• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Hey Guys, Help me Out...

SCJ

Veteran
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2002
963
5
Middle Georgia
✟52,264.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I need some statistics (numbers) on how the belief in Evolution has overtaken the belief in Creation in modern times. At some point in time Creation was almost exclusively accepted but the tide turned, I need some numbers and a good reference for an informational outline.

Thanks!
 

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's a pretty tough question; do you want to know when people in the field changed their opinions, or what? Note also that there are many different creationist beliefs, and that the theory of evolution has changed a bit in the last many years.
 
Upvote 0
http://www.uc.edu/info-services/bishop.htm

Gallup polls have consistently shown that approximately 45 percent of Americans believe that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years (creationist); 40 percent believe man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation (theistic evolution); and ten percent believe man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process (Darwinist evolution).
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by chickenman
I guess these aren't statistics that you asked for, but they provide interesting correlations to npetreley's statistics

http://msnbc.com/news/767581.asp

Well, I guess that accounts for the roughly half who believe in evolution, but what about the rest?
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
60
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟32,973.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Most Americans don't understand genetics both those in the creation camp and those in the evolutionary camp. I am studying this right now, and it is very technical information. Most Americans are busy working jobs, and providing for their families and don't have the time to think about scientific information. I am not saying their aren't those that do, think and study on a deeper level, but that it is few and far between.

I would say that the evolutionary perspective has gradually taken over since the scopes trials.

This article was posted on another forum:

Hello everyone...Interesting article ldolphin/ntcreation.html
By Phillip Johnson, DJ
So we start with this fundamental truth, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." Notice "He" was with God in the beginning, not "it" was with God in the beginning. The Word is not merely a concept; it is a Being with intelligence and purpose, a Being who was with God and who was God.

I became a Christian in my late 30s. I was already an established senior professor at the University of California at Berkeley, a University which can lay claim to being the world's foremost scientific institution. This is where the atom was first split, this is where the atomic bomb was invented, this is the place that always claims to have more Nobel Prize winners than any other place-they claim that whether it is true or not. We are very, very proud of our scientific pre-eminence and heritage. So you might imagine that it is somewhat unusual to find a senior professor in this environment who becomes a Christian and a somewhat notorious one at times. I felt a little bit different at that university.

I go to a very fine church, the First Presbyterian Church of Berkeley, which is one of the evangelical congregations in a denomination that nationally is very troubled. It is really two different religions under one roof. A modernist liberal national hierarchy that is headquartered in Louisville and then quite a number of solidly evangelical congregations that are very much like the one to which I belong.

I would hear good Biblical teaching from the pulpit, very fine teaching. But then I would wonder, is this real? I would hear, "In the beginning was the Word." The church is right next door to the University of California at Berkeley, and I know what they are teaching over there. I know what the faculty believes. We have a sprinkling of faculty members in the congregation, but they are not typical of the University of California at Berkeley faculty. They are assuming something very, very different from this and yet here we are; we think we are part of the university community.

We have many students in the congregation. Our senior pastor is the pastor of the football team-there is always a football team. That is where you will find the Christians. We lost the universities, but we won the football teams! You can see that after every Sunday game. You know, "Jesus gave me what I needed to score that touchdown."

The professors were not talking about Jesus, and they were not talking about the Word. So to make clear what the difference was, what the creation doctrine of the university was, I wrote a little parody of the opening verses of the gospel of John. These are my satanic verses that contrast with what I have just read from John, "In the beginning were the particles and the impersonal laws of physics." Note "it," not "He." In the beginning were the particles, and the particles somehow became complex living stuff. That is a long story, which I have condensed considerably. That is evolution. The particles somehow became complex living stuff, and the stuff imagined God. That is the creation doctrine of the university.

