Poll: 46% hold creationist views of human origins
Trend: Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so
Gallup has asked Americans to choose among these three explanations for the origin and development of human beings 11 times since 1982. Although the percentages choosing each view have varied from survey to survey, the 46% who today choose the creationist explanation is virtually the same as the 45% average over that period — and very similar to the 44% who chose that explanation in 1982. The 32% who choose the “theistic evolution” view that humans evolved under God’s guidance is slightly below the 30-year average of 37%, while the 15% choosing the secular evolution view is slightly higher (12%).
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 Next »
Oh MY!
Herb on June 2, 2012 at 10:35 AM
I don’t believe this.
Blake on June 2, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Option #2 is poorly posed.
OldEnglish on June 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM
From Chapter 1 of The Origin of Species: “From passages in Genesis, it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to.” So the man who wrote the primary challenge to the Genesis story of creation nevertheless cited the very same book of the Old Testament to say that something is a historical fact!
I think Darwin was right, but this is America where all are free to accept or disregard his theories.
radjah shelduck on June 2, 2012 at 10:43 AM
In other news American students lag behind the rest of the western world in science and math, thanks Creationists!
libfreeordie on June 2, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Push polling fail. What is with answer 1 with “God Guided”. Where is the choice which says God created and then development? That choice probably would have gone into to 80-90% range.
Rocks on June 2, 2012 at 10:49 AM
FIFY
Wethal on June 2, 2012 at 10:50 AM
steebo77 on June 2, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Where’s the option for aliens sparking and guiding us?
Wha? Sorry…
*crawling back under rock*
Fallon on June 2, 2012 at 10:58 AM
No, they lag behind in those areas because the schools don’t teach them anymore punk. They’re too busy covering the EVILS of capitalism and free markets. They are told that the founders of the country were homophobes, racists, sexist bigots. They spend more time celebrating diversity than actually learning anything useful.
But this is typical of you leftist garbage. You blame others when YOUR policies fail.
You and your ilk have controlled the public schools for 50 years. If American students lag behind in any area, you have yourselves and your ideology to thank.
Punk.
Talon on June 2, 2012 at 10:58 AM
I get so tired of the either/or divide over the origins of man and the universe. At one point science was understood to be the language we learned about God’s universe.
Jurisprudence on June 2, 2012 at 10:59 AM
However, they appear to be well-versed in fisting.
OldEnglish on June 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM
And it was probably about the same level when the USA was the first to put a man on the moon too. In other words, what’s the problem?
I myself fully accept evolution, yet I don’t see any reason for thinking there is some problem with 45% of Americans disagreeing with me.
pearson on June 2, 2012 at 11:06 AM
hit&runordie thanks for another meaningless worthless post.
While I do not subscribe to this point of view, there are Creationists out there who reason a hell of a lot better than you.
And the real reasons we’re behind in those subjects are:
1. The Federal govt is in charge of education
2. Educating illegals has dumbed down the curriculum
3. Parents in large numbers use school as a daycare
4. Parents do not parent anymore. They expect we teachers & the state to do it
5. Welfare makes people dependent & unable to think or do for themselves
6. The testing here in the US is done for EVERY student. Even special ed is included. While the testing from other countries are often cherry picked students.
I could go on.
But you’re not here to read a reply.
You only show up to regurgitate stupid talking points, not engage in rational discussion.
Badger40 on June 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM
I’m an atheist and I completely agree with you. The idiocy of religious fools who refuse to accept the scientific credibility of evolution is equaled only by the idiocy of atheistic fools who deny even the slightest value in religious thought or possibility that there is some “creative force” in the universe.
peski on June 2, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Well, we know that America still leads when it comes to science and technology. Also, science literacy in America is the same as it is in Europe and Canada.
As for students, you have not provided any reason to blame the Creationists. For example, you have not shown how Creationism leads to poor performance on math exams. What’s more, you would have to show that science and math scores are worse for American students, but scores in other subjects (like history) are not.
pearson on June 2, 2012 at 11:11 AM
Very nice.
pearson on June 2, 2012 at 11:12 AM
#1 is the only choice where evidence (either from science or from tradition) doesn’t need to be thrown away, to make it work.
RBMN on June 2, 2012 at 11:13 AM
I don’t either. I leave my students to decide for themselves where they want to go in their beliefs.
Just like people should be free to choose how they live their lives, people should also be free & not constantly demonized & ridiculed for believing in something we might not.
