The vast majority of Americans think the Christian God created the universe, either just like the Bible says, or through some form of God-controlled evolution. Why is this? Why is it that naturalistic evolution is rejected out of hand by the majority of Americans?
Jonah Lehrer, of the New Yorker, writes:
Last week, Gallup announced the results of their latest survey on Americans and evolution. The numbers were a stark blow to high-school science teachers everywhere: forty-six per cent of adults said they believed that “God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.” Only fifteen per cent agreed with the statement that humans had evolved without the guidance of a divine power.
What’s most remarkable about these numbers is their stability: these percentages have remained virtually unchanged since Gallup began asking the question, thirty years ago. In 1982, forty-four per cent of Americans held strictly creationist views, a statistically insignificant difference from 2012. Furthermore, the percentage of Americans that believe in biological evolution has only increased by four percentage points over the last twenty years.
Such poll data raises questions: Why are some scientific ideas hard to believe in? What makes the human mind so resistant to certain kinds of facts, even when these facts are buttressed by vast amounts of evidence?
A new study in Cognition, led by Andrew Shtulman at Occidental College, helps explain the stubbornness of our ignorance. As Shtulman notes, people are not blank slates, eager to assimilate the latest experiments into their world view. Rather, we come equipped with all sorts of naïve intuitions about the world, many of which are untrue. For instance, people naturally believe that heat is a kind of substance, and that the sun revolves around the earth. And then there’s the irony of evolution: our views about our own development don’t seem to be evolving.
This means that science education is not simply a matter of learning new theories. Rather, it also requires that students unlearn their instincts, shedding false beliefs the way a snake sheds its old skin…
It seems that the problem is not learning the principles of science as much as it is unlearning the instincts and false beliefs we have. What Lehrer fails to mention is that religion, in particular Christianity, is part of the false beliefs that must be unlearned.
46% of Americans think people like Ken Ham are right. Think about that for a moment. Almost half of Americans think that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. I suspect here in NW Ohio, where God is a Republican and Fox in a real news organization, that the percentage is much higher.
The road to science literacy is one paved with the rubble of literalist interpretations of the Bible. We must tear down and destroy the notion that Genesis 1-3 is good science or that the Bible has anything at all to say about matters of science. This is not an atheists vs. Christianity battle. This is a battle between reason and ignorance.
Look at how science has come to dominate the world we live in. We live in a scientific age, a complex age, an age where it is increasingly hard to keep up with this or that new discovery or idea. But we must continue to press on. Going back is not an option. We KNOW that the universe is more than 10,000 years old. We KNOW that the world was not created in 6 days. We KNOW……and we can not allow Bible literalists, through the public school system and the political process, to drag our children and society back into the dark ages.
I care not what someone believes about God, the Bible, or anything else pertaining to religious belief. These things are matters of faith. However, when it comes to matters of science, I do care what school children are taught. I do care that our government follows good science rather than religious mythology. These things matter, and as Jonah Lehrer shows, we have a long, arduous battle ahead of us.
Hi Bruce you admitted in a recent post that you are not a scientist , me neither but I believe both of us can weigh up evidence.So if you know we are descended from ape`s you must have evidence to show this is so ,because the worst thing we can do is to go from believing everything the priest or pastor says, to believing everything the evolutionary scientist says ,show me the scientific evidence is a valid request I went the opposite way to you , from atheist to believer so I await the evidence to convince me I made a mistake.
No, unless we are trained scientists and have experience in a particular discipline, then I don’t think we can sufficiently, completely weigh the evidence. We can read and try to come to some conclusions, but we lack the necessary skill set to do what scientists to every day. That is why I stick to my expertise, theology, the Bible, and Evangelical Christianity.]
Since I know the Bible inside and out and understand the nuances of Christian theology, I can then ask myself does Genesis 1-3 reflect what we can see and know about the natural world? I have concluded the answer to that question is NO. I have concluded that the Bible is not a science text, never was meant to be a science text, and if the Bible is taken as a human, non-inspired literary work, it couldn’t be a science text. (since, scientifically we are far more advanced today than the people in agrarian societies centuries ago.)
I don’t use the word know very often. I used it reference to how old the world is. Do I KNOW we descended from apes? Of course not. But, the evolutionary model gives us the best explanation and it points to us descending from apes. It is all about probabilities and evolution seems to me to be more probable than the notion that Genesis 1-3 is how the world and man came into existence.
The neat thing about science is that it constantly corrects itself. Not so the Bible. A dead book that hasn’t given us one new thing in 2000 years.God should, at least, send down an updated version.
Besides…..and here is where it all falls part for Christians. Looking at the evidence one might conclude that a God, a divine being of some sort, had some part in the creation of the universe. Lots of theistic evolutionists and deists out there. However, how does one get from A God created to THE Christian God created as recorded in Gen 1-3? What evidence do we have for such a claim and conclusion? None, outside of what is written in the Bible. So then, believing God created as recorded in Gen 1-3 is not a matter of science but of faith. Believe it if you want but there is too much scientific evidence to suggest otherwise and that is why I believe like I do.
I hope you realize how foolish your comparison of believing scientists and believing pastors is. Scientific knowledge with an attendant complexity is growing every day. We are forced to trust experts. When to comes to the theology and the Bible? Same old shit for 2000 years. It is much easier gain a through working knowledge of a dead field than it is one that is living and constantly moving.
There is no evidence I could give you to convince you and you know it. Stop with the false humility. You know what you know and all you are looking for is an argument. Not going to happen, at least with me. Maybe others will engage you but I don’t intend to do so. Been down this road with you before…….
Bruce, I think your readers would enjoy checking out BioLogos. The website is biologos.org.
Here the scientists also address the question of creationism and ID..These folks are Christians, but theistic evolutionists. They are able to explain in a respectful manner why they feel the evidence does not support these alternate positions, and also can very well articulate why they do not feel that good science or the theory of evolution is an enemy to faith.
I’m one who believes that it is a good thing to engage this discussion with young people. I think when the evidence is presented in this, truth will prevail. It is never a good thing, IMO, to attempt to suppress open discussion and debate.
For me, speaking as a libertarian, it also seems a matter of academic freedom to me.
Rebecca.
Academic freedom is not a license to teach religious dogma as science. God has no place in the science classroom.
I suspect most readers are familiar with BioLogos. Personally, I think theistic evolutionists are people who want to have it both ways. Yes, Francis Collins is a great guy but he is a great scientist in spite of his faith not because of it.
Bruce, I’m off work today, so have more time to blog.
Here is my issue with what you’re saying.
I’m not in favor of teaching Genesis 1 in the public school classroom. However, there are those minority scientists who find issues and problems with Darwinian evolution. Here are a few examples of what I mean
Michael Behe has developed the argument for design from biochemistry and has published over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals.
Ralph Seelke is a microbiologist at University of Wisconsin, Superior, who has researched Dr. Behe’s ideas in the laboratory, using mutant bacteria. Dr. Seelke explained how his lab work focuses on what evolution really can do in this intriguing podcast last year.
Scott Minnich is a microbiologist at University of Idaho who credits the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research.
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig is a German geneticist who suggests that ID provides fruitful hints for giraffe research.
The argument for design isn’t limited to biology and biochemistry; astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez has opened a new frontier for the ID paradigm with his arguments from cosmology. Dr. Gonzalez is a world-renowned astrobiologist and assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University. He has written nearly 70 refereed papers and is the co-discoverer of the Galactic Habitable Zone, which led to a cover story he co-authored in Scientific American and feature stories on Dr. Gonzalez in Science and Nature.
Frankly, I can get lost in the discussion. Dr. Collins, for instance,feels there is fairly recent research which refutes Behe’s argument from irreducible complexity, and of course Dr. Behe disagrees.
But, I say let debate and open discussion and inquiry reign. I’m feeling this comes to the essence of what it means to be a “freethinker.”
To me this is not the same as teaching explicit religious dogma. Although, I do think there could be a fine line. But, I would rather err on the side of inclusion rather than to stifle honest debate and academic freedom. To me, this sets a very dangerous precedent.
Sorry, call it what you will, it is, at its root the teaching of religious dogma. When they speak of intelligent design or a creator they are not talking about any old, the force be with you. They are talking about their God, the Christian God, the God revealed to humanity in the Bible.