Man created God; the stuff imagined God. Primitive people who had evolved from animals did not have science to tell them that, and so they projected this father figure in the sky and credited it with being their creator. And the stuff imaged God, but then discovered evolution. I will say it again, "In the beginning were the particles and the particles somehow became complex living stuff, and the stuff imaged God, but then discovered evolution." And this is the greatest discovery of all time, you see. It is the discovery that God is and always was an illusion. And it is called the death of God in philosophy. Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, Charles Darwin supplied the murder weapon, and then everything that happened in the 20th century followed from this important discovery that God is the product of our own imagination.

Once you have learned these verses, I think you will never again be tempted to think that this is just some controversy that exists among scientists, that it is just a scientific theory, and that it just has to do with how you interpret those days of Genesis. Lots of people have made that mistake. They have said, "Well, if we just say the days are long periods of time we can make peace with science and religion. Evolution was God's way of creating, the lion lays down with the lamb, and we have no further problems." That is an illusion; that is a complete mistake. You see, the particle story is the opposite in every way to the Word story. If the particles created us, if the particles somehow became complex living stuff, then there is no such thing, for example, as sin. You cannot be out of a right relationship with the particles, because the laws do not care what you do. Your behavior is not their concern. They are not thinking about you because they are not thinking about anything. And if man created God, then what we need to know is that God is an illusion, and then we turn to a different priesthood to tell us how to live-the scientific priesthood.

So the particle story is what you could call a creation myth. It is a creation story. Every culture has a creation story, and every culture has a priesthood to interpret the story for them and give the people the information that they need. It is not just the people who are scientific leaders, but also their compatriots who write editorials for the New York Times telling us what to think. They are part of this new priesthood.

Now let's go on to the next verse, the fifth verse of the prologue to the gospel of John. "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." Now what is the light and what is the darkness? The most important thing about light is not that you can see it. You can see light. If you are lost in a dark cave and you see a light coming, that is awfully good news. You can see the light, and you can see a rescuer coming to get you out of that cave. But the most important thing about the light is not that you can see the light itself, but you can see everything else because of the light. The light illuminates everything else. If you get started in the right way in your thinking and you can see everything else, then you can understand everything; but if you are started in the wrong way, then you are shrouded in darkness.

The Gospel says that the light is the light of the Word. The light shines in the darkness, and so that is the starting point for all our knowledge. But that is not what they teach at the University of California, or even at many ostensibly Christian colleges. No, they are teaching that the particle story is the light. The Word story is the darkness of superstition, which is dispelled by the light of scientific knowledge that tells us our true creator is a mindless, purposeless evolutionary process that does not control us; we can control it. And that is the great promise of genetic engineering, and that is the great dream which comes out of the human genome-sequencing project. We, not you and me, but we, the people who control the science, can take under our control the very creative power of the universe, the process of evolution. Before this, evolution was an unguided, purposeless process. The particles are unthinking; they just become complex living stuff. But now the stuff that imagined God in the first place can become God because it can take under its control the very creative power of the universe, the process of evolution, and make better people, a new kind of people. Now that is a powerful dream of life, a powerful dream of scientific conquest.

What is the light and what is the darkness? As I sat in the congregation listening to that good Bible teaching, I wondered when they were going to get to explaining whether this is for real or not, or were we just pretending to believe this. The liberals in our church would know how to deal with this. They would say the Word story is religious truth, but not scientific truth. Well, what exactly is this religious truth? It is the opposite of scientific truth. As soon as you begin to hear something like that you know what is coming. The true truth is the scientific truth. The religious truth is the thing you pretend to believe on Sunday mornings, because it somehow makes you feel good, maybe it makes you better people, it works for you in some way. So it is true for you, but we would not teach it to young people as if it really happened. It is imaginary, and it follows from this that everything else in the doctrine is just imaginary. Jesus rose from the dead--oh, that is a pretty story. But, no, people do not get up from the grave after they are dead. This is an event that happened in the minds and imaginations of the disciples; they imagined Jesus coming back from the dead. And that is probably what is going to be taught in most mainline seminaries as well as secular universities.