As long as the Constitution is followed, I don’t care.
But that is the real problem. Not whether people hold Creationist views.
The problem is when the government thinks it needs to force people to believe in their ideology.
Badger40 on June 2, 2012 at 11:21 AM
It doesn’t.
I’ve met some Creationist scientists & they are very good & brilliant.
Science is for everybody.
And if a Creationist cannot or can prove or disprove something, it really doesn’t matter if they believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
There are intelligent liberals out there.
Who are stupid enough to think that a Communist government is a good idea.
Badger40 on June 2, 2012 at 11:25 AM
As long as the Constitution is followed, I don’t give a rip what people believe.
But some people believe the Constitution is not a good idea.
And that is a belief I cannot abide by.
Badger40 on June 2, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Charles Johnson must be barricading himself in his hippie hut today after reading that.
Crusty on June 2, 2012 at 11:28 AM
If one is going to believe in gods, then of course one is going to believe in the doings of gods. Whether or not that is a dangerous thing depends on how far it is taken and the nature of the particular gods worshiped.
keep the change on June 2, 2012 at 11:29 AM
I think THIS GUY know about all that…
Yeah, Id say all three questions are rather limited in regards to all the major options of faith vs evolution. You have many amongst the fundamentalist that believe the Earth is only 4,000 or 5,000 years old…so the 10,000-year creationist’s view wouldn’t pick that up.
I know it’s become a cliche, but I’m with the Creationists, but also believe in evolution to a point. Man didn’t come about from apes or anything else…but man has evolved from Neanderthals/Cro-Magnon humans.
We’re created in God’s image, and that refers to our souls, not necessarily our appearance.
JetBoy on June 2, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Macro evolution seems sensible to me only when explained in very generalised, non-specific terms that gloss over all details. However, once I consider the details and consider each event that would be necessary to get from A to Z, I find it impossible to get even remotely close to forming a coherent, plausible chain. If the hypothesis of macro evolution were a 50,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, we presently have 100 pieces the right way up, two or three pieces joined together correctly and at least 45,000 pieces missing entirely. That isn’t a basis for dogmatic confidence about what is in the picture.
However, I also wish very much that this question would stop being posed as a theology -v- science dispute. I don’t reject macro evolution because of theology and if tomorrow I became convinced that the book of Genesis was nothing more than a rejected theatrical script from the 1920s I’d still think the hypothesis of evolution to be utterly absurd, lacking credible evidence and contrary to facts and logic.
YiZhangZhe on June 2, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Either way, there is a corollary with smugness.
ericdijon on June 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM
If I understood the show What Happened Before the Big Bang energy in a vacuum can create matter. I think of that energy as God and like an alchemist God created man from the primordial soup. When man gained knowledge via the serpent’s suggestion, aliens or the wherever is when it went to hell in a basket.
marinetbryant on June 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM
What about Homo erectus?
DarkCurrent on June 2, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Nice article on Darwin and the Cambrian Explosion:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=119
marinetbryant on June 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM
JetBoy on June 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Obviously, we’re all living in a snow-globe dreamed by a sleeping giant. The movie Inception was a wet dream of his about a movie about dreaming enjoyed by the people in his dream.
Indo and Japan tsunamis were the signs that he’s restless and soon to rise. When the giant awakes the world ends and he will need a towel.
I
readwrote this on the internet so it must be true.Capitalist Hog on June 2, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Let’s hear it for teaching more punk in music class!
And commas in English class!
Tzetzes on June 2, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Actually both a gag and a serious question
DarkCurrent on June 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Were they gay cavemen?
pearson on June 2, 2012 at 12:07 PM
George Coyne, “The Pope’s Astronomer”, gave a very interesting interview to Richard Dawkins for a show the latter made about Charles Darwin. The most amazing thing he said, by far, was the answer he gave to the question, after he had stated he believes in human evolution, since that’s where all the evidence points, at what point God plops the soul of Adam into the chain of primate development. His response stunned even Dawkins (as you can see by the latter’s expression). He answered that he didn’t think such a thing happened, but that man’s spirit, or men’s souls, also evolved along with the bodies. (Can you believe it? I think in earlier generations he would at the least have lost his job!) Full interview here.