Evolution doesn’t say that we descended from apes. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor.
Thanks for clarifying this for me.
Bruce
“…because the worst thing we can do is to go from believing everything the priest or pastor says, to believing everything the evolutionary scientist says ,show me the scientific evidence is a valid request I went the opposite way to you , from atheist to believer so I await the evidence to convince me I made a mistake.”
Nice stance. Basically ‘I am right until you show me evidence I made a mistake.” But who gets to determine whether the evidence is convincing or not? A totally unbiased person? Didn’t think so. I have biases too. The beauty of science is that it knows that we all have biases, and incorporates procedure to try to minimize its effects. Does Christianity do this, or is disbelief punishable by Hell?
Do you trust science? You bet you do when you get sick and use a vaccine developed using the principles of science and evolution. When you switch on the internet and use the contemporary results of years of scientific investigation. When you fly in an airplane. So when don’t you trust science? When it contradicts the superstitious pronouncements made centuries ago by ignorant and superstitious men.
On the off chance that you are open to receiving genuine and accurate information, as opposed to wallowing in argumentation about that which neither of you profess to know, here is some reliable information and, as you requested, evidence. I will not hold my breath waiting for any of it to be adjudged worthy by you – I do not expect you to give it much effort because it is not what you want to hear:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This evidence merely scratches the surface. Bruce selected an apt cartoon. You stand in opposition to the overwhelming scientific knowledge that supports evolution.
This little response is not made with the least expectation of convincing you of anything, but for those lurkers, undecided or questioning, who are genuinely interested in knowing the foundations of science and evolution.
Martin, what historical evidence do you have that an Adam and Eve actually existed?
“So if you know we are descended from ape`s”
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is not a descendant of of Apes. Our species is a branch of the line which includes a separate branch known as apes and another line known as Chimpanzees and another known as Bonobo. They are cousins, not direct descendent as you have suggested. Obviously, you cannot “weigh up evidence” as you suggest because you don’t even understand the basics.
Evolution is not a belief system, it’s proven fact.
Demanding evidence is the standard way that those who believe in creationism attack others who don’t share their unsupported belief system.
I know believers desperately need to be told absolutes. Unfortunately these kinds of conclusions don’t always exist in the real world. Still, you’d do well to read the following list as a starting point. I know it likely won’t change your made-up mind, but give it a shot.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe
It’s not easy for me to believe that we weren’t created, and that we have no souls. I changed my belief because the Christian life and the Christian world was coming across and more and more untrustworthy and shifty, while the scientific world and the people that comprise it were coming across to me as more trustworthy, and less emotionally erratic.
So I guess the bad testimony presented by the Christian world became too bad for me to overlook any longer.
According to Jesus, its totally legitimate to reject a message that comes attached to a bad testimony.
Bruce
You may find this interesting, same general topic:
http://www.alternet.org/story/155798/major_threat_to_religion_clergy_people_coming_out_as_atheists_?page=entire
Still your friend,
bill
We shall always be friends Bill. We are both crazy.
Man you American atheist`s are sensitive and gullible, in Europe where I come from no one cares if you are Christian, atheist, Jedi, or howl at the moon type, so we have the freedom to question the bible, God or evolution . For so called freethinkers you guy`s just accept blindly that evolution is a fact , without question which is just changing one religion for another, because evolution as it relates to microbes to man is unscientific . I don`t want an argument , all I want is honesty I don`t accept evolution, not because I am ignorant but because it does not match the facts.Here`s a simple question , go back in your own lineage at what point do your ancestor`s become non human . You say you have kids and grand kids all human I am sure, so as far as I can see in you and your wife`s
gene`s you have the capacity to reproduce more humans , please give me a mechanism to show have you how you can get something which is non human with non human gene`s to became human ,what’s the mechanism?
I have no problem whatsoever you being an atheist, agnostic, or whatever you choose to be, but don`t without the evidence to back it up tell me evolution is scientific.
Not sensitive at all. You have shown, in the past, a lack of ability to engage in discussion without name calling. If you want respect here then conduct yourself like a person deserving respect.
First, evolution is not singular. There are many ideas and views among those who accept evolution as the best explanation for the natural world.
