Poll: Nearly half of America is creationist

posted at 5:01 pm on June 2, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

What the heck… it’s been a while since we last opened up the flood gates on this topic and according to Gallup surveys, we’re no closer to a consensus now than we ever were. The subject at hand is our old friend, evolution vs. creation.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God’s guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

It will come as no shock to anyone that the answers given tracked tightly with the religious views of the respondent, and that a majority of registered Republicans fall in line with creationist views.

Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church. The views of Americans who attend almost every week or monthly fall in between those of the other two groups. Still, those who seldom or never attend church are more likely to believe that God guided the evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved with no input from God.

What’s interesting about the Gallup survey as compared to some others I’ve seen in the past is the phrasing of the questions. You tend to get more clearly splintered results if you pose seriously confrontational questions such as, “Did God create man from dust or did man evolve from ape-like creatures?” Gallup’s choices are a bit more subtle, asking which phrase best describes your feelings.

  • 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.
  • God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

You’ll notice that none of the choices go so far as to say, for example, “There is no God so the question is pointless” or, at the other end, “The Bible is literal and God created man from the dust and woman from one of his ribs.” I think such polls provide more value if they add in a couple more choices along those lines and forget about trying to be nuanced or avoid offending anyone.

My own views have “evolved” over the past five decades, (if you’ll pardon the phrase) and I’ve seen a number of theories. As a young man, I once lost my faith entirely (and still struggle with it at times) and rashly published a letter declaring that “God is the answer to a collection of questions which man is either too stupid or too frightened to answer. On the day that science answers the final question, God will be dead.”

I confess, I regret having penned that one now, but the young are frequently rash and foolish. But there are other theories which have come down the pike and stuck around. A very popular one which echoes a couple of the Gallup choices is along the lines of The Blind Watchmaker theory. It essentially states that the universe may well have begun with the Big Bang and men may have evolved from lower primates, but this was all precisely how God designed it, like the greatest software programmer ever, freeing Him up to move on to other projects once our reality was set in motion.

But I still have plenty of friends who come from the “six days and a rib” school of thought, and you have to respect them as well. At the opposite end of the scale you find people like my friend Doug Mataconis, who simply seems to be waiting for the day when all this creationist nonsense “evolves” out of our society.

This is why, as I noted the other day, I am skeptical of the argument advanced by Richard Leakey that increased discoveries in the field of anthropology would lead to an end to the evolution debate in the near future. The creationist position has little to do with evidence, and everything to do with faith and culture. It’s not going away any time soon, at least not in this country.

But returning to my original question, does the phrasing of the survey really impact the results for a strictly non-political topic such as this? Since the Hot Air faithful have never been shy about sharing and debating their feelings in a vigorous fashion, let’s toss up our own poll and compare it to the historical results as well as Gallup’s. But we’ll give you a bit more ammunition to work with in the answers. Have at it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 12

Which means more than half of America is wrong.

The Rogue Tomato on June 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Ancient Aliens!

Red State State of Mind on June 2, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Oh, good. A flame war. Gentlemen, start your engines.

amerpundit on June 2, 2012 at 5:04 PM

lol

Crazy apes.

Mitchell Heisman on June 2, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I’m not convinced primates are “lower” when I talk to Liberals.

Slainte on June 2, 2012 at 5:06 PM

All y’alls are wrong. Everyone knows that the creation of humanity involves a figure named Xenu, some volcanos, and the Super Adventure Club.

It’s settled science, just like man-made global warming, people.

/troll

JimLennon on June 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM

What I believe for absolute certainty is that Libs have evolved only marginally from single cell prokaryotes.

Slainte on June 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Does not mean nearly half does not believe evolution. That might be independently true, might not.

thirtyandseven on June 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM

I blame Sarah Palin!

/

Dack Thrombosis on June 2, 2012 at 5:10 PM

How about we are basically petri dish experiment being conducted by God, and he has put a upper limit of speed of light so that we can’t escape and contaminate the other dimensions.