Tzetzes on June 2, 2012 at 12:09 PM
This is depressing, if only for the fact that 1/2 our country has completely written off the entire field of biology. It means that the notion of drug resistant bacteria is somehow invalid, that studies done on rats can yield valuable data for humans being that we’re both mammals, that diseases can be given to your children due to your genes. All of these ideas are based on evolution. Without evolution, biology is nothing, yet each and every one of you, creationist or not, relies on biologists for survival. Creationism is the ultimate head-in-the-sand position.
ernesto on June 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM
If I had a son…
Fallon on June 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Today in socon indoctrination.
The gay marriage types of the right who are so convinced they are a majority in this country. If you really want to believe humans were just created a few thousand years ago, knock yourself out.
You’re more than halfway there already.
Moesart on June 2, 2012 at 12:31 PM
This isn’t realy suprising but damn it is depressing.
The damnedest thing is that evolution says nothing of the origin of life itself, the instant when in-animate matter, became self propogating, simply that life changes and adapts to conditions over time.
That should not be a bold statement at all. Sadly it is.
The left has their myriad unscientific dogma’s, I guess we’re alloted one or two as well.
darkannulus on June 2, 2012 at 12:31 PM
You’re still here Ernesto. Good. Haven’t ‘seen’ you for ages.
You seem to be not making a distinction between the different meanings given to evolution. When ‘evolution’ means only a change in the overall gene pool then it is undeniable, since the gene pool changes every time a creature is conceived or dies. I don’t know anybody who would argue that this doesn’t happen.
Changes in the gene pool are sufficient to explain bacterial resistance but they are not sufficient to explain how a chain beginning with a non-living chemicals could end with sentient, rational creatures. The latter is not merely an extension of the former over a long period of time.
Moreover evolution in the sense of creating sentient, rational creatures cannot possibly be merely “biology” because if this alleged evolution were to have happened it would also need to explain how sentience, life, rationality, fear, love, hatred, and every other abstract thing came to be.
YiZhangZhe on June 2, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Of course it can. Our rational faculties are a result of an evolved brain, a brain whose evolution you can watch in reverse by studying lesser primates, other mammals, reptiles, and so on. We see what areas of the brain light up during certain activities, and we know those areas came about at a particular time and place along the evolutionary chain that links all life on this planet.
As for how nonliving chemicals became living chemicals, many extremely smart people are working tirelessly figuring it out – by studying the shape and interactions of enzymes and other organic molecules that occur naturally. One of the most fascinating aspects of the study of microbiology is seeing the chemistry and physics in life – seeing how the shape of an enzyme or other organic molecule allows it to interact with others in a literally mechanical way. The notion that nonliving organic molecules can begin to reproduce as part of a larger structure is not so far fetched when looked at this way.
Either way, the notion that human beings did not evolve from other life forms on earth flies in the face of the entire study of biology. Insist, if you must, that evolution does not explain the universe pre-big bang, but we are on this earth as a result of evolutionary forces, end of story.
ernesto on June 2, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Evolution is only the change in genetic frequencies.
And I guess if people cannot bring themselves to put 2 & 2 together & conceive it’s entirely possible that beings can change very drastically depending upon the pressures put on the gene pool to get entirely new & different species, then that’s their decision.
Badger40 on June 2, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Abiogenesis and the evolution of species aren’t part of any credible unified theory as of yet (as far as I know), so it doesn’t make much sense to mix them up at this point.
DarkCurrent on June 2, 2012 at 12:52 PM
I happen to agree with the 15% position, but I have no problem with the 46% who think I’ve got it completely wrong.
Stoic Patriot on June 2, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Fail.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_2.html
Good Lt on June 2, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Abiogenesis =/= evolution.
Good Lt on June 2, 2012 at 12:56 PM
It’s probably not a good idea to be posting articles from the Discovery Institute, since they’re a group of discredited creationists who tried to argue in court (and lost) that intelligent design was NOT creationism under another name.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
There is no ‘scientific controversy’ over the Cambrian explosion. There is no ‘scientific controversy’ over whether or not evolution happened.
None.
Good Lt on June 2, 2012 at 1:02 PM
I’ll take Ignored History for $400, Alex.
And the answer is, “Obama’s reaction to Larry Sinclair.”
Correct!
The Rogue Tomato on June 2, 2012 at 1:02 PM
Evolution depends upon abiogenesis. The only reason evolutionists insist on separating them is because of the absurdity of abiogenesis.
The Rogue Tomato on June 2, 2012 at 1:04 PM
That’s funny, because they seem to have entirely different definitions and study completely different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Oh, and you’re claim is also false:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
You’re 0-for-2.
Good Lt on June 2, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »