Good news: More Americans believe in the devil than in evolution
posted at 2:00 pm on December 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via the new Harris Poll, a long-distance dedication to my pal CJ, the creationist-slayer. Key data points are in yellow. I’m not sure how to explain Catholics’ greater credulity on matters as diverse as evolution, ghosts, and UFOs, but your theories are welcome. As for the top line, we already have theistic atheists. Why shouldn’t we have atheistic theists, too?
One other intriguing data point at the link: More Americans believe the Old Testament is the word of God (55 percent) than the New Testament (54 percent). Presumably the former attracted Jewish votes that the latter didn’t, but that margin should have been more than offset by a subset of Christians — like, say, George Bush — who don’t regard the OT as literally true but surely take the gospels at face value. Here’s David Brody of CBN picking up on that on CNN yesterday. Exit quotation: “Well, hello! It’s the Holy Bible!”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 16 Next »
evolution is the devil!
lorien1973 on December 12, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Well, evolution is a rational scientific theory.
The devil is an irrational religious construct built on fear, faith and dogma. Much like God.
All good to me.
Ares on December 12, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Ignorance of science is nothing to be happy about, period.
starfleet_dude on December 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM
My exit question- If 70% of Americans believe “Jesus is the Son of God,” doesn’t that mean we are (at least culturally) a Christian nation after all?
cs89 on December 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM
The devil made you post this, Allah.
BKennedy on December 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Un-oh Allah, you just said you are friends with Charles Johnson, the creationist-slayer. You might have hurt some peoples feelings here at HA.
Lance Murdock on December 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM
This is good news ??? Only morons believe in a “devil” and only absolute morons don’t believe in evolution.
LODGE4 on December 12, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Always was. A Christian nation with a secular government.
aengus on December 12, 2008 at 2:07 PM
FOOD FIGHT!
Slublog on December 12, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Mine for site traffic much?
TexasDan on December 12, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Try and destroy God at your own peril.
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Invite him on over. I’d like to meet him.
apacalyps on December 12, 2008 at 2:12 PM
That’s Bush’s mistake… not taking the Bible Literally…
CynicalOptimist on December 12, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Bill O’Rilley is the devil and I watch him every night.
/snicker
Kini on December 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM
No longer believe in the Devil. I’ve been wanting to strike a deal for years but he never shows up. His customer service is worse than GM.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Every one a coconut
LimeyGeek on December 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Why didn’t they ask about Global Warming in that poll?
MB4 on December 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Ummm…can i believe in both?
oggy on December 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Hey, you can defend your religion without calling people names.
Vashta.Nerada on December 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM
It considers what you mean by believe. I don’t have any big beefs with evolution, but it’s more of a narrative linking together points of data than an actual science (you know, something you can build stuff with).
I’m an engineer. Everything is crap to me until put the test in actual working conditions.
frankj on December 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM
That top line is funny. Belief in God not 100% among weekly church-goers? Is that within the margin of error?
TexasDan on December 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Yeah but “believe” is such a bad term for evolution. I think evolution is science’s current best guess, but I don’t think it’ll last forever. It does seem to contain holes, and the probabilities involved are kind of … extreme. So I mean, I guess I would answer that I don’t “believe” in evolution – but I don’t think that science should stop investigating, I just think that this theory would be under a lot more scrutiny if it wasn’t for Creationists.
I don’t know how common that is, but that’s got to account for a few percentage points at least.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM
But more people believe in evolution than Witches…
And witches are “real”. (in the non-storybook sense)
Skywise on December 12, 2008 at 2:15 PM
When God created you, Allah, he knew you were going to post this. (I know).
Jaibones on December 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Probably some people only go for the sake of their parents.
aengus on December 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM
That too. It’s easy to test evolution on the micro- level, with bacteria and stuff. But lets face it, bacteria changing a couple genes is a helluva leap away from a dinosaur turning into a bird.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM
I contend that both creationists and evolution proponents are ignorant of what’s a science and what’s a belief system. If you haven’t done any real world test on it and you believe it, then it’s just a matter of faith.
frankj on December 12, 2008 at 2:17 PM
I know where you’re coming from but…technically isn’t what you’ve described a “belief”? (Is there really that much difference between saying “I think” and “I believe”)
Skywise on December 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
The anti-theists in the thread obviously have no way of detecting sarcasm.