Gaurav on June 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM

The theory of evolution that we evolved from lower forms is fantasy.
You could breed the two most smartest chimps over and over again for a thousand years and in the end you will have a really smart….chimp.
He can ride a bicycle but he can never build one.

Man was created and there is no other species like him.

NeoKong on June 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM

How about we are basically petri dish experiment being conducted by God, and he has put a upper limit of speed of light so that we can’t escape and contaminate the other dimensions.

Gaurav on June 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM

How about we’re all walking recording devices (our brains) living in a n experiment and we’re how the researcher collects his data. When we “die”, that’s when the researcher is collecting his information.

Wooooooooo!

Dack Thrombosis on June 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Belief is a leap of faith.

gerrym51 on June 2, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Why does faith have to conflict with science?

Can’t you believe in evolution and god? I believe the catholic church has sad they acknowledge evolution so what’s the problem?

I think most christian faiths regard the bible as the human interpretation of god’s word. So unlike the islamic faith that holds the koran to be the literal word of god, the christian faith can acknowledge mistakes without invaliding their faith. They just say some person in the past made a mistake interpreting god’s word.

I mean come on… are we going to further say the world is 6000 years old? Please. If we’re going to be a first world country then we need to have a modern outlook on things. That doesn’t mean excluding god. It just means being of two minds about things. Use your scientific mind when it comes to nature and the physical world. And use your religion when it comes to the metaphysical and spiritual world. There’s no reason the two have to ever conflict with each other.

Karmashock on June 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

*Puts on flame retardant clothes*

Imrahil on June 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

You’d have to be utterly braindead to believe in creationism. Even credible Biblical scholars consider the creation account in Genesis to be allegorical.

Armin Tamzarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

The creationist position has little to do with evidence, and everything to do with faith and culture.

This is the key. You can’t reason people out of something they have not been reasoned into accepting in the first place.

If someone has faith in Santa, doesn’t matter if there is no evidence, they just have faith.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

whether or not it has been 10,000 years, I believe God created man. Man may have changed through natural selection over the years, but not from monkeys.

Donald Draper on June 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

I mean come on… are we going to further say the world is 6000 years old?

You are falsely equating creation with young earth.

The Rogue Tomato on June 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Dack Thrombosis on June 2, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Or may be we are the original second life.

Gaurav on June 2, 2012 at 5:22 PM

You’d have to be utterly braindead to believe in creationism. Even credible Biblical scholars consider the creation account in Genesis to be allegorical.

Armin Tamzarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Credible to whom??

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM

If someone has faith in Santa, doesn’t matter if there is no evidence, they just have faith.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

At least until they become parents and move out of their moms’ basements.

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:24 PM

You’d have to be utterly braindead to believe in creationism. Even credible Biblical scholars consider the creation account in Genesis to be allegorical.

Armin Tamzarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Yeah, and credible and conservative Christian biblical scholars and scientists also take the Genesis creation account literally, and some are YECs (though some prefer to be called “Bible believers” and not YECs – Young Earth Creationists).

Both sides have smart guys and gals on their respective sides.

I believe in Creationism and am not “brain dead.”

(It’s completely unhelpful and unnecessary to use such derogatory language – eg, “Brain dead” – when discussing this topic with people who don’t agree with you about it.)

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Religion is based upon superstition and emotion. Science is based upon facts and evidence. If you really trusted “God” you would skip getting your kids immunized and just pray they stay healthy. If there was one true God, and he answered prayers, it would be very evident to all that that God’s followers had an advantage, and people would eventually gravitate towards that one true God. That, of course, does not happen because God, all 3500+ of them, is imaginary. People, however, are superstitious emotional beings that practice deliberate ignorance when it comes to scientific facts that contradict their faith (superstition), and what we end up with are results like you see in this survey.

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM

2k comments or bust.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

mythicknight on June 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

I solemnly believe that we, as a species, have evolved from a bunch of horny monkeys.

Gaurav on June 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Credible to whom??

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:23 PM

People who don’t scrape their knuckles when they walk?

