Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design-Gallup Poll

Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?

  • Humans evolved, with God guiding

  • Humans evolved, but God had no part in the process

  • God created humans in present form


Results are only viewable after voting.

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The culture wars are over and it looks the whole evolution/creation controversy is fading away. Creationism is going up, atheistic materialism is remaining static and it appears Theistic Evolution is on the decline.

a-_zxlsuk0mtvegl8vxiga.gif

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

We've discussed the Gallup polls before but this one is pretty recent. If you check the right hand column there are some other interesting statistics as well. So where are you in the spectrum of opinion on the subject?

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Last edited:

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Thanks for posting this, mark, it's interesting.

I think that some conclusions are warranted, but some others may not be.

For instance - I don't think one could say that (YE) creationism is going up long term. That last data point is no higher than several points farther back, and is only 2% higher than the first point.

I do think that one could say that TE is going down (with the caveat below), because that last point, at 32, is lower than it has ever been, over 11 separate polls.

As much as I'd like to say so, I don't think we can say that atheistic materialism is holding steady. Even if we were to ignore the highest point at 16, and stick with 15 for the most recent data, and compare that to an average of 10 for everything before the year 2000, then that's up by 50% over the last decade. If YEC or TE increased that fast (say, from an average of 40% to an average of 60% in just 10 years), we'd be rightly amazed by the rapid shift.

OK, but what about more speculative thoughts?

It seems to me that the data points from 2012 don't fit the previous data, which showed largly stagnation between YEC and TE. Is this the start of a trend, or something else?

My first response to that question is that this is likely just noise. We've seen from before that there is plenty of noise in data on this issue.
(A)

A second, and more speculative response is to notice that the most recent data points were taken at the height of the gay marriage issue, around when Obama was on TV changing his view to now support gay marriage, and the military has just changed to allow openly gay soldiers, and all that was all over the opinion sections, with person after person changing their view to now accept open homosexuals.
I wonder if some Christians were, at that time, struggling with the gay issue, and deciding to accept homosexuals, and felt the internal need to reaffirm their commitment to tradition by answering the pollster's question about origin in more traditional way? (B)

Or, third, maybe mark is right that people are moving towards YEC from TE? (C)

I expect that the next few data points, over the next few years, will show us which of those is most likely.

If A is right, the next few data points will look more like those from the mid-2000's - a return to the long term average.

If B, the next few data points may look more like those from the mid-2000's, or show YEC down and TE steady (as may be suggested by ignoring that most recent point on each line).

If C, then the next few data points will see YEC up (maybe breaking 50%?), and TE will continue down (maybe going under 30%?).

Blessings everyone-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
As much as I'd like to say so, I don't think we can say that atheistic materialism is holding steady. Even if we were to ignore the highest point at 16, and stick with 15 for the most recent data, and compare that to an average of 10 for everything before the year 2000, then that's up by 50% over the last decade. If YEC or TE increased that fast (say, from an average of 40% to an average of 60% in just 10 years), we'd be rightly amazed by the rapid shift.

Indeed, the atheistic materialist numbers seem to be holding steady. What is interesting is the TE is going down while YEC (using the term loosely here) goes up by almost the same percentage. It's not a broad spectrum but I think this might mean that among theists opinions are shifting from TE to YEC. I don't know that's the case but that would be my guess.

A second, and more speculative response is to notice that the most recent data points were taken at the height of the gay marriage issue, around when Obama was on TV changing his view to now support gay marriage, and the military has just changed to allow openly gay soldiers, and all that was all over the opinion sections, with person after person changing their view to now accept open homosexuals.

I wonder if some Christians were, at that time, struggling with the gay issue, and deciding to accept homosexuals, and felt the internal need to reaffirm their commitment to tradition by answering the pollster's question about origin in more traditional way?