Second, I do not gullibly accept evolution.(or anything else) I read, study, come to conclusions. You only show yourself to be another Christian ass*^** when you take this approach.
Third, you reject evolution, not because it doesn’t jive with the evidence.( facts is not a good word to use in discussions like this) You reject evolution because it doesn’t fit your theological beliefs. So, for you, theology determines outcome not science.
Fourth, you are aware of how much genetic simularity there is between species? Given time, genetics change. Our genetics continue to change.
Fifth, I will not waste time arguing with you whether or not evolution is scientific. It is, and most scientists accept that it is. (with ongoing debate about many of the specifics) Maybe another commenter might want to engage you on this but not me. You have a plank in your eye and it is called the Christian God. How can you ever come to any scientific conclusion as long as everything begins with the Christian God? Remove God from the equation and look at the issue again.
As I said Bruce I don`t want to argue with you either, but you have a view of the scientific world that based on your years of being involved as a pastor in the evangelical world is far to trusting.You have spoken before about how difficult it is to speak out about the flaws and general dishonesty of the hierarchy of baptist`s evangelical church.Pretty much no matter what you say true as it is no one wants to know.Now the in the scientific community I would say about 0.0001% work matters which relate to evolution, the rest work in the fields of medicine, pharmaceutics, engineering, and so on. Now these people don`t really care as far as their work goes whether we evolved or not as it has no impact on the livelihood.But the problem is with the livelihood of the rest who do work in fields related to evolution and have their wages paid by organisation who support the theory.
If they find anti evolution evidence and try to speak out about it who would listen,they suffer the same treatment as you suffered for trying to rock the establishment and they would suffer all the emotion turmoil you suffered as it relates to losing your position, income, status , respect of your peers,etc
I am trying to be as honest with you as I can I was an atheist I believed in evolution ,as
much as I Knew about it that was, but I trusted the scientist , for surely they are honest upright, and evidence based. Having then really looked at the evidence for myself I found it was not scientific , but a belief system , based on the idea that there is no God so evolution being the only alternative must be true , but its not.
You don`t have to post this or even accept it , but at least think about it
A by the way we as humans suffer many many ailments , now I used to believe that science was interested in curing these ailments , but after a while I realised that science was more interested in treating these ailments , why? more money thats why. 30 years of treatment is far more profitable than 4 week to cure.humans -religious, atheist, scientist,
American , Irish, we are all the same.
I would definitely challenge the claim that only 0.0001% of people in the scientific community are working with matters that relate to evolution. Anyone whose work involves infectious diseases will be affected by evolution all the time. Viruses becoming resistant to antiviral drugs, bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics, the continuous emergence of new flu viruses that require new vaccines on a yearly basis – these are all very real challenges that evolution puts in our way.
I would also challenge your claim that evidence against evolution is being suppressed, this is simply nonsense. The scientific world is highly competitive with scientists constantly fighting for peer recognition and research grants. I can think of no quicker way to fame and fortune for a researcher than taking down a theory that has withstood all challenges for over 150 years. It’s the Everest of biology.
If someone really found conclusive evidence that evolution is wrong there would obviously be no way to suppress it, can you imagine the euphoria such a discovery would cause in the ID/creationist camp? The only reason the theory of evolution has lasted this long is that it remains the best explanation for the observed facts. Your statement that evolution is unscientific couldn’t be further from the truth.
Hi Bruce. Looks like you didn’t publish my comment. Chicken! How are you any different then the IFB you dispise?? You do not allow dissent?? How Jack Hyles of you. Where are the examples of abiogenesis or macro evolution?? Do you really want the truth?? I didn’t think so.
Hi Josh G,
It is nonesense that Bruce does not allow dissent. If you have ever read any of his old blog, Fallen from Grace, you would know that your claim is ludicrous. If you read much of his current blog you would also know that your statement is false.
Shalom,
John Arthur
Thanks for the support, John. I hate it when guys like this come and sh*t all over the blog. I posted his comments until it was evident he had no desire to have a discussion. Tried to steer him into meaningful discussion but all he was interested in was arguing and calling me names. So, he made the banned list which is hard to do. Right now, 2 people on it.
Bruce