Genesis being taken literally is a recent phenomenon. As in, the last few hundred years at most. Prior to that, it was universally held to be allegorical. Anyone who seriously takes the Genesis account of creation literally is a moron (or very, very gullible and uneducated).

Armin Tamzarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Religion is based upon superstition and emotion. Science is based upon facts and evidence. If you really trusted “God” you would skip getting your kids immunized and just pray they stay healthy. If there was one true God, and he answered prayers, it would be very evident to all that that God’s followers had an advantage, and people would eventually gravitate towards that one true God. That, of course, does not happen because God, all 3500+ of them, is imaginary. People, however, are superstitious emotional beings that practice deliberate ignorance when it comes to scientific facts that contradict their faith (superstition), and what we end up with are results like you see in this survey.

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Is evolution science?

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Donald Draper on June 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

“Donald Draper?” Like from the TV show Don Draper?

If so, shouldn’t you be drinking scotch, vodka, or a martini right now and coming up with a brilliant pitch line for Jaguar execs? :oD

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Anyone who seriously takes the Genesis account of creation literally is a moron (or very, very gullible and uneducated).

Armin Tamzarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

No, I take Genesis literally and am not a moron, gullible or uneducated.

Insulting me and others who believe as I do is doing nothing to convince me (or people like me) that you’re right, and I’m (we’re) wrong about this topic.

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Armin Tamzarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

You disarm your own arguments with your bitter attitude about this subject.

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I solemnly believe that we, as a species, have evolved from a bunch of horny monkeys.

Gaurav on June 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Good thing is, there is evidence so you don’t have to merely believe.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Trollapalooza!

kingsjester on June 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM

How about asking: Did the Prime Mover push the button to start the Big Bang, then leave the building?

If you think about it, the Big Bang theory is a connundrum. Believing that the Big Bang occured out of (literally) nowhere and nothing supports the idea of spontaneous creation. But “spontaneous creation” was disproved centuries ago, and is generally denigrated as a stupid idea right out of the unenlightened Dark Ages.

catsandbooks on June 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

“Donald Draper?” Like from the TV show Don Draper?

If so, shouldn’t you be drinking scotch, vodka, or a martini right now and coming up with a brilliant pitch line for Jaguar execs? :oD

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

[Spoilers]

.
.
.

No, he did that last week. Well, the last part, the first part he did every week.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

‘nearly half’ understates it.
If you read the poll only 15% don’t believe God had anything to do with creating man. 8 in 10 believe God created man by one means or another.

AmeriCuda on June 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Being begets belief. Belief begets becoming.

Gaurav on June 2, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Religion is based upon superstition and emotion. Science is based upon facts and evidence. If you really trusted “God” you would skip getting your kids immunized and just pray they stay healthy. If there was one true God, and he answered prayers, it would be very evident to all that that God’s followers had an advantage, and people would eventually gravitate towards that one true God. That, of course, does not happen because God, all 3500+ of them, is imaginary. People, however, are superstitious emotional beings that practice deliberate ignorance when it comes to scientific facts that contradict their faith (superstition), and what we end up with are results like you see in this survey.

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM

No. The Bible is based on history, much of which was written by people who witnessed the events it records.

Piltdown man was a hoax
(The Piltdown Man Fraud).

When Scientists Were Wrong (examples)

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM

I believe that God created the universe, so in that sense I believe in “Intelligent Design”, but I also believe in evolution. I am a Thomist (an amateur one) and thus I am not sympathetic to “Intelligent Design”. For a good summary of Thomist ideas regarding evolution and “ID” check out the following link: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/id-versus-t-roundup.html

Mike Rathbone on June 2, 2012 at 5:33 PM

No, he did that last week. Well, the last part, the first part he did every week.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Well, yeah, true, but I had to come up with something for my post. :o)

Don Draper is agnostic about the evolution debate. He’d rather go drink another martini, smoke a cigarette, and talk to Joan.

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Is evolution science?

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Evolution is science. It is an untested hypothesis. It is based entirely on the notion, “I can imagine”, which is the definition of a hypothesis.