I kind of agree that is one factor. One of the main issues in the culture war was gay activism. When Proposition 8 went back to the Federal court I figured that was the end of the culture war. The whole creation/evolution thing was over in Dover when the Intelligent Designer was recognized by the court to be God using the Lemon test. Abortion on demand appears to be here to stay and now I think Christians are drifting away from political activism.

I think you hit on a key issue but I differ just a bit on the analysis.

Or, third, maybe mark is right that people are moving towards YEC from TE? (C)

Well they aren't going in mass to atheistic materialism, like you said, their numbers are pretty static. Those numbers will continue to see random variance as opinions change. I believe that the bane of religion has always been politics, personalities (i.e.cult of personality) and property. As long as religion can stay out of quagmires based on those things it will stay fairly healthy.

At any rate, thought it was an interesting trend. Thanks for the response.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm in the "God created humans in their present form" camp. Given the constant barrage of "we evolved from goo" messages that I hear, I'm pleasantly surprised that my camp is holding its own.

I've really never thought it was in trouble. Most Creationists are quiet, good natured church people. When all of the chaos erupted over creationism in the public schools I noticed they stayed away from the debate. Now that the smoke is starting to clear I think Christians are just going back to basic conviction.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
...I kind of agree that is one factor. One of the main issues in the culture war was gay activism. When Proposition 8 went back to the Federal court I figured that was the end of the culture war. The whole creation/evolution thing was over in Dover when the Intelligent Designer was recognized by the court to be God using the Lemon test. Abortion on demand appears to be here to stay and now I think Christians are drifting away from political activism. ...

Political activism is nothing more than moral activism when you get down to it. All laws against murder and theft are based on moral principles that the majority agree on. But it gets more and more skewed in America every day.

If the church is becoming less politically active, it's because the church is becoming less morally concerned, which is a sign of backsliding. There are a whole host of reasons why this may be happening, but the correlation is unmistakable.

BTW, I don't think churches should ever be directly politically active. But when healthy preaching comes from the pulpit, and the flock is fed, they become a very influential movement, and impact the thinking of their culture.

This is precisely where the creation debate comes in. If the church concedes the debate, they will conceded in every area as well. That I firmly believe.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Political activism is nothing more than moral activism when you get down to it. All laws against murder and theft are based on moral principles that the majority agree on. But it gets more and more skewed in America every day.

If the church is becoming less politically active, it's because the church is becoming less morally concerned, which is a sign of backsliding. There are a whole host of reasons why this may be happening, but the correlation is unmistakable.

BTW, I don't think churches should ever be directly politically active. But when healthy preaching comes from the pulpit, and the flock is fed, they become a very influential movement, and impact the thinking of their culture.

This is precisely where the creation debate comes in. If the church concedes the debate, they will conceded in every area as well. That I firmly believe.

I'm not trying to suggest Christians should not be politically involved, it never entered my mind. Activism is more of a special interest group on a crusade against some injustice, either real or imagined. Only twice in our nation's history do I know of the Church being on the march as a force for moral political activism. Slavery and Abortion were the two issues. There was Prohibition and the black Civil Rights movements but those were not really moral issues, they were legal ones.

Creationism was never a political or moral issue, it's always been more of a doctrinal and intellectual one. I honestly see no way the Church can effectively defend the doctrine academically if it hasn't the capacity to even define it doctrinally. If there's going to be a real fight, a culture war worth having, this one has to be won or lost in the Churches and seminaries.

The problem is the Creation as doctrine is a given, it's never argued in Scripture and in 2,000 years it's never been a question in the Church. It's called natural revelation which will yield two convictions that are needed before you can receive the Gospel, God's divine attributes and the fact you are a sinner.

No, the Church will never surrender the doctrine of Creation. It's essential Christian theism.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not trying to suggest Christians should not be politically involved, it never entered my mind. Activism is more of a special interest group on a crusade against some injustice, either real or imagined. Only twice in our nation's history do I know of the Church being on the march as a force for moral political activism. Slavery and Abortion were the two issues. There was Prohibition and the black Civil Rights movements but those were not really moral issues, they were legal ones.

