How many Christians accept evolution, and how many reject it?

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

Hmmm....funny how my prediction that everyone would pounce with ad-hominems in the "Creation evidence" thread was fulfilled quickly and repeatedly. But I still haven't seen anyone say anything about not being a *REAL* Christian.

Really? Maybe you should go back and read these various threads more carefully; we've had a number of people say that. Last one I can remember the user name of for sure was BigJon, but there've been others.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs


Really? Maybe you should go back and read these various threads more carefully; we've had a number of people say that. Last one I can remember the user name of for sure was BigJon, but there've been others.

Oh, I get it!! You're taking the evolutionary scientific view.

The fact that similar posts existed in OTHER threads means you can imagine that similar posts will exist in THIS thread. I was assuming that much.

What I didn't realize was that you considered your imagination that these posts would show up in THIS thread constitutes indirect evidence of the posts that appear in THIS thread. And since we can deduce electrons from indirect evidence, then your indirect evidence of posts that will appear in THIS thread is as good as proving that the posts have ALREADY appeared in THIS thread. Therefore you've proven that these posts claiming that people aren't *REAL* Christians in THIS thread are as good as a fact.

I guess the fact that I finally understand this kind of reasoning proves I'm a *REAL* evolutionary scientist now.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Hey Plan9, you're not a True Christian. There.

Incidentally that laughter in the vicinity of petreley's posts is laughter at him, not with him.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The fact that similar posts existed in OTHER threads means you can imagine that similar posts will exist in THIS thread. I was assuming that much.

Hey Nick, I don't remember seebs specifying which thread Plan 9 could expect to be vilified as not a *true* Christian in, or even that it would be on the public forum and not a PM...

 

[Jerry Smith]

quote:
Originally posted by npetreley

Hmmm....funny how my prediction that everyone would pounce with ad-hominems in the "Creation evidence" thread was fulfilled quickly and repeatedly. But I still haven't seen anyone say anything about not being a *REAL* Christian.

Hey, lookee what I found addressed to seebs in another thread, posted earlier today:

You just don't read your Bible, so you didn't get mine. You ought to pick it up once in a while between Darwin worship sessions.

 

[seebs]

I tried to think of a response to that, and eventually concluded that it's impossible. The allegation that I "worship" Darwin is sufficiently false and offensive that there was nothing to do but click the little "report" button.

I know what worship is, and I know what science is, and, unlike some people, I don't confuse them easily. I don't worship science; I accept it as a likely path for understanding things like "why did I throw off a cold so much more easily when I was taking multivitamins every day, as recommended by my doctor".

Worship, I reserve for God, who answers questions like "why should I care whether people are happy", and answers them quite well.

 

[Morat]

  I think Nick has long since realized that he's simply incapable of discussing the subjects that come up here. His education is entirely in the wrong fields, and what little he knows has been found to be utterly suspect.

    Instead of educating himself in the relevant fields, or removing himself from a debate he is unqualified for, or even plainly stating his beliefs are solely faith-based, he feels it is necessary to insult and mock those trying to have such conversations.

    It's all he can really do, if he wants to participate. Perish the thought that he should actually learn about the subjects at hand. I consider him worthy of pity.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by James D.
Hey, just wondering. Could anyone lead me to some kind of survey figures or something else to verify these proportions?

Barna Research Group is a good place to get statistics relating to Christians. I haven't found any statistics there relating to evolution or science in general.

 

[Annabel Lee]

The Catholic Position..From Catholic Answers


Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

 

[James D.]

Originally posted by SimpleChristian
James...back to your original question. Let me break down for you the only real difference between 'creationist' and 'evolutionary scientist'.

The creationist is, usually, a Christian who believes what God has revealed about the world in his Word, the Bible. They have faith in that.

My question was about the numbers of Christians that accept as opposed to reject evolution. It wasn't about "creationists' vs 'evolutionary scientists.'

BTW Creationism and evolution aren't mutually exclusive.

Both creationism and evolution are faith-based systems of beliefs on the topic of how we all got here. However, only creationism can answer the more important question: why are we here......

I think you'll find you're mistaken here. Scientists base their conclusions on evidence. Whether their conclusions are right or not doesn't matter, it's not a matter of faith.

 

[James D.]

Originally posted by TScott
As to the question posed on this thread, I'm not able to find any polling data from Gallup based on the religion of the respondents, However in 1991 they did a poll of Americans in which 47% of the respondents said that they believed God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. 40% said they believed man evolved over millions of years, but that God guided the whole process, including man's creation. 9% said they believed man has evolved without the help of God. In 1997 the results to the same questions were 44%, 39%, and 10%, respectively. It should also be noted that in the '97 poll people with science degrees (engineering included), polled 5%, 40% and 55% respectively to the same questions.



Compare this to a poll conducted in Britain among Anglican bishops, Catholic priests and Protestant ministers of which 97% did not believe the world was created in 6 days, and 80% did not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. (On edit: Source for this poll is the December 1999 issue of Religion Today.)

There have been polls on websites, but of course these type of polls do not offer reliable trending data.

Thanks for that.

 

[RufusAtticus]

I find it interseting how creationists have stopped claiming that creation is a science explaination akin to evolution and now are insisting that evolution is a religion or a religious belief akin to creation. It sounds a lot like desparation to me.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

They've been playing the religion card for some time. This is from the dissenting opinion in Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987. Follow the logic carefully, if you can keep from laughing out loud:

Senator Keith and his witnesses testified essentially as set forth in the following numbered paragraphs:

(1) There are two and only two scientific explanations for the beginning of life -- evolution and creation science. Both posit a theory of the origin of life and subject that theory to empirical testing. Evolution posits that life arose out of inanimate chemical compounds and has gradually evolved over millions of years. Creation science posits that all life forms now on earth appeared suddenly and relatively recently and have changed little. Since there are only two possible explanations of the origin of life, any evidence that tends to disprove the theory of evolution necessarily tends to prove the theory of creation science, and vice versa. For example, the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of complex life, and the extreme rarity of transitional life forms in that record, are evidence for creation science.

(2) The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger. The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific "fact," since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or "guess." It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a "myth."

(3) Creation science is educationally valuable. Students exposed to it better understand the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life. Those students even have a better understanding of evolution. Creation science can and should be presented to children without any religious content.

(4) Although creation science is educationally valuable and strictly scientific, it is now being censored from or misrepresented in the public schools. Evolution, in turn, is misrepresented as an absolute truth. Teachers have been brainwashed by an entrenched scientific establishment composed almost exclusively of scientists to whom evolution is like a "religion." These scientists discriminate against creation scientists so as to prevent evolution's weaknesses from being exposed.

(5) The censorship of creation science has at least two harmful effects. First, it deprives students of knowledge of one of the two scientific explanations for the origin of life and leads them to believe that evolution is proven fact; thus, their education suffers and they are wrongly taught that science has proved their religious beliefs false. Second, it violates the Establishment Clause. The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion. Thus, by censoring creation science and instructing students that evolution is fact, public school teachers are now advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

So you see it's actually evolution that is a religion and creationism is science. Welcome to the Bizarro Universe.

 

[Athlon4all]

I dunno, but I believe that a main symptom of a christain accepting evolution is rejecting the authority of god's word and that leads to other problems.

 

[chickenman]

the main symtpon of a christian accepting evolution is rejecting the authority of men, and seeing for himself the patterns in god's creation

 

[eldermike]

Athlon4all,IMHO, you are correct.

I was reading this thread and wondering, on what page of my bible does the truth start.

Since everyone is being so nice here I thought about not saying this......then I thought again....
God's word says the earth and everything in it was made in 6 days,,man says no, it was much longer. This is where the rubber meets the road. Which is correct?

Blessings

 

[James D.]

Originally posted by eldermike
Athlon4all,IMHO, you are correct.

I was reading this thread and wondering, on what page of my bible does the truth start.

Since everyone is being so nice here I thought about not saying this......then I thought again....
God's word says the earth and everything in it was made in 6 days,,man says no, it was much longer. This is where the rubber meets the road. Which is correct?

Blessings

Maybe the 6 days are metaphorical.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by eldermike
Athlon4all,IMHO, you are correct.

I was reading this thread and wondering, on what page of my bible does the truth start.

Since everyone is being so nice here I thought about not saying this......then I thought again....
God's word says the earth and everything in it was made in 6 days,,man says no, it was much longer. This is where the rubber meets the road. Which is correct?

I dunno.

God's word apparently says the earth is a circle, not a sphere, and says that it has corners, and says that diseases are caused by evil spirits which are cured by prayer, not by, say, bacteria which are cured by antibiotics and vitamins.

God's word, apparently, says that the earth is fixed in place, and the sun moves around it.

We are left with a couple of options:

1. Things we can trivially observe, test, and demonstrate are simply false.

2. God lies.

3. The Bible includes some messages which are either metaphorical or just plain written down to the technological level of the original readers.

1 is a problem, because it contradicts our direct and verifiable experience.

2 is a problem, because if God lies, the whole thing is pointless.

3 is totally consistent with everything we know, and allows us to have our senses *AND* God.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Funny how many of man's interpretations of what the Bible means get to be called "God's Word". The six literal 24 hour days of creation as scientific fact, and not as allegory or metaphor are God's Word, not man's interpretation, even though "six literal 24 hour days of creation as scientific fact and not as allegory or metaphor" never appears in the Bible.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Originally posted by chickenman
the main symtpon of a christian accepting evolution is rejecting the authority of men, and seeing for himself the patterns in god's creation

Well stated.
Can I use that, Chickenman?