We can observe microevolution. I can imagine that, given enough time, microevolution would lead to macroevolution.

We can observe fossils. If you arrange this set of fossils in this order, I can imagine how it represents a progression of one species to another.

We can observe DNA. I assume this gene is a damaged gene and, since it is common to two different species, I can imagine how it represents a common ancestry between the two species.

The Rogue Tomato on June 2, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The creationist position has little to do with evidence, and everything to do with faith and culture.

This is the key. You can’t reason people out of something they have not been reasoned into accepting in the first place.

If someone has faith in Santa, doesn’t matter if there is no evidence, they just have faith.

lester on June 2, 2012

This argument can just as easily be applied to people who believe in evolution.

The evolutionist position has little to do with evidence, and everything to do with faith and culture.

If someone has faith in one species evolving into another, doesn’t matter if there is no evidence, they just have faith.

JonPrichard on June 2, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I believe in both. I don’t see them as being in competition.

El_Terrible on June 2, 2012 at 5:36 PM

No. The Bible is based on history, much of which was written by people who witnessed the events it records.

Piltdown man was a hoax
(The Piltdown Man Fraud).

When Scientists Were Wrong (examples)

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Haha, Piltdown Man. Where have you been for the last 100 years my friend. Put down you abacus and pay attention…As I said, you can’t argue with the superstitious religious mind. Reasonable and objective people don’t believe in creation myths, people disappearing and reappearing, hundreds of people being raised from the dead, animals talking, God punishing people with hemorrhoids, people living to be 900 years old, an earth that is only 6000 years old, all current humanity descending from Noah, his sons and their spouses, instructions to kill those who engage in homosexuality, and all sorts of other biblical nonsense. These people know how silly and backward their beliefs are, but are forced to defend them in a desperate attempt to keep their belief systems intact. It isn’t necessary to prove the Christian “God” doesn’t exist; The fact that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of fables full of myth and mysticism that were cobbled together to exploit and oppress the masses is all the proof one needs.

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM

“Donald Draper?” Like from the TV show Don Draper?

If so, shouldn’t you be drinking scotch, vodka, or a martini right now and coming up with a brilliant pitch line for Jaguar execs? :oD

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Indeed.

Donald Draper on June 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM

If you think about it, the Big Bang theory is a connundrum. Believing that the Big Bang occured out of (literally) nowhere and nothing supports the idea of spontaneous creation. But “spontaneous creation” was disproved centuries ago, and is generally denigrated as a stupid idea right out of the unenlightened Dark Ages.

catsandbooks on June 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

No, you are interpreting it the way you like to make it look that way. Spontaneity implies time, which did not exist before the big bang. You can only talk about time after the big bang.

This has not been reliably debunked, it was even to some degree confirmed by Einstein, however, there are alternative competing theories to this.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM

The Rogue Tomato on June 2, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Evolution is a theory. It is not a science.
“According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.””

Evolution can only be demonstrated in theory or by invention. It cannot be observed or repeated.

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM

This argument can just as easily be applied to people who believe in evolution.

JonPrichard on June 2, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Except evolution is a theory with plethora of supporting evidence. Ask the Creationists for evidence? They throw Bible at you.

So, no, the same can not be said of evolution.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:42 PM

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Show me some evidences of dinosaurs evolving from birds, k ??
Where are those partial skeletons ?

Etc etc etc. Sigh

pambi on June 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Don Draper is agnostic about the evolution debate. He’d rather go drink another martini, smoke a cigarette, and talk to Joan.

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:34 PM

If all you’re doing is talking to Joan, you’re doing it wrong.

Dack Thrombosis on June 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Evolution is science. It is an untested hypothesis. It is based entirely on the notion, “I can imagine”, which is the definition of a hypothesis.

The Rogue Tomato on June 2, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Wrong genius – Have you ever heard of google? Google the study of bacteria and evolution. Evolution is 100% verified proven fact. Now go pray that you get smarter.