Creationism was never a political or moral issue, it's always been more of a doctrinal and intellectual one. I honestly see no way the Church can effectively defend the doctrine academically if it hasn't the capacity to even define it doctrinally. If there's going to be a real fight, a culture war worth having, this one has to be won or lost in the Churches and seminaries.

The problem is the Creation as doctrine is a given, it's never argued in Scripture and in 2,000 years it's never been a question in the Church. It's called natural revelation which will yield two convictions that are needed before you can receive the Gospel, God's divine attributes and the fact you are a sinner.

No, the Church will never surrender the doctrine of Creation. It's essential Christian theism.

Grace and peace,
Mark
You are still confusing the doctrine of Creation with Creationism.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Calminian

Senior Veteran
Feb 14, 2005
6,789
1,044
Low Dessert
✟49,695.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not trying to suggest Christians should not be politically involved, it never entered my mind. Activism is more of a special interest group on a crusade against some injustice, either real or imagined. Only twice in our nation's history do I know of the Church being on the march as a force for moral political activism. Slavery and Abortion were the two issues. There was Prohibition and the black Civil Rights movements but those were not really moral issues, they were legal ones.

Well certainly a stance against gay marriage is one influenced by churches.

Creationism was never a political or moral issue, it's always been more of a doctrinal and intellectual one.

Creation is the foundation of all christian doctrine, which is the foundation of all christian morality.

This is one of the reasons it's such brilliant strategy. Undermine the creation account and you undermine all Christian doctrine and authority. For even many creationists don't see the relevance of it.

I honestly see no way the Church can effectively defend the doctrine academically if it hasn't the capacity to even define it doctrinally. If there's going to be a real fight, a culture war worth having, this one has to be won or lost in the Churches and seminaries.

Well on that I agree. Reformation will definitely have to preceded revival.

The problem is the Creation as doctrine is a given,

The creation account is part of the gospel account, and is very clearly defined in scripture. The deep theology starts in Genesis 1:31, prior to the Fall. All creation was tov mayode (very good). Animals were vegetarians, and plants didn't have thorns. Then came sin, and through it death. Christ is the last Adam, as compared to the first. Christ is the conquerer of the death which entered the world through the first Adam. Christ came because of what happened in the Garden. Christ will reign over the restored kingdom in which predation will cease.

The doctrine of creation is really all that matters. The rest of the stuff is secondary for the church.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Undermine the creation account and you undermine all Christian doctrine and authority.
Nice to meet you, Chicken Little.

They used exactly the same argument against Galileo, but the roof did not cave in when the Church finally accepted a heliocentric solar system. In fact, not only did faith not come crashing down, no one even noticed.
 
Upvote 0

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Creationism is very much like late Christian era paganism. In fact pagan means "country bumpkin" or "red neck". Because only the conservative rural people held on to the old ways, while Christianity was much more widely embraced in the cities.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Creationism is very much like late Christian era paganism. In fact pagan means "country bumpkin" or "red neck". Because only the conservative rural people held on to the old ways, while Christianity was much more widely embraced in the cities.

Creationism is essential doctrine, The Nicene Creed, Genesis 1, John 1, Hebrews 1 and Romans 1:18-20 being foundational. The nature of Creation is clearly ex nihilo with regards to the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21), and man (Gen. 1:27).

You are still confusing the doctrine of Creation with Creationism.

Creationism is based on a literal reading of the historical narrative in Genesis 1.There never has been a difference.

Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. Creationism

It's defined doctrinally by the use of 'bara' in the Genesis account:

( בָּרָא bara' Strong's H1254): "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing...A careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. (Vines Dictionary)​
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Nice to meet you, Chicken Little.

They used exactly the same argument against Galileo, but the roof did not cave in when the Church finally accepted a heliocentric solar system. In fact, not only did faith not come crashing down, no one even noticed.