Well, I could not leave it there. I wanted to know what the true truth was. I had the opportunity to begin exploring this subject during the academic year 1987-88 when my wife and I went to London, England, on a sabbatical. I told the university I was going to study insurance law, but somehow I never got around to it. It may have been a big mistake. I might have become rich enough to buy and sell the whole town if I had done that, but I was not fascinated with insurance law. I wanted insight into this question of how are we created. And the Lord arranged it, or you could say it was luck, if you want. As I went from my apartment to my office at University College in London every day, I went past London's leading scientific bookstore, and there in the window as if beckoning to me was book after book on the theory of evolution. As I picked up these books and started reading, I came to understand a lot of what I have just told you. This not simply a scientific theory we are talking about; it is a creation story. And as a creation story, it is the foundation of everything else.

For example, why is it thought to be unconstitutional to put up a copy of the Ten Commandments in a public school? It does not have anything to do with that document you can see in the National Archives Building called the Constitution of the United States. It does not have anything to do with the thinking of the framers of that document; that is not what they had in mind at all. The rule that it is unconstitutional to put up the Ten Commandments as if they were authoritative comes from modernist thinking; it comes from the particle story. If the particles somehow became complex living stuff, what becomes of God's commandments? Well, they are illusory, just as God Himself is, and so they have no authority. We are talking about the customs of an ancient Jewish tribe that has no authority over us and does not know as much as we do. They did not even know about evolution, so why should we listen to them? The Ten Commandments becomes obsolete, and we have to make up a morality for ourselves.

The time when the Darwinian creation story became the official policy of the cultural establishment in the United States was the 1950s, and by around 1960 this was all established. The reason why it became so established was that we had had two world wars. Science had won the wars with radar, sonar, code breaking, the atom bomb, etc. Science had become the pre-eminent weapon and the pre-eminent resource of society. In 1957, the Soviet Union did something that scared the scientific establishment and the government. They put up the first space satellite. There was a panic that the Soviets were going to surpass us in science and hence win the Cold War. The government went very enthusiastically into teaching the whole culture to think scientifically. That is when the government really started putting out textbooks and advising how they should be. The major part of their effort was that every schoolchild was to be taught the theory of evolution so they would think scientifically and look to science to solve our problems.

Darwin published his masterpiece, The Origin of Species, in 1859, and 1959 was the centennial year. There was a great scientific convention at the University of Chicago that year to announce the triumph of Darwinism triumph in the scientific world and triumph in the religious world as well. This was the new creation story. Since that time you can say that this has become the established religion of the country, established by the government with its priests paid out of your tax money.
 
Upvote 0
That is an interesting perspective Lanakila. I often wonder why some Christians are so eager to take take interpretations of science an scripture that place them at such odds with one another. I still don't understand why the position of many Christians (that God created, the Bible is true, and that the science of evolution fills in some of the detail of what process God used to create) is so unacceptable and distasteful to people like you. I may never understand that. Your reasoning appears to be that evolution is contrary to Christianity "because I say so".

npetreley, who posts on this board also, has his reasons too - and they are that there is a "plain meaning of the text" of the scriptures. Unless you get down to fairly fine details, there is nothing in the text of Genesis that is incompatible with evolution, then it DOES become (as you claim it doesn't) a matter of how the text is interpreted. Why insist on the one the interpretation that puts you at odds with science?
 
Upvote 0
By the way: Even though science may seem to conflict with your religion, and the fact that the same science has become universally accepted among the scientists and largely accepted among the educated public, these facts are not enough to turn science into a competing religion. It is the methodology that determines the nature of inquiry, not the conclusions.

The methodology of evolution is science. The conclusions are scientific ones about nature (not about the supernatural). They cannot rule out a supernatural event, nor can they explain one. To claim evolution is a religion because it reaches conclusions in areas where your religion also has reached conclusions - this is putting the cart before the horse - even if there is a "real" contradiction between scientific and religious conclusions.
 