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

TYPO ON THE FRONT PAGE. In the begining needs another n.

John the Libertarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Evolution is a theory.

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM

It is a hypothesis, not a theory. You need to test a hypothesis in order to graduate it to a theory. They hypothesis of evolution has never been tested.

It’s easy to test the hypothesis. Put a primitive life form in an environment and subject it to various environmental pressures for millions of years until that primitive life form leads to two distinctly different species like beetles and beavers.

What? It’s impractical to conduct an experiment for millions of years? Well, too bad… I guess evolution will have to remain a hypothesis, then.

The Rogue Tomato on June 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Evolution is 100% verified proven fact. Now go pray that you get smarter.

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

If it was, it would be a LAW…moron.

kingsjester on June 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Granted, these threads are ALWAYS fun to read .. LOL.

pambi on June 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

No, I take Genesis literally and am not a moron, gullible or uneducated.

TigerPaw on June 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Are you a literalist? I have been reading some Evangelical web sites and this is a term I have noticed. My question is if you do take it literally, what is your (or the ) view on cro magnon, neanderthal, etc. They are not referenced in the Bible, correct? (disclaimer – agnostic – crisis of faith, have been unable to return ;-) )

DoubleClutchin on June 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Evolution is a theory. It is not a science.
“According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.””

Evolution can only be demonstrated in theory or by invention. It cannot be observed or repeated.

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:41 PM

It’s a scientific theory. Stop playing with words.

Evolution is also very much observable, in labs in small scale and in nature much extended.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM

What no-one is brave enough to say is that…it simply doesn’t matter. Much like the expansion of the sun 4 billion yrs from now or the Milky Way colliding with Andromeda 5 billion yrs from now. There’s no point to the argument.

Worse yet, alotta the dumb monkeys who bleat about evolution when quizzed about it, describe some bizarre combination of Lysenkoism and Lemarckism.

JohnBrown on June 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Wrong genius – Have you ever heard of google? Google the study of bacteria and evolution. Evolution is 100% verified proven fact. Now go pray that you get smarter.

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

The fact that you’re reduced to ridicule and personal attacks is evidence that you really aren’t secure in what you’re telling us. That’s understandable. There is no evidence of evolution, you can’t produce any, and you know it.

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Half correct, half incorrect. Sounds like politics or just about anything for that matter.

Bmore on June 2, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Micro/macro … sigh.

pambi on June 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Evolution is also very much observable, in labs in small scale and in nature much extended.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Adaptation is observable. Evolution has never been observed.

darwin on June 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

TYPO ON THE FRONT PAGE. In the begining needs another n.

John the Libertarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Maybe over time the missing n will evolve.

Bmore on June 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Trollapalooza!

kingsjester on June 2, 2012 at 5:29 PM

We’re in danger of seeing different views expressed!

DarkCurrent on June 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

So what is with the parochial view that man evolved on Earth ?

We live in this humongous universe and so many just have to believe that man completely evolved on this planet. How quaint.

J_Crater on June 2, 2012 at 5:52 PM

What? It’s impractical to conduct an experiment for millions of years? Well, too bad… I guess evolution will have to remain a hypothesis, then.

The Rogue Tomato on June 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

It’s possible to observe the natural experiments that have been going on for millions of years, and we have and the results have confirmed the hypothesis.

You think everything has to be experimented at the exact same scale in a lab to be proven?!! It’s also impossible to turn off the sun, but there’s no need to test it to understand what happens.

You just redefined science to fit your purpose.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:53 PM

kingsjester on June 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Scientific theories do not turn into laws. Gravity is ‘just a theory’. When will there be people demanding schools teach ‘Intelligent Falling’?

mythicknight on June 2, 2012 at 5:53 PM

DoubleClutchin on June 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

The book of Genesis describes the creation of Adam and Eve, and after the fall, it talks about people who already exist outside the Garden of Eden.

The problem with most critics of the Bible who purport to have employed “science” to debunk it is that they began with the aim of debunking it and worked toward that goal, rather than trying to actually learn anything.

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Yes! Another evolution vs. creation thread! Bring out the popcorn! And, for the record, I am a “young earth creationist” and proud of it! Equating natural selection (a scientifically proven fact) with macro-evolution (pure fantasy) is nothing more than a bait and switch tactic. Macro-evolution would require mutations to add genetic information, while all observed mutations are a result of lost genetic information. Well, my break is just about over, so I guess it’s back to work now. Just thought I’s contribute my 2 cents’ worth.

Benedict Nelson on June 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM

I have a question that has always bothered me. If we all evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys. Can some one explain why a monkey would decided that moving to a higher comprehension and learning to speak was a bad thing.

pwb on June 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

You’d have to be utterly braindead to believe in creationism. Even credible Biblical scholars consider the creation account in Genesis to be allegorical.

Armin Tamzarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Cite them. You’ve stated a thesis, now defend it.

And what do you do with the painstaking establishing of sequentiality, spatiality, and reduction of energy to matter in the text of the first book of St. Moses known as Genesis?

I side with St. Peter who writes that we do not follow myths, but that some would forget that there is a God who has created us, and to whom we are accountable.

As to my own scholarship? Here you go: B.Sc., M.Div., D.ReHu. and I affirm a literal understanding of the creation accounts of Scripture.

Scribbler on June 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Adaptation is observable. Evolution has never been observed.

darwin on June 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I guess those fossils were planted by god to test our faith, right?

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

People who don’t scrape their knuckles when they walk?

Genesis being taken literally is a recent phenomenon.
As in, the last few hundred years at most. Prior to that, it was universally held to be allegorical. Anyone who seriously takes the Genesis account of creation literally is a moron (or very, very gullible and uneducated).

Armin Tamzarian on June 2, 2012 at 5:27 PM

No, you are wrong IMO. To me Genesis is literally true,and not symbolic.

You cannot mock those who are willing to believe in the words of the bible and think man knows enough to state any facts on the makings of the foundation of this planet when our science is still primitive.

We can’t even detect and measure gravitons, or the fabric of time and yet those in their pride and arrogance will say there is no God who can create Earth in 6 days because we didn’t see it on video or have pictures.

A angry child will curse and call names when they don’t want to deal with the possibility that they don’t know everything. Man does not know enough to even say how he came to be and some folks seem content to believe in evolution or( spontaneous generation 2.0) as fact.

The complexity of the cell mocks anything man has built in his recorded history. This is just one of the pieces of evidence that there is a higher intelligence involved in this world. IMO

dec5 on June 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM

According to a Gallup pole conducted in 2010, only 16% believe in pure evolution.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

Axion on June 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM

We’re in danger of seeing different views expressed!

DarkCurrent on June 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

That’s generally what is called a troll on Hotair.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I believe in the just and good God of Abraham. I don’t believe He’s here to shield me from every and all mishaps of life as many non-believers think we do.

I believe one can accept His existence and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution doesn’t keep me from loving God and learning from the teachings of Jesus. In fact, it doesn’t matter to me one bit because when I consider how I wish to deal with someone, I think of what I have learned, not what may have happened in the primordial soup.

princetrumpet on June 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I believe in the Bible. But do not know how long one of GODs days was.

Furthermore after the Creation he rested that at some later point the story continues. How long was this period. Millions of years for all any of us knows. Thus during this period the Earth could have had many many species on it. The Bible does not tell us everything. Thus these bones mean nothing to me.

Adam and Eve were commanded to Multiply and Replenish the Earth.

Replenish could mean GOD destroyed all then put Adam and Eve in the Garden. Thus they needed to Replenish all.

But all this is unimportant. What is important is to accept GOD Jesus Christ as our personal Savior repent and do your best to not sin any more.

I think America proves GOD is real. It’s miraculous creation and how well America has done for over 250 years.

Steveangell on June 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM

It’s possible to observe the natural experiments that have been going on for millions of years, and we have and the results have confirmed the hypothesis.

You think everything has to be experimented at the exact same scale in a lab to be proven?!! It’s also impossible to turn off the sun, but there’s no need to test it to understand what happens.

You just redefined science to fit your purpose.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:53 PM

If evolution has been proven, and it’s just not observable because it takes so long for the evidence to develop, where are the links? I’ve heard that a dolphin-like creature emerged and began to walk on land and eventually became a dog, that the blowhole through which it breathed migrated to the front of it’s snout. Really?!? If this were true, there would be examples that existed between the two extremes. Where are they?

AubieJon on June 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM

pwb on June 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

We didn’t evolve from monkeys, but a common ancestor.

mythicknight on June 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM

(disclaimer – agnostic – crisis of faith, have been unable to return ;-) )

DoubleClutchin on June 2, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I’m with ya…

ladyingray on June 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Yes! Another evolution vs. creation thread! Bring out the popcorn! And, for the record, I am a “young earth creationist” and proud of it! Equating natural selection (a scientifically proven fact) with macro-evolution (pure fantasy) is nothing more than a bait and switch tactic. Macro-evolution would require mutations to add genetic information, while all observed mutations are a result of lost genetic information. Well, my break is just about over, so I guess it’s back to work now. Just thought I’s contribute my 2 cents’ worth.

Benedict Nelson on June 2, 2012 at 5:55 PM

:lol Love popcorn….low in calories too.

dec5 on June 2, 2012 at 6:01 PM

darwin on June 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Truth.

pambi on June 2, 2012 at 6:02 PM

I thought we were all just blobs of cells./

Bmore on June 2, 2012 at 6:03 PM

If you think about it, the Big Bang theory is a connundrum. Believing that the Big Bang occured out of (literally) nowhere and nothing supports the idea of spontaneous creation. But “spontaneous creation” was disproved centuries ago, and is generally denigrated as a stupid idea right out of the unenlightened Dark Ages.

catsandbooks on June 2, 2012 at 5:30 PM

No, you are interpreting it the way you like to make it look that way. Spontaneity implies time, which did not exist before the big bang. You can only talk about time after the big bang.

This has not been reliably debunked, it was even to some degree confirmed by Einstein, however, there are alternative competing theories to this.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM

If you are talking “String Theory”, I have to admit you’ve just totally lost me. LOL!!!! Liberal Arts major here! (Which is why I own a bookstore instead of holding down a real job that pays real money.) I watched an entire hour of Nova one night about String Theory, and ended up more confused than before I watched the show. It wasn’t for lack of trying though! I may be a Liberal Arts dork, but I have read a lot about science through the years.

I believe in evolution, and I have followed many facets of the field for years and years. I suspect my problem with the Big Bang and spontaneous generation (not spontaneous creation; my bad) is the fact that I simply cannot wrap my mind around infinity. I try, but infinity simply eludes me.

(Thanks, Jazz, for introducing this thread. Business is slow today, and I was just about bored out of my gourd.)

catsandbooks on June 2, 2012 at 6:03 PM

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Are you referring to the imprints of man’s feet alongside, and in the same time frame as the dinosaurs ?

pambi on June 2, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Evolution is 100% verified proven fact.

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM

True for what is now called micro-evolution, which use to be known simply as adaptation.

But macro-evolution is a 100% non-fact. You won’t find any examples of that anywhere.

Axion on June 2, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Half of people have below average intelligence.

Almost half of people are liberals. Coincidence?

faraway on June 2, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Evolution is also very much observable, in labs in small scale and in nature much extended.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Adaptation is observable. Evolution has never been observed.

darwin on June 2, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Come on – someone has to do it -

Barky “evolved” recently – providing incontrovertible proof of the existence thereof

