More Christians than atheists accept evolution?

[Vance]

I did the numbers a while back, but I can't recall the original data and was hoping someone can help me with the numbers. IIRC, in absolute numbers, there seems to actually be more Christians who accept evolution than atheists (merely because the number of atheists is relatively small).

As a Christian who accepts evolution, I find this useful to combat the YEC presentation of evolution as an atheistic belief, not fit for Christian consumption.

Does anyone have the numbers to work out whether that statement is true in the U.S.? It was something like 75% of Americans are Christian, and around 25% of Christians accept evolution, and even though 100% of atheists accept evolution, since only a single digit percentage of Americans are atheists, than number is still actually smaller than the "Christian Evolutionists". Those numbers might be wrong, but I am pretty sure that it ends up being a correct statement.

 

[yasic]

Its:

80-85% are christians
10-15% are non-religious (atheist, agnostic, other)

45-50% Accept evolution (from total population)

Thus, even if 100% of non-religious accept evolution, then at the bare minimum 30% accept it who are non-non-religious.

So that's at a bare minimum 2 times more chrisitans accept evolution than non-religious folks.

 

[Vance]

Yes, that is it. Thanks, yasic.

Here is the way I like to present it to YECs: Imagine a huge room full of all the people in the US who accept evolution. Every single person in that room is an "evolutionist". Now, the majority of those folks, by a significant margin, are Christians.

 

[Washington]

The following only refers to citizens of the USA

"According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics. "
source
​

This suggests that 68% of Protestants and 69% of Catholics (in the USA) accept evolution; evolution being the only reasonable alternative to "living beings have always existed in their present form."

Catholic population USA: 23% 69,135,254;
source

Protestant population USA: 44% (2006) 132,000,000
source

Evangelical population in USA: 22% (2006) 66,000,000 (separated from the other protestants)
source
​

And, doing a bit of calculation, 30% (100%-70%), 1,126,2037 of evangelicals believe in evolution.

SO.......

From the figures given, in 2006 Christians accounted for 89% of the U. S. population

AND.......

The totals of those who apparently believe in evolution:

68% of the Protestants = 89,000,000
69% of the Catholics = 47,000,000
30% of evangelicals = 1,100,000
​

GRAND TOTAL of Christians who apparently believe in evolution. . . . 137,000,000

Or, 51% of the Christens in America (Catholics + Protestants + evangelicals) appear to believe in evolution.

A Harris poll in 2006 found that 4% of Americans said they were atheists. (14% said they were without a religion). 4% of 300 million = 12,000,000 atheists.


So, of the 149,000,000 people in the USA who believe in evolution, 92% of them are Christians

 

[Vance]

Washington, that is perfect, thanks! And given the extreme disparity in the numbers, even if someone wanted to argue about some of the numbers, they would have to concede that majority of evolutionists in America are Christians.

 

[yasic]

yes, while the numbers do shift... and shift by large amounts depending on who took your data, I have yet too see a single set of numbers that does not put the number of christian people accepting evolution far above the number of non-believers.

If you want to specifically compare to atheists, it gets as high as 35 to 1

 

[biggles53]

These numbers are interesting, in that they put the lie to yet another creationist canard - namely that evolution is an "atheistic" discipline - again, they can be shown to be 'lyin' for jeebus'.

However, I would guard against using this as evidence to support the theory, per se. The 'truth' of the theory stands on its own merits, and has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people who may happen to support it. Remember, Galileo was right in his observations of the sun and earth, but, for a long time, he was virtually the only one who believed it...

 

[yasic]

These numbers are interesting, in that they put the lie to yet another creationist canard - namely the evolution is an "atheistic" discipline - again, they can be shown to be 'lyin' for jeebus'.

However, I would guard against using this as evidence to support the theory, per se. The 'truth' of the theory stands on its own merits, and has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people who may happen to support it. Remember, Galileo was right in his observations of the sun and earth, but, for a long time, he was virtually the only one who believed it...

Well 0% of True Christians(tm) believe in evolution....

unless your talking to a liberal christian in which case 100% of them do

 

[Atheista]

Christians who accept evolution have obviously not read Genesis, which claimes that all plants were created on one day and all anamals on another. What up?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Christians who accept evolution have obviously not read Genesis, which claimes that all plants were created on one day and all anamals on another. What up?