No that's not the same argument they used when Galileo was summoned to the Inquisition. They equivocated Aristotelian scholasticism with Christian doctrine and deprecated both in an attempt to salvage Aristotelian mechanics. When they were unable to refute Galileo at Pisa they convinced Pope Urban that Galileo was contradicting Scripture. Galileo argued that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work.

You don't know what your talking about.
 
Upvote 0

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Mar 31, 2006
14,868
991
Wales
✟27,286.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Creationism is essential doctrine,
Creationism means the rejection of evolution based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, it has only bee around since the middle of the 19th century. How is that essential doctrine? And if the literal interpretation of Genesis was essential doctrine, then Augustine, Athanasius and Aquinas were heretics according to you view.

The Nicene Creed, Genesis 1, John 1, Hebrews 1 and Romans 1:18-20 being foundational. The nature of Creation is clearly ex nihilo with regards to the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21), and man (Gen. 1:27).
If man is created ex nihilo in Gen 1:27 and this is supposedly essential doctrine, why is it contradicted by the ex materia creation of man in Gen 2:7 where God mad man, not out of nothing but our of material dust?

Creationism is based on a literal reading of the historical narrative in Genesis 1.There never has been a difference.
Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being. Creationism
I have shown you what the Oxford English Dictionary says about the history and meaning of Creationism.
Oxford English dictionary:
Creationism A system or theory of creation: spec. a. The theory that God immediately creates a soul for every human being born (opposed to traducianism; b. The theory which attributes the origin of matter, the different species of animals and plants, etc., to ‘special creation’ (opposed to evolutionism).
1847 BUCH tr. Hagenbach’s Hist. Of Doctr. II. 1 The theory designated as Creationism … was now more precisely defined.
1872 LIDDON Elem. Relig. iii. 102. The other and more generally received doctrine is known as Creationism. Each soul is an immediate work of the Creator.
1880 GRAY Nat. Sc. & Rel. 89 The true issue as regards design is not between Darwinism and direct Creationism.

Creationist One who believes in or advocates creationism.
1859 DARWIN Life & Lett. II. 233 What a joke it would be if I pat you on the back when you attack some immovable creationists.
1882 FARRAR Early Chr. I. 463 The verbal controversy between Creationists..and Traducianists
You base your argument on wikipedia?

It's defined doctrinally by the use of 'bara' in the Genesis account:
( בָּרָא bara' Strong's H1254): "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing...A careful study of the passages where bara occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. (Vines Dictionary)​
Vines was neither a Hebrew scholar nor the source of Christian doctrine. Of course you have read what it says about bara in scholarly Hebrew Lexicons like Gesenius; Brown Driver & Briggs (BDB); and Köhler, Baumgartner & Stamm's The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT). None of them say bara means create out of nothing, and you know this, but you prefer to quote the non scholar Vine because it agrees with your views. Be careful you don't fall into the trap Paul warned about 2 Timothy 4:3 The time is coming when people won't listen to good teaching. Instead, they will look for teachers who will please them by telling them only what they are itching to hear.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fascinated With God

Traditional Apostolic Methodist
Aug 30, 2012
1,432
75
56
NY
✟16,259.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
No that's not the same argument they used when Galileo was summoned to the Inquisition. They equivocated Aristotelian scholasticism with Christian doctrine and deprecated both in an attempt to salvage Aristotelian mechanics. When they were unable to refute Galileo at Pisa they convinced Pope Urban that Galileo was contradicting Scripture. Galileo argued that the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work.
That is a perfect analogy. Creationism is just like scholasticism during Galileo's time. Neither really have anything to do with the Bible, but is instead a purely reactionary objection to true scientific discovery. Both were just digging in their heels against an obvious fact of reality.

You don't know what your talking about.
You made my argument for me and handed it to me on a silver platter. Your thinking boggles my mind, your arguments are so flimsy that half the time you totally loss it and appear to be arguing in favor of the opposite side of the argument. I've never seen anyone do this before in 30 years of online debates, but Creationists here do this consistently.
 
Upvote 0