/SARC

koaiko on June 2, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Religion is based upon superstition and emotion.(So is science, or else there would be no science) Science is based upon facts and evidence.(As an anthropologist I would venture to say the opposite is true that facts and evidence are used to substantialize science) If you really trusted “God” you would skip getting your kids immunized and just pray they stay healthy. If there was one true God, and he answered prayers, it would be very evident to all that that God’s followers had an advantage, and people would eventually gravitate towards that one true God. That, of course, does not happen because God, all 3500+ of them, is imaginary. (Here is where we disagree-I could say I am agnostic, I most definitely believe in evolution, but you are attempting to put human like rationalizations on a god,which makes me believe that you want god to bow to you, and your wishes, not for you to bow to a god) People, however, are superstitious emotional beings that practice deliberate ignorance when it comes to scientific facts that contradict their faith (superstition), and what we end up with are results like you see in this survey.(Actually science has told us that we are hard wired for faith in the supernatural as a way to explain the unexplanable at the time we witness it, sort of like a guy from the 50′s understanding the modern internet). Magic is yet science undiscovered-Albert Einstein

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM

canditaylor68 on June 2, 2012 at 6:05 PM

But wait, I thought Obama was the Messiah…what say he…
/

hillsoftx on June 2, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Science is based upon facts and evidence.

Unless the scientists have an agenda or are getting grants to skew the data.

vityas on June 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM

i know it makes for a fun Sat pm to muse about these things…but first, i don’t believe the poll. I think if nearly half the people literally thought that God created us 10K years ago that they would be on their knees every day to ask for forgiveness for their manifest sin.

the US is largely (imo) a culturally Christian county

Second, we have not a clue how our present circumstances arose. Even the shrill atheist Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 on a 7 scale sure that God did Not exist…when pressed.

well, as any math guy can tell you, there’s an infinite number of numbers (real) between 6.9 and 7…that’s a lot of wiggle room

r keller on June 2, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Good thing is, there is evidence so you don’t have to merely believe.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 5:28 PM

But when presented with evidence that liberal policies don’t work, you plug your ears and scream “lalala I can’t hear you.”

Strange….

Good Solid B-Plus on June 2, 2012 at 6:08 PM

The poll results have not changed much in 20 years, including the political breakdown of creationists — 59% Republican, 41% Democrat, and 39% Independent. It’s been about 45-50% creationist and about 60 R, 40 D, 40 I for 20 years.

I doubt most people polled understand either the science behind the theory of evolution or the many, many different versions of creationism. There is widespread disagreement among creationists about almost everything. The thing they, mostly, agree on is that evolution = atheism, which is where they disagree with theistic evolutionists.

The so-called creationism-evolution “controversy” is for the most part a theological/philosophical and sectarian/denominational disagreement.

farsighted on June 2, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Bandit13 on June 2, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I can see a case of double-mindedness within.
Conflict = opportunity.
Keep questioning.

pambi on June 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM

vityas on June 2, 2012 at 6:06 PM

++++

pambi on June 2, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I have a question that has always bothered me. If we all evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys. Can some one explain why a monkey would decided that moving to a higher comprehension and learning to speak was a bad thing.

pwb on June 2, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Not all monkeys evolved into humans because not all of them mutated and of the ones who did, not all of them mutated the same way. There are many different species of apes, one was on the lucky evolutionary branch that ended up as us humans.

Mutation inherently results in divergence, not convergence.

lester on June 2, 2012 at 6:12 PM

If the creation of life from non-living matter was so simple that it could happen by accident, then scientists would have figured out how to do it long ago.

Axion on June 2, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Evolution Science /s

Sorry but even the Hard Science is always ready to junk a “proven fact” when new evidence is presented. Like the Speed of Light. Now it just turned out to be a bad measurement but everyone sure was ready to say hey guess something can travel faster.

Evolution is not a hard science. It is just imagination. In religion we call that faith. The believers in this religion take a single bone then have faith it is an unknown human like species. Take skulls and use faith to presume they are our ancestor. There is no proof.

Secular Humanist have faith there is no GOD. They have not proved it what so ever. It is just another of the many religions on Earth. The bible would refer to them as followers of Baal.

Steveangell on June 2, 2012 at 6:13 PM

ladyingray on June 2, 2012 at 5:59 PM

:-D

DoubleClutchin on June 2, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 12