Why do you share the same odd belief that the Bible was written as a scientific text book instead of a theological work as YEC creationists?

 

[Atheista]

Why do you share the same odd belief that the Bible was written as a scientific text book instead of a theological work as YEC creationists?

"Odd belief" ... LOL ... Don't get me started.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

"Odd belief" ... LOL ... Don't get me started.

You do not find your belief that the Bible is a science book odd?

Why is it not odd? If you wish me to reject the Bible because it is a bad science book then please tell my why I should first accept the idea that it was meant to be a science book.

 

[yasic]

You do not find your belief that the Bible is a science book odd?

Why is it not odd? If you wish me to reject the Bible because it is a bad science book then please tell my why I should first accept the idea that it was meant to be a science book.

Well I think that the fact that the genealogies take up such a large portion of the bible is evidence that they were supposed to be taken seriously.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Well I think that the fact that the genealogies take up such a large portion of the bible is evidence that they were supposed to be taken seriously.

So, I should also read Tolkien's works as science books? And Dragonlance too? I've read many fiction stories that have long lists of begats, should I also have been reading them as science books?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Tolkien's works, dragonlance, and, well, fiction stories are intended as fiction stories. I am not 100% positive that the same holds true for those books and writings of the bible that contain genealogies.

 

[Atheista]

You do not find your belief that the Bible is a science book odd?

Why is it not odd? If you wish me to reject the Bible because it is a bad science book then please tell my why I should first accept the idea that it was meant to be a science book.

It was maybe seen as science, if there was such a thing, 2000 years ago, when people actually used Biblical stories to explain much of the world. I agree that it doesn't hold up in that realm today.

I see where you are going with the NOMA thing, and I can respect that; although, I think it would be a struggle to reconcile.

Back to the topic of Christian evolutionists: It seems to me that, since science and society are constantly evolving, but the Bible is not, Christianity itself is evolving and becoming more secular than in the past. Think William Jennings Bryan.

 

[Vance]

As one with a degree in ancient history, we must always consider what an ANE writer would have intended. The simple fact is that when they are writing about past events, even past events they consider very real and literal historical events, they had almost NO desire to use a "literal historical narrative" style of TELLING about those events. There is a reason Herodotus, living hundreds, or even a thousand, years later is called the "Father of History". Before his time, ancient writers were simply not attempting to write "history" as we Moderns use the term.

It is simply a matter of style and literary genre preference. They were attempting to distill the essence of the "message" or true import of the event and tell about THAT in the most evocative and impactful manner.

Our modern minds have a hard time with this sometimes.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Tolkien's works, dragonlance, and, well, fiction stories are intended as fiction stories. I am not 100% positive that the same holds true for those books and writings of the bible that contain genealogies.

They fall under the modern definition of fiction. Remember, the OT of the Bible was written before the concepts of history/science/fiction were divided. There may be some real people in those genealogies, but they cannot be labeled as historic writings since none existed at the time. At best you could say that some of the writings in the Bible may or may not fit with historical facts, but all the writings fit with the theology of the writers/editors at the time of writing/editing.

I agree that the Bible is written by people trying to understand the world, God and themselves, but that does not make it a science book. It makes it a book more closely related to theology than anything else in modern terms.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

It was maybe seen as science, if there was such a thing, 2000 years ago, when people actually used Biblical stories to explain much of the world. I agree that it doesn't hold up in that realm today.

I see where you are going with the NOMA thing, and I can respect that; although, I think it would be a struggle to reconcile.

Back to the topic of Christian evolutionists: It seems to me that, since science and society are constantly evolving, but the Bible is not, Christianity itself is evolving and becoming more secular than in the past. Think William Jennings Bryan.

I agree that the Bible is no longer changing, I personally think that it was a mistake when it was culled and formulated into it's current form. From it's start it was intended to be an ongoing work with the best thinkers of each age adding to it. This can be seen in how the OT is laid out.

Christianity proposes an ongoing relationship with God and man, this cannot be static, it changes as man grows and learns. The stifling of the growth of the Bible has delayed Christianities growth, but it is growing still.

 

[speakout]

Vance You say You believe in Evolution and I am looking for proof, what piece of evidence bowled you over?

I write a Blog call Dawkinswatch and I have been looking at reasons Why Evolution is a Lie.