Lehosh on December 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Uh oh …
doufree on December 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Your opinion.
“Believing” in evolution is silly. Theorizing it’s true or not-that’s what science people do.
Theology- different ball game.
Science-not here to prove or disprove theologic ideas.
Science & Theology- can exist together without threatening one another.
Why it doesn’t happen-people with bias who can’t separate religion and science.
So you can have faith in God, know the Devil exists, and still consider evolution a viable scientific theory.
Badger40 on December 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Good job AP!
Another 1,500 post religion thread for our Friday night entertainment.
I wonder how the 62% of weekly church-goers who don’t believe in ghosts reconcile that against their belief in the Holy Ghost?
BacaDog on December 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I believe in whatever my wife wants me to believe in. I mean, it saves a fight, right?
In all seriousness, Catholic religious scholars already call the Creation a contextual read (meaning that the spontaneous generation of the earth may be used as more allegory than God’s Honest Truth). They take a harder stance once you get to more historical records, such as anything in Exodus.
Nethicus on December 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Ignorance within science is no laughing matter, either. Read ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ when you get a chance.
Vashta.Nerada on December 12, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Have you been to West Virginia lately?
BacaDog on December 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM
OH YEAH!! Well only morons don’t believe in the devil and only absolute morons believe in evolution.
Sounds like the beginning of playground verbal fisticuffs. We could go on like this all day and accomplish absolutely nothing.
sdd on December 12, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Riiight. Darwin’s little biogical-shuffling theory is fun and all, but it’s absolutely, dogmatically accepted, with or without the evidence (somewhat like Bono, y’all still haven’t found the evidence you’re looking for). At least Christians argue over the Devil and Hell (I’m of the old-school, “Hell is capitalized for the same reason Chicago is capitalized” persuasion).
emailnuevo on December 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Well played, sir.
Evolution has this teeny, tiny problem – it does not, cannot, and never has explained a single aspect of the creation of life.
Happily, for that we have God.
And also, we have the Atheist Challenge: Stand up right where you are, and look around. Take it all in. Now, imagine that everything that you see and feel, and the very fact that you can see and feel, is the result of a freak accident of chemistry.
And if you can buy that, then ask yourself how “chemistry” came to exist.
Jaibones on December 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM
No, that is a Byrd turning into a dinosaur.
Vashta.Nerada on December 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM
LOL!
Jaibones on December 12, 2008 at 2:22 PM
You say Christian, I say gullible. Same difference.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Now I don’t care what anyone says…that’s funny!
sdd on December 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
emailnuevo on December 12, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Heh… It’s like saying Windows Vista evolved from the “game of life” algorithm…
Skywise on December 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
CJ is on a crationist jihad, his posts usually have commenters asking why he beats this like a dead horse and he always falls back on that he only posts a few. But then you go to his front page and one out of 4 posts is about creationism, the other 3 are about HTML coding and song of the deay and goofy pictures. I used to usually go there but its just gotten ridiculous.
broker1 on December 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Why do people have a problem with Bush’s answer about the bible being taken “literally”? Do I really have to explain this?
See, when someone asks you if the bible is to be taken literally it is a trick question if they know what the bible says and it is an ignorant question that idiots repeat because they’ve heard it asked by someone else.
The fact is, there are WELL OVER 200 SPECIFIC FIGURES OF SPEECH used in the bible. E.W. Bullinger’s book Figures Of Speech Used In The Bible is a great resource on understanding the many figures of speech used and why they are used (Bullinger was an expert in Old Testament languages).
So, here is Bush being asked the question of whether or not he takes the bible literally. He could take 5 minutes to give a detailed response or he can just say no and let everyone know that the bible uses figures of speech where it is not read as woodenly literal.
If Bush were asked “Is the meaning/message in the bible literal?” then the obvious answer is yes. Otherwise, he wouldn’t believe and affirm the literal message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ that is literally expressed in the bible.
