are the keepers of the flame when it comes to Evolution. In fact belief in Evolution is not a criteria defining an atheist. It is entirely possible to be a legitimate atheist and not accept ToE. Evolution is a scientific concept which exists apart from any religious or non-religious viewpoint. Many Christians are comfortable with the concept.

Sure.

This is a summary of attitudes to evolution from various religious groups including a range of Christian denominations.
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

Thanks, but I was aware of this one. It isn't quite what I'm after, but I appreciate your reply.

I don't know what the exact numbers would be, but suppose we did a poll of views of ToE and found that 50% identified as YEC, 20% were TE, 5% were OEC ... OK. That's only 75% of Christians. What's the view of the other 25%? (or whatever the number would be).

I am somewhat curious what the split would be, but I've heard enough of the big 3 (YEC, OEC, TE). I don't need more of that. I'm curious about the other views.

Further, I wonder if some associate with those categories merely for social reasons. For example, my wife would probably call herself YEC, but in truth she doesn't care. She thinks the whole argument is ridiculous and tends to think YECs spend too much time baiting and should focus on something more positive. Or what of the person who is fine with most of the supporting theory, and only has a small quibble with one particular detail. That's more what I'm interested in.

It seems as if all the subtlety in people's views is buried beneath the shouting.

 

[Occams Barber]

Sure.



Thanks, but I was aware of this one. It isn't quite what I'm after, but I appreciate your reply.

I don't know what the exact numbers would be, but suppose we did a poll of views of ToE and found that 50% identified as YEC, 20% were TE, 5% were OEC ... OK. That's only 75% of Christians. What's the view of the other 25%? (or whatever the number would be).

I am somewhat curious what the split would be, but I've heard enough of the big 3 (YEC, OEC, TE). I don't need more of that. I'm curious about the other views.

Further, I wonder if some associate with those categories merely for social reasons. For example, my wife would probably call herself YEC, but in truth she doesn't care. She thinks the whole argument is ridiculous and tends to think YECs spend too much time baiting and should focus on something more positive. Or what of the person who is fine with most of the supporting theory, and only has a small quibble with one particular detail. That's more what I'm interested in.

It seems as if all the subtlety in people's views is buried beneath the shouting.

I suspect you'll find that a considerable proportion of Christians are indifferent to ToE either because they don't care or because they're not really aware of the concept or they don't think it's worth arguing about.

There is a similar 'indifference' happening more broadly with the rise of the NONES - people who have no particular religious identification. They aren't atheists and they aren't Christians although there is a tendency to believe in a vague sort of 'out there' spirituality.

The other problem is plain ignorance. After decades talking to YECs on this and other Forums ,the lack of knowledge or understanding of what the ToE actually is is patently obvious. There is a general habit of parroting old information from Fundamentalist websites without really understanding what they're talking about.

OB

 

[J_B_]

I suspect you'll find that a considerable proportion of Christians are indifferent to ToE either because they don't care or because they're not really aware of the concept or they don't think it's worth arguing about.

Probably so.

There is a similar 'indifference' happening more broadly with the rise of the NONES - people who have no particular religious identification. They aren't atheists and they aren't Christians although there is a tendency to believe in a vague sort of 'out there' spirituality.

Yes, I've read about the 'spiritual but not religious' SBNR trends. In some cases it seems like a defense mechanism born of weariness. If I can't understand what you're saying, maybe I'll wander away in bewilderment rather than arguing with you. Similar things happened in Europe after the Wars of Religion.

The other problem is plain ignorance. After decades talking to YECs on this and other Forums ,the lack of knowledge or understanding of what the ToE actually is is patently obvious. There is a general habit of parroting old information from Fundamentalist websites without really understanding what they're talking about.

That's true about many things. To avoid spinning us off into a digression, I won't say anything more than that I noticed the same thing from all sides in protests about some recent happenings in American politics.

I guess I've always been intrigued by obscure topics, so maybe it's just me. Still, it seems the way forward (if there is one) lies along the road not yet traveled - the possibilities that don't get air play.

 

[DragonFox91]

I don't think this forum (amongst believers) is majority YEC. I'd say it's more split down the middle.


"I found plenty of studies about who accepts it and who doesn't, how readily they accept or reject it, etc. I've found studies on the denominations who officially accept/reject it, and how that compares to whether their members accept/reject it. But I couldn't find anything regarding the different types of views the religious community holds. "
I don't understand what you're looking for then.

