What would happen to the creation/evolution debate...

[Radagast]

Care to show the math?

What statistical package do you normally use? Just plug in these numbers (dates are rounded to the nearest year):

1982, 44
1993, 47
1998, 44
2000, 47
2001, 45
2005, 45
2006, 46
2007, 43
2008, 44
2011, 40
2012, 46
2014, 42
2017, 38
2019, 40

Just use the standard lm() command.

Also, the next gallup poll already happened earlier this year. The results were 40% creationists.

Thanks for that. That pushes the results into significance (p = 0.03), although 44 down to 40 over four decades is not exactly a massive decline.

 

[pitabread]

What statistical package do you normally use?

Does Excel count?

Thanks for that. That pushes the results into significance (p = 0.03), although 44 down to 40 over four decades is not exactly a massive decline.

Have you looked at the demographics though? IMHO, the demographics tell the real story as you can see that greater proportion of creationists are in older cohorts. Seeing a downward trend developing and then expecting that to continue is what the generational data shows.

(Also, I've always been bothered by the fact that the Gallup polls have that lone statistic from 1982 but then nothing until 1993. It's a bit of an outlier from a time perspective.)

edited to add:

There are other trends stacked against creationist beliefs as well, such as increasing educational attainment among younger generations. IMHO, this might partially explain why we're seeing a trend in younger generations rejecting creationism in greater numbers. Education appears to be the antithesis of creationist beliefs.

 

[Radagast]

Does Excel count?

Last I checked, Excel did linear regressions, but didn't calculate statistical significance (that may have changed).

Have you looked at the demographics though?

Yes. The interesting thing in the Pew Forum studies is a large increase in Creationist beliefs among Republicans.

Also, I've always been bothered by the fact that the Gallup polls have that lone statistic from 1982 but then nothing until 1993

Given that the 1982 number is identical to 1998, I don't think that's an issue.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Care to show the math? (The chart you posted was missing values, so I'm curious if you used every poll between now and 1982.)

Also, the next gallup poll already happened earlier this year. The results were 40% creationists. You can see the aggregate results year-over-year here: Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

I love the fact that in 2007 39% said humans were definitely created in their current form <10,000 years ago, but only 28% said humans definitely didn't evolve over millions of years from less advanced life forms. I guess it's possible some of them believe humans were created as we are now >10,000 years ago, but the discrepancy seems rather large for that explanation. Pretty poorly worded questions.

 

[Radagast]

Pretty poorly worded questions.

I didn't think so. I thought that they captured the three common options (theistic evolution, atheistic evolution, and Young Earth Creationism) fairly well.

There is of course a 4th option, not on the chart (don't know / won't say / other) which makes the numbers add up to 100%

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I didn't think so. I thought that they captured the three common options (theistic evolution, atheistic evolution, and Young Earth Creationism) fairly well.

Question 1: Humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms? True/False/Unsure (Nothing here about theistic/atheistic differences)
Question 2: Humans were created by God as we are now <10,000 years ago? True/False/Unsure

If you believe humans were created as we are now >10,000 years ago, that they evolved in a shorter period than millions of years, or that something other than God was responsible you must answer false to both. So they only capture 2 options (one of which covers 2 possible sub-options) and ignore all other possibilities. That's pretty poor.

 

[Radagast]

If you believe humans were created as we are now >10,000 years ago

Nobody does, much.

or that they evolved in a shorter period than millions of years

Nobody does, much.

In fact, "don't know / won't say / other" is down to 5%, which is pretty good.

And people like Gallup and Pew are actually pretty good at designing surveys. It's their day job, as people say. The Gallup question was:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- (human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, (or) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so)?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nobody does, much.



Nobody does, much.

In fact, "don't know / won't say / other" is down to 5%, which is pretty good.

And people like Gallup and Pew are actually pretty good at designing surveys. It's their day job, as people say.

In that case I go back to my earlier post. 39% say humans were created as-is but only 28% say we didn't evolve. Either the questions are poorly worded or a subset of US citizens are very confused. 11% is a significant difference.

 

[Radagast]

In that case I go back to my earlier post. 39% say humans were created as-is but only 28% say we didn't evolve. Either the questions are poorly worded or a subset of US citizens are very confused. 11% is a significant difference.

Are you perhaps talking about some totally different survey? If so, which one?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you perhaps talking about some totally different survey? If so, which one?

The one pitabread linked to:

 

[Radagast]

The one pitabread linked to:
View attachment 268311

Oh, OK, that survey has very poorly worded questions. The one I've been talking about, with 3 options, is much better worded.

Yes/No questions can flip people either way, depending on exact details of question wording, and on context. This humorous video explains it quite well, starting about 30 seconds in:

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh, OK, that survey has very poorly worded questions. The one I've been talking about, with 3 options, is much better worded.

The odd thing there is that 2013 Pew poll has creationism at just 33%.

This humorous video explains it quite well, starting about 30 seconds in:

I'm a huge fan of the Yes Minister/Prime Minister series

 

[Radagast]

The odd thing there is that 2013 Pew poll has creationism at just 33%.

Different surveys produce different results. That's not too much of a problem if you apply the same method over time (looking for trends), or if you apply the same method to two different groups (looking for differences), but comparing different surveys can be tricky.

That Pew survey actually asked about humans and other living things evolving (the chart label doesn't match the question). That forced people who believe that everything except people evolved (probably a sizeable group) to pick sides. The Gallup survey I posted asked only about humans evolving, so there's actually no inconsistency.

I'm a huge fan of the Yes Minister/Prime Minister series

Glad to hear it!

 

[driewerf]

I find this post insulting, insisting that creationists are against science and have little-to-no knowledge of a single field of study.

Let's see, over the years I have read and listened to material of son and father Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Venomfang X, Conservapedia and many others. I have seen positions denying or in flagrant contradiction with

• cosmology: the age of the Universe
• cosmogeny, the origin of the universe
• the General theory of relativity, including the denial of c as a constant
• astrophysics, including the denial of star formation
• nuclear physics, including the nuclear decay rates
• nuclear physics again, including the impossibility of nuclear fusion
• climatology, including the Milankovitch cycles and the denial of multiple glaciations
• climatology again, I have seen many creationists claim the "the Flood" caused an ice Age
• climatology again, including the phenomenon of desertification
• orogeny, I have seen many creationists claim that all mountains formed during the Flood
• geology, including the bastardisation of all patterns of erosion
• thermodynamics, especially the SLoT
• classical mechanics, including the mechanism behind tides
• anthropology, with the claim that Lucy's knee cap was found miles away from the rest of the skeleton
• anthropology again, with the claim that the paluxy trails include footprints of humans and dinosaurs
• anthroplogy again, with the claim that all humans fossils don't even fill a single coffin
• paleontology, with the claim that a fossil can't be any ancestor of extant species because you can't know whether it reproduced or not
• demographics (and archaeology); the population growth after "the Flood" defies everything that all historians, archaeologists and demographers have ever written

So yes, creationists are basically anti science. If we include their denial of vaccination and climate change (not related to a Creation per se), then the picture is even worse.

There are Christian biologist, I hate to break that to you. There are Christian archaeologists too. We are discredited because we disagree with the modern-day majority view, and so whatever we say isn't considered "real" science, so we aren't heard loud enough and the work we do isn't appreciated by any.

Creationists, not christians. There are plenty of highly educated, scientifically literate christians. It's a very misleading thing to conflate creationists with christians.

The very few scientific literate creationists (like Jason Lisle) are actually the worst, they can't invoke ignorance as an excuse, but are plainly liars.

Your idea that all creationist should take certain classes, leaning toward another bias, should clear up our "misunderstandings" and turn us against what we believe. How about studying from our end? Read up on the best our leading men in the field of biology. Let's see who really has the closed mind.

been there, done that. It only was worse than expected.

 

[muichimotsu]

I never said I am.

However, the bible is sufficient to represent the Christian view quite clearly without my "voice."

Except any text necessarily speaks only with interpretation, not unto itself.

 

[muichimotsu]

How does Jesus quote the Old Testament? As historical, unless you can prove it wrong?

Historical in that it was part of a historical tradition, not as a literal event. And of course a rabbi from 2000+ years ago wouldn't be looking at it necessarily in a figurative sense, but you can't claim unquestioningly that all Judaism interpreted Genesis the same way

 

[muichimotsu]

It is interesting how there are people who clearly show their lack of biblical knowledge, yet pride themselves as experts against the Christian faith. Jesus was not the only one who quoted Genesis as historical, literal, typological and authoritative. You have the histories, the prophets, the gospel accounts, the epistles to support that this had always been accepted as the way to read it. I am not going to quote every single place, that is up for you all to do on your own time.

Cherry pick to your heart's content, ignoring any contrary evidence is your confirmation bias that betrays any "expertise" you supposed have

 

[Ophiolite]

You don't need a PhD to understand Genesis, since it was originally written to an audience that likely had an education less than that of an 8th grader. You must consider the historical context of the inspired work, it wasn't solely written for the Information Era that we currently live in today. It was written in the common speech and understanding of those who lived 3,500 years ago. It says the world was created in six days, they would not have understood it in any other way. It says Adam was formed from the dust of the earth, they had no concept of human evolution to connect this with. You are reading the text through your modern lens, that's the problem.

I presume that English is your first language. You are certainly fluent in it. Yet you seem unaware that, like English, Hebrew was rich in metaphor. (I'm not a professional linguist, but I suspect there are very few languages in which metaphor does not play a central role.) Moreover, metaphor is an especially potent tool when seeking to convey an important message with clarity. Despite this you still maintain that the Genesis account is literal.

Lord Nelson famously ignored a signal from his commander, by viewing it via his blind eye, and thereby won the Battle of Copenhagen. (Good news for the British; for the Danes, not so much.) You appear to have extreme myopia in both eyes.

 

[dad]

... if everyone was required to pass an introductory Biology (university-level Biology 101) course first?

My prediction: the debate mostly disappear for two reasons.

1) I suspect a lot of creationists wouldn't have the inclination to pass such a course. Most creationists in my experience little genuine interest in science.

2) Those who did pass would likely have a lot of misconceptions about basic biology and evolution cleared up in the first place. Given there is a correlation between understanding of evolution and acceptance, I suspect increased understanding would lead to a decrease in the numbers of creationists.

What would happen if beliefs labeled biology were recognized for what they were? TOE has nothing to do with biology for the most part. Biology is about how bodies work now. Evolution is about using how bodies work to imagine ways that these processes are responsible for life itself.

 

[pitabread]

TOE has nothing to do with biology for the most part.

And you're completely wrong about that.