TheMightyQuinn on December 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Add 1 proton to carbon and suddenly any chains longer than 3 in length are dangerously explosive. Silicon chains can’t be grown past 70 units. Carbon and hydrogen are freaks, man.
Nethicus on December 12, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I discovered that site when CJ was whining that a bunch of ex-lizards named him the biggest a$$hat on the internet. Now both sides have their reasons, but trying to dissect that fight is a waste of time.
My opinion on that site is that it was created by a lefty troll. It’s a interesting read, but it’s quite obvious where his basis’ lie, since he kinder to trolls banned on the left rather than the right.
The most interesting thing on that website were the details of the Discarded Lies people. I always wanted know why they banned. Now I know.
Lance Murdock on December 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Nuance? I don’t see how. Evolution has always been an idea generated almost solely from intellectual-secular thought. With obvious attempts to prove these philosopical ideas through science.
But contrary to popular culture, the majority of people still believe more in God (with resultant beliefs in Satan) than they believe in Science (leading to acceptance of evolutionary theories.)
Lawrence on December 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM
P.S. Yeah, C.S. Lewis was on the same wavelength, I think; I’m pretty sure he considered the Genesis thing a folk tale whose meaning is far more important than the concerns over whether it was an apple or a pear, or whatever.
Francis Schaeffer, on the other hand, considered it literal. So we Protestants are somewhat divided.
As for the Catholics being more “reasonable,” I know it’s an absolutely baseless charge (and I think the Church was right in its actions), but I still want to shout “GALILEO!” In all seriousness, I’m pretty sure Luther established that the Church was too worldly, oh, about five hundred years ago.
emailnuevo on December 12, 2008 at 2:24 PM
All you have to do is look at the facts behind all the evil acts going on in the world. But you are blinded by your own desire to “be god”. Just as Satan likes it.
Why do you think most rampaging murders commit suicide at the end? That’s Satan’s ultimate victory over them.
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Marriage…and its the only place to get alcohol on Sundays in some areas.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM
@sshole.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM
How utterly unreasonable of you! :)
Of course, I was only speaking of experience about Catholic theological scholars while eating my cheezeburger. If there was an edit button, I’d go put that in.
Nethicus on December 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I really don’t get why the highlighted portions are supposed to be significant. There is a far larger number of people who still call themselves Catholic only because they were raised that way. They will skew any poll as evidenced in any election.
The poll itself is worthless because it does not define the terms it uses. For instance “Darwin’s theory of evolution”. Does that mean Darwin’s theory or evolution in general. They are 2 different things. The same with “Creationism”. Does it mean as a science or that everything was created, again two different things. People make these distinctions, they aren’t all dopes or accept the MSM or popular definitions.
If you don’t define the terms strictly when it comes to religion then it’s pointless asking the question.
Rocks on December 12, 2008 at 2:26 PM
True enough. It takes a lot more time apparently. But there are dinosaur-birds and bird-dinosaurs in the rocks.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I can devise a poll that states 99% of the solar system believes AP is the missing link, but who cares?
Polls these days have scant resemblance to truth.
ex-Democrat on December 12, 2008 at 2:27 PM
and that DNA between your ears is all just an accident.
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I wouldn’t put much stock in a survey where one-quarter of supposed Catholics do not accept basic tenets of the Faith. Not surprisingly, one-quarter of this same group believed in reincarnation.
As for the evolution responses, if the choice was “believe in” or “do not believe in,” with no tracking of “I don’t know” then the respondents may simply have not wanted to say they believe in something they don’t understand or feel sufficiently versed in to comment (the abysmal state of science secondary education in this country probably accounts for that). For example, I could not at this moment state one way or the other whether I believe in the Big Bang Theory, but that does not mean that I reject it, either. I simply do not have enough of an understanding of astrophysics to feel certain either way.
Y-not on December 12, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I was sort of stunned a few years ago when I realized just how many people denied evolution. I thought it was only a few scattered areas that had really horrible schools or something.
WisCon on December 12, 2008 at 2:28 PM
By the way, ALLAHPUNDIT, all of the observable evidence that you see around you and in the world shows the creation DEVOLVING and DYING OUT.
There is no upward progressive evolution. Its all devolution. Its called ENTROPY. The entire universe is winding down and will come to an end. The Earth and humanity are not meant to exist forever in its current state.
For example, Africans or blacks that have broken red blood cells are not somehow “more evolved” as the evolutionists claim. Its not upward or progressive at all.
TheMightyQuinn on December 12, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Also, I feel I should point out most of the worry over who believe what is pretty pointless. The average man can believe the sun goes around the earth or even that the earth his flat and it has pretty much no effect on his life. If you don’t actually work in a science field whether you have a belief system based on current scientific thought is pretty irrelevant.
frankj on December 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
This is one of the dumber statements I’ve seen in the Hot Air comments. Ever.
t.ferg on December 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
They (we) all came from rocks according to Macro-evolution. Sheesh. That’s believable.
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
It doesn’t have this ‘problem’ at all – it was never intended as a theory of lifes origin. It only hypothesizes how life can change over time. That’s it.
God might exist. God may have created everything. God may have designed life with an inherent capacity for evolution.
LimeyGeek on December 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM
I didn’t really phrase it well. I meant that science should be based on fact. Not the different between “I think” and “I believe” but the difference between “I know” and “I believe.”
To FrankJ’s point, I don’t think you have to do the experiment yourself, but trying to claim that “evolution” is “proven” (like I’ve seen NatGeo do before) is a dangerous path to take, as it lowers the bar of scientific thought. I don’t think evolution is complete as a theory, and so I don’t think it’s right at the moment.
But I mean, the same could be said of relativity and quantum mechanics, right? XD
I think of Evolution as the quantum mechanics of biology. It works great on a tiny scale … but you start pushing the scale up, and you start running into Schroedinger cats.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:30 PM
The problem is, how does feathers without flight provide evolutionary advantage? And you can’t fly without feathers.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Agreed. Just as dismissing the possibility of Intelligent Design out of hand reduces the bar of intellectual scientific thought.
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Evolution and especially survival of the fittest is absolutely contradicted by the life cycle of the Emperor Penguin. It travels months without eating to the totally inhospitable Antarctic to lay one fragile egg per year.
.
Additionally, evolution contradicts probability theory. That’s why they keep on adding on a few more billion years to the age of the earth to allow time for the events.
.
Evolution is totally illogical and unscientific.
FactsofLife on December 12, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Just because someone doesn’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t mean they don’t believe in the general concept of evolution.
There should have been an additional question to note the difference.
BadgerHawk on December 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM
No, I think it is a matter of people not wanting to accept that particular religion.
Vashta.Nerada on December 12, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Yeah I know the owner is a lefty guy but I like his droll sense of humour. The pedantry he put into creating his blog is kind of teh awesome. Almost all the other anti-lgf blogs are pretty lame humour-wise.
aengus on December 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Oh, that “reasonable” part was in reference to the stats in general. (P.S. Did anyone else drop their jaw that the guys who invented Mariology and the phrase “Blessed Virgin” don’t believe in the Virgin Birth?) I disagree with the Catholics on the reading, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable/irrational – everyone understands the figurative nature of the Psalms, and the whole concept of the Parables, so there’s obviously literal and symbolic truth in the Bible.
And, of course, I had to get a dig in about the Reformation; after all, I could do no other.
emailnuevo on December 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Please allow me to introduce myself.
I’m a man of wealth and taste.
Pleased to meet you.
Hope you guess my name.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM
This could be more interesting than the concert I’m going to tonight.
It’ll certainly last longer.
SouthernDem on December 12, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I want a theory that explains the origin of God.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM
And they must also have short memories, since AP’s an atheist.
Of course you do, because it’s still PC to rip on Christians.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I never could understand this debate over evolution vs creationism. My philosophy and belief is since God is all powerful when he created the world and the heavens he also created the laws of nature that govern the heavens and the earth, therefore if evolution was one of the laws of nature God created it would makes sense that he would follow his own laws of nature to bring about mankind on earth.
I realize te bible says God created the heavens and the earth and rested on the 7th day, but who is to say that 6 or 7 days in heaven is the same as 6 or 7 days on earth? What if a day in heaven is equal to 500,000 years on earth?
When looked at in this perspective I see no conflict between the belief in creationism and the belief in evolution, they are not mutually exclusive IMHO.
Liberty or Death on December 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM
Macro Evolution theory(self-Creation) violates the most basic laws of Logic, Reason and Science. The Law of non-contradiction.
jp on December 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM
How did God come to exist?
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM
It’s called FAITH. Which is the same thing you do when you believe in MACRO-Evolution.
kirkill on December 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM
47% of total believe in evolution, but only
40% believe in creationism.
In addition, I’m sure there are some who believe in both, so at least 13%, and possibly quite a bit more, believe in neither evolution OR creationism.
Heh.
peski on December 12, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Infinity
jp on December 12, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Great! Now if we could just get most of those folks to believe God, and not just believe in Him, we’d accomplish something really great, for the Scripture says “faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17). There are literally millions who name the name of Christ, but because the Law (ie, Ten Commandments) has never been used to bring the knowledge of sin, they don’t see their sin in it’s true light… that their sin is “exceedingly sinful” (Romans 7:13). Many therefore never find a place of biblical repentance.
apacalyps on December 12, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Maybe so, but I only considered the term “gullible” PC compared to a few other adjectives that could be used.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Man looks around and sees sheep. Man wants to be a shepherd. Man invents “God”.
LevStrauss on December 12, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I’ll give you that. The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon is funny in weird annoying way.
BTW I didn’t know Allah actually deleted comments, but he banished your first comment on this thread.
Lance Murdock on December 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM
I have no faith in these sort of polls.
;)
44Magnum on December 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM
First there was nothing. Then there was something. What was there in-between?
Christians say “God”.
Atheists say “a big bang”.
If they’re gullible, so are you.
MadisonConservative on December 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Yet the rocks remain. Is it any less incredible that a God came out of non-existence to create existence? Think back one or two steps. It’s weird and incredible no matter which side you take.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM
There are more than two options. That’s the problem with this poll.
At a minimum there’s
Darwinian evolution (blind chance, nothing more)
Guided evolution
Creationism.
MarkTheGreat on December 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM
a large number of them voted for Obama and Biden, the most pro-abortion ticket in history.
they are actually Catholics/Christians in name only, as are many protestants thanks to our Humanistic culture.
jp on December 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM
DarkCurrent said:
Are you referring to Archaeopteryx??
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions07.html
It turns out that it was a true bird and not some sort of “transitional” animal.
Also, a good debate is going on here between Bob Enyart and a kool-aid drinking evolutionist.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53199
TheMightyQuinn on December 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM
No! DAMMIT. That is not what I said! Intelligent Design is a scientific dead end. Scientists cannot, and should not, try to use God (or aliens, or flying spaghetti monsters) as the reason to explain life. It doesn’t work. It’s not science.
I am a Christian. I believe God created Adam and Eve. But scientists can’t base their investigations off the Bible.
Come on, isn’t there any middle ground for you people? ID is Creationism, which is NOT science. That doesn’t make evolution a 100% absolutely correct theory. But just because evolution isn’t 100% absolutely correct doesn’t mean, oh well, scientists just have to give up and admit it’s just God. It means they have to find a better theory! But they can’t any more, because admitting evolution is wrong is, SOMEHOW, a de facto admission that creationism is right!
It’s annoying.
apollyonbob on December 12, 2008 at 2:43 PM
God is God. The answer “He just does” is acceptable for something supernatural. The answer “a big bang made something out of nothing,” is not acceptable for something scientific.
No sh!t. We all have stronger words in our vocabulary.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 2:44 PM
I’d love to see you prove that rather provocative statement.
MarkTheGreat on December 12, 2008 at 2:44 PM
So how did ghosts evolve?
ronsfi on December 12, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Christians get that accepting God’s existence requires faith.
But scientists are supposed to rely on… what’s it called? Oh, yeah, science! Not something “weird and incredible”.
Esthier on December 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Perhaps you’re all asking stupid questions?
LimeyGeek on December 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
evolution..more like devilution
Greenhelmet on December 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Bats fly without feathers. Wasps fly without feathers I fly without feathers.
DarkCurrent on December 12, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 16 Next »