 

[SkyWriting]

Has anyone come across a study of the spectrum of religious views regarding evolution? Is anyone here even interested in that?

I found plenty of studies about who accepts it and who doesn't, how readily they accept or reject it, etc. I've found studies on the denominations who officially accept/reject it, and how that compares to whether their members accept/reject it. But I couldn't find anything regarding the different types of views the religious community holds. Most speak only of YEC or TE. Some occasionally mention OEC.

Obviously this forum is dominated by YEC, and most questions are addressed either to YEC from one side or to atheists by the other side*. However, being one who doesn't fall easily under either a YEC or TE label, I wonder if anyone has ever studied the spectrum of views?

*Note: YEC/atheist doesn't even seem a good dichotomy given a recent study (from, I think 2017) that found a respectable number of doubters of ToE among atheists. It seems, rather, the spectrum should flow from those who take Genesis as only allegory to those who accept it as history, or from those who accept all the theories that make up evolution to those who reject all of them ... and those who fall in between - things like that. Anyway ...

Researching the spectrum of views is rare on any topic. There is also a difference between what people say and what they actually believe. There is also a difference between what people think and how the relevant questions are asked. "Framing" has a big impact on the results of polls.

 

[RileyG]

This is a summary of attitudes to evolution from various religious groups including a range of Christian denominations.
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups - Wikipedia

On the issue of atheists and ToE - Atheists are often treated as if they are the keepers of the flame when it comes to Evolution. In fact belief in Evolution is not a criteria defining an atheist. It is entirely possible to be a legitimate atheist and not accept ToE. Evolution is a scientific concept which exists apart from any religious or non-religious viewpoint. Many Christians are comfortable with the concept.

The main opposition to ToE comes from, mainly US based, Fundamentalists.

OB

How can an atheist not accept ToE? I do understand the bold, but modern science 100% accepts evolution because of the abundance of evidence that supports it. interesting... Maybe I misunderstood you

 

[Occams Barber]

How can an atheist not accept ToE? I do understand the bold, but modern science 100% accepts evolution because of the abundance of evidence that supports it. interesting... Maybe I misunderstood you

The only criteria defining an atheist is the lack of a belief in gods. The point I was trying to make was that someone who does not accept ToE can still be an atheist. Some atheists are indifferent to ToE and may have little interest in science. Many Christians (particularly Creationists) will often claim that ToE is an atheistic concept.

In real terms atheists as a group tend to accept ToE as a scientific explanation but there are exceptions.

OB

 

[RileyG]

The only criteria defining an atheist is the lack of a belief in gods. The point I was trying to make was that someone who does not accept ToE can still be an atheist. Some atheists are indifferent to ToE and may have little interest in science. Many Christians (particularly Creationists) will often claim that ToE is an atheistic concept.

In real terms atheists as a group tend to accept ToE as a scientific explanation but there are exceptions.

OB

Ok! Understood!

Thanks for the clarification!

It's the end of the day, and my brain is fried! (I haven't been drinking yet, I swear) lol

 

[J_B_]

Researching the spectrum of views is rare on any topic. There is also a difference between what people say and what they actually believe. There is also a difference between what people think and how the relevant questions are asked. "Framing" has a big impact on the results of polls.

Sure, there are many complicating factors. Maybe I'm on a fool's errand.

 

[J_B_]

I don't understand what you're looking for then.

I'll start with a simple example. My impression is that it is common in YEC arguments to lump together at least 3 things: 1) the age of the earth, 2) abiogenesis, and 3) evolution and then argue against the whole of it simultaneously.

It is conceivable that someone could accept #3 and disagree with #1 or #2 - or any other combination.

It could become even more finely cut than that. Someone could accept the mutation of DNA, but disagree with horizontal gene transfer. Maybe they accept parallel evolution, but disagree with divergent evolution. The possibilities are endless.

I'd be interested to know, do objections to evolution among this minority of Christians have any commonality or is it a scattering of unrelated opinions? Among atheists who have doubts, is there something they have in common, or again, is it scattered?

Does that help?

Edit: I should add, if there are any common themes in these minority objections, what are they?

 

[Shemjaza]

How can an atheist not accept ToE? I do understand the bold, but modern science 100% accepts evolution because of the abundance of evidence that supports it. interesting... Maybe I misunderstood you

Typically it's as a tenet of a non-theistic religion such as Raëlism.

Some can have a visceral disagreement with either evolution or the consequences of it without necessarily having any alternative explanation at all.

It isn't common, but it does exist.

 

[Occams Barber]

'll start with a simple example. My impression is that it is common in YEC arguments to lump together at least 3 things: 1) the age of the earth, 2) abiogenesis, and 3) evolution and then argue against the whole of it simultaneously.

This problem has been around for years. I can recall first coming across it back in 2005 when reading transcripts from Kitzmiller vs Dover and coming across the term 'Origins'. I eventually worked out it was the Creationist collective term for the 3 concepts you've mentioned.

The Origins collective concept makes it difficult for some Creationists to understand that the 3 concepts are, scientifically, separate. There's also a tendency to lump all 3 together under the heading of 'Evolution'.

It could become even more finely cut than that. Someone could accept the mutation of DNA, but disagree with horizontal gene transfer. Maybe they accept parallel evolution, but disagree with divergent evolution. The possibilities are endless.

One version you might not be aware of is the micro/macro evolution split. A few years back Creationism found it could not completely deny the concept of evolution. The solution was to accept that evolution occurred on a micro scale with small changes roughly below species level. At the same time there was ongoing denial that evolution occurred at the species (or 'kinds') level. The result is a split - microevolution is possible while macroevolution is not.

Despite numerous questions we have yet to hear what prevents cumulative microevolution resulting in macroevolution.

 

[DragonFox91]

I'll start with a simple example. My impression is that it is common in YEC arguments to lump together at least 3 things: 1) the age of the earth, 2) abiogenesis, and 3) evolution and then argue against the whole of it simultaneously.

It is conceivable that someone could accept #3 and disagree with #1 or #2 - or any other combination.

It could become even more finely cut than that. Someone could accept the mutation of DNA, but disagree with horizontal gene transfer. Maybe they accept parallel evolution, but disagree with divergent evolution. The possibilities are endless.

I'd be interested to know, do objections to evolution among this minority of Christians have any commonality or is it a scattering of unrelated opinions? Among atheists who have doubts, is there something they have in common, or again, is it scattered?

Does that help?

Edit: I should add, if there are any common themes in these minority objections, what are they?

I don't fully understand, but sounds like what you're looking for gets too narrow. Believers are YEC or OEC.

How can an atheist not accept ToE? I do understand the bold, but modern science 100% accepts evolution because of the abundance of evidence that supports it. interesting... Maybe I misunderstood you

They know it has holes. So they come up w/ other ideas like it's all just a computer program, seeded by aliens, etc.

 

[RileyG]

I don't fully understand, but sounds like what you're looking for gets too narrow. Believers are YEC or OEC.


They know it has holes. So they come up w/ other ideas like it's all just a computer program, seeded by aliens, etc.

I'm a devout Christian and accept ToE. God created everything. Science helps explain that answer. IMHO.

 

[RileyG]

Typically it's as a tenet of a non-theistic religion such as Raëlism.

Some can have a visceral disagreement with either evolution or the consequences of it without necessarily having any alternative explanation at all.

It isn't common, but it does exist.

I learn something new everyday! Thanks for the info!

Raelism sounds very interesting albeit its a very small "religion" (if it can be called that).

 

[RileyG]

Back to the original question, I know fundamentalist and evangelical Protestants, LCMS, LWELS, (Lutheran-Missouri Synod, Lutheran-Wisconsin Synod) believe in a literal 6 day creation. They would reject evolution because it contradicts with their interpretation of scripture.

Depending on their view, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church may reject evolution.

I had a science teacher in high school, a VERY intelligent woman, who was an Evangelical Protestant, who rejected evolution. Her denomination is one of those evangelical sects that emerged in the last few decades or so.

 

[Shemjaza]

I learn something new everyday! Thanks for the info!

Raelism sounds very interesting albeit its a very small "religion" (if it can be called that).

They certainly call themselves a religion.

It's interesting that their version of intelligent design has some advantages in explanatory power over standard ID due to the proposed designers not being all-powerful, all-knowing or perfect.

(They think that intelligent life has always existed in an eternal universe and that each intelligent species was engineered by a previous one.)

 

[RileyG]

They certainly call themselves a religion.

It's interesting that their version of intelligent design has some advantages in explanatory power over standard ID due to the proposed designers not being all-powerful, all-knowing or perfect.

(They think that intelligent life has always existed in an eternal universe and that each intelligent species was engineered by a previous one.)

Interesting! I know nothing about them, which is why I included the quotes.