Upvote 0
Sorry for any confusion over the personal pronoun (you) in my two posts. I didn't make sense until later of which of the statements in your posts were your owns, and which were Johnson's. I will leave my replies as they stand, because I assume you agree with Johnson on this.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by npetreley
http://www.uc.edu/info-services/bishop.htm

Gallup polls have consistently shown that approximately 45 percent of Americans believe that God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years (creationist); 40 percent believe man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation (theistic evolution); and ten percent believe man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and God had no part in this process (Darwinist evolution).

That's pretty impressive, given that you don't normally get 85% of people agreeing that they believe in God. :)

Note that "guided" this process is a bit of a biased term, and hard to interpret. Does that mean "intelligent design", or does it just mean that God, being very very clever, is able to set up a process that will have the desired results?
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Of course I don't agree. Condsidering many creationists show extremely limited understanding of genetics and evolution"

Hmm..so ya think 1 out of every 2 americans has no knowledge of evoution or genetics?

I would guess it's higher than that; at least some people who accept the theory of evolution don't understand it.

Haven't you seen the recent headlines?

49% of 8th graders, asked whether the moon was always closer to earth, sometimes closer to the sun, or always closer to the sun, said that the moon was always closer to the earth.

Thus, 51% of them *DID NOT KNOW*.

So... claiming that *only* 50% of our population is wrong on a matter of basic science is hardly frightening; evolutionary theory is a *LOT* harder than the difference between 240,000 miles and 93,000,000 miles.

I think that creationism implies a serious misunderstanding, or rejection, of basic science. The Onion article about people trying to repeal the second law of thermodynamics addressed this beautifully, with a protester holding up a sign saying "I reject fundemental tenets of science, and I vote".

I am far from a professional scientist, but I at least learned enough science and math to be able to understand the initial questions. I have not yet seen a single creationist argument rooted in any kind of science that made much sense.

There is exactly one remotely reasonable reason to believe young-earth Creationism: It's what a literal reading of Genesis gives you.

Any other reason is just dishonest.

I happen not to believe Genesis to be literal, because I have a much easier time believing that God speaks in allegory sometimes, and tells the hard literal truth sometimes, than I do believing that God speaks the hard literal truth in the Bible, and lies to us with every fragment of creation.
 
Upvote 0

Lanakila

Not responsible for the changes here.
Jun 12, 2002
8,454
222
60
Nestled in the Gorgeous Montana Mountains
Visit site
✟32,973.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Romans 1:19-22 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

This scripture clearly teaches that the creation proves God's existence. There is a great book on this topic called Eternity In their Hearts by Don Richardson.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Lanakila
Romans 1:19-22 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

This scripture clearly teaches that the creation proves God's existence. There is a great book on this topic called Eternity In their Hearts by Don Richardson.

Perhaps, but creation isn't the same as creationISM, or evolution-denial
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Perhaps, but creation isn't the same as creationISM, or evolution-denial

It all comes down to Adam.

Adam was created with free will. He had the ability to obey God in all things, but he chose to disobey. This led to his spiritual death and loss of free will and the fall, which was passed on to all of us. The end result is that we need Christ's redemption to get back into right relationship with God.

If we evolved, then there was no Adam with free will. God evolved us into what we are today, which is a people who lack the ability to obey God in all things. That makes it god's fault that we are disobedient. Christianity dissolves into the incompetence of god, not the responsibility of man.

Finally, it isn't just a matter of interpreting Genesis literally. There are many sections of the Bible that depend on a literal Adam to make sense. For example, Romans 5...

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley

If we evolved, then there was no Adam with free will. God evolved us into what we are today, which is a people who lack the ability to obey God in all things.

My, what sweeping conclusions your draw.. If you didn't notice, there's a rather large logical leap from "If we evolved" to "then tehre was no Adam with free will"
 
Upvote 0