Latest Pew survey results suggests lowest levels of creationist belief (U.S.)

pitabread · Feb 18, 2019

Exploring Different Ways of Asking About Evolution

Pew Research recently did an experiment in how they asked a question about evolution and creationism. If they ask a two-part question re: evolution and creationism, the results suggest a 31% acceptance of creationism. If they ask a single question, the results suggest 18% acceptance.

Leaving aside that aspect of the experiment, I find it interesting that the polled figures are only 18% and 31% respectively. The last Gallup poll on creationist believers recorded their lowest level ever at 38% back in 2017.

I've known creationist beliefs in the U.S. were on the decline, but even the 31% figure seemed lower than I would have expected compared to the Gallup results from a couple years ago.

46AND2 · Feb 18, 2019

pitabread said:
Exploring Different Ways of Asking About Evolution

Pew Research recently did an experiment in how they asked a question about evolution and creationism. If they ask a two-part question re: evolution and creationism, the results suggest a 31% acceptance of creationism. If they ask a single question, the results suggest 18% acceptance.

Leaving aside that aspect of the experiment, I find it interesting that the polled figures are only 18% and 31% respectively. The last Gallup poll on creationist believers recorded their lowest level ever at 38% back in 2017.

I've known creationist beliefs in the U.S. were on the decline, but even the 31% figure seemed lower than I would have expected compared to the Gallup results from a couple years ago.

Guarantee you it is because there are creationists who are selecting the second option, "Humans have evolved over time due to processes that were guided or allowed by God or a higher power." This is because they are considering "microevolution" as that god-guided evolution. There weren't fewer creationists in the one question group; some of them were simply able to fit their creationist ideas into the second response, because they accept "microevolution."

pitabread · Feb 18, 2019

46AND2 said:
Guarantee you it is because there are creationists who are selecting the second option, "Humans have evolved over time due to processes that were guided or allowed by God or a higher power." This is because they are considering "microevolution" as that god-guided evolution. There weren't fewer creationists in the one question group; some of them were simply able to fit their creationist ideas into the second response, because they accept "microevolution."

This was my thought as well when I first read the article. There's a lot of room for interpretation in these types of questions. Even YECs argue for "devolution" so they very well interpret the question in that frame.

Still, 31% is still the lowest numbers I've seen for creationist representation in these kinds of surveys.

46AND2 · Feb 18, 2019

pitabread said:
This was my thought as well when I first read the article. There's a lot of room for interpretation in these types of questions. Even YECs argue for "devolution" so they very well interpret the question in that frame.

Still, 31% is still the lowest numbers I've seen for creationist representation in these kinds of surveys.

Yeah, how similar is the two part Pew question to the one that Gallup asks?

pitabread · Feb 18, 2019

46AND2 said:
Yeah, how similar is the two part Pew question to the one that Gallup asks?

The article I linked has the Gallup question: In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

The main difference seems to be that the Gallup question specifically includes time frame regarding human origins.

46AND2 · Feb 18, 2019

pitabread said:
The article I linked has the Gallup question: In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

The main difference seems to be that the Gallup question specifically includes time frame regarding human origins.

My bad, didn't read far enough.

sea5763 · Feb 18, 2019

After watching Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus, I started distrusting mainstream archaeology. I'd never heard about what was talked about in the movie before. I may not understand the Bible at times, but its prophecies are true. I don't fully understand exactly how creation happened either or how God made the universe, but I've been starting to put my trust more in God than in science. Science is a tool of mankind, but God is the truth, even if I don't understand at times.

Kenny'sID · Feb 18, 2019

sea5763 said:
After watching Patterns of Evidence: The Exodus, I started distrusting mainstream archaeology. I'd never heard about what was talked about in the movie before. I may not understand the Bible at times, but its prophecies are true. I don't fully understand exactly how creation happened either or how God made the universe, but I've been starting to put my trust more in God than in science. Science is a tool of mankind, but God is the truth, even if I don't understand at times.

I get it. And you have to consider "science" in it self is not the problem. Science can't even think, much less make a claim. Things are always touted as science says this and science says that, making it sound definite, but in the end, it's no more than people making claims, either provable or not.

Sparagmos · Feb 18, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
Things are always touted as science says this and science says that, making it sound definite, but in the end, it's no more than people making claims, either provable or not.

Where did you get this idea? It’s pretty far out there, even for someone “skeptical” of science.

Kenny'sID · Feb 18, 2019

Sparagmos said:
Where did you get this idea? It’s pretty far out there, even for someone “skeptical” of science.

What do you mean? that's like asking where did I get the idea the sun rises and sets once a day. What else can it be?

I'm not the least but skeptical of science, there is nothing there to be skeptical of...I am skeptical of people. Science is merely a term for the study of the natural.

You have to have misunderstood the comment.

Sparagmos · Feb 19, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
What do you mean? that's like asking where did I get the idea the sun rises and sets once a day. What else can it be?

I'm not the least but skeptical of science, there is nothing there to be skeptical of...I am skeptical of people. Science is merely a term for the study of the natural.

You have to have misunderstood the comment.

You can’t just put forth a theory and have it declared science. Science is not just a bunch of people’s theories. That’s simply not true and even a high school level science class would teach otherwise. Have you taken chemistry or physics?

Kenny'sID · Feb 19, 2019

Sparagmos said:
You can’t just put forth a theory and have it declared science. Science is not just a bunch of people’s theories. That’s simply not true and even a high school level science class would teach otherwise. Have you taken chemistry or physics?

Of course you can't because theories are not science, science is merely a term given to the study of the natural.

You're having trouble with terminology here. Go check the dictionary for exactly how science is defined, maybe that will help.

VirOptimus · Feb 19, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
What do you mean? that's like asking where did I get the idea the sun rises and sets once a day. What else can it be?

-snip-

You know... the sun does not rise or sets. Its the earth that spins, thats what we have learned through science.

Irony.

Kenny'sID · Feb 19, 2019

VirOptimus said:
You know... the sun does not rise or sets. Its the earth that spins, thats what we have learned through science.

Irony.

Have you ever used the term? How do you refer to the sunrise/sunset?

46AND2 · Feb 19, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
Have you ever used the term? How do you refer to the sunrise/sunset?

Yes, yes, it's a figure of speech. Kind of like "science says," right? Did you hear the whoosh of the point going over your head?

Kenny'sID · Feb 19, 2019

46AND2 said:
Yes, yes, it's a figure of speech. Kind of like "science says," right? Did you hear the whoosh of the point going over your head?

You assume far to much.

Kenny'sID · Feb 19, 2019

46AND2 said:
Yes, yes, it's a figure of speech. Kind of like "science says," right? Did you hear the whoosh of the point going over your head?

Are you people actually upset because I made some comments about what science really was, and that it didn't mean something is factual?

Why would that bother anyone?

VirOptimus · Feb 19, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
Have you ever used the term? How do you refer to the sunrise/sunset?

Dont double down, just admit your error and move on.

Kenny'sID · Feb 19, 2019

VirOptimus said:
Dont double down, just admit your error and move on.

What exactly was that error?

Jimmy D · Feb 19, 2019

Kenny'sID said:
Are you people actually upset because I made some comments about what science really was, and that it didn't mean something is factual?

Why would that bother anyone?

Where did you get the idea that anyone was upset? I can see only good humour in this thread so far.

I would even like to point out my agreement with your statement... "science is merely a term given to the study of the natural".

Latest Pew survey results suggests lowest levels of creationist belief (U.S.)

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads