Science vs. Religion in the United States
June 14th, 2007A recently released Gallup Pull indicates that more Americans accept theory of creationism than the science of evolution.
I have to ask myself, is it because those pesky scientists have been wrong about so many things or because religion has been so particularly good at teaching us about the way the world is?
The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans’ religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend.
I’d be interested if there is also a correlation between those that finish high school and those that trust the science behind the theory of evolution, and again between those that go on to University and if they believe in so called “intelligent design” or evolution.
The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution’s explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago.
Quite frankly, no matter which side of the debate you take, you have to admit the data indicate about a quarter of Americans are stupid.
June 15th, 2007 at 4:38 am
Indeed Jeff, but I don’t think they have a monopoly on stupidity.
The newspapers report that large sums of money were sent from Australia to pay for a ‘creation museum’ in the US. Surely a prudent Christian would feed the starving in Ethiopia (or aren’t they hungry anymore).
It makes me wonder how many creationists there are world wide. I suspect there may even be few Canadians. % wise it would be interesting to know.
What worries me is that these god fearing folk will be directing US policy on things like stem cell research soon…perish the thought……Oh no…. too late….it’s already happened.
cheers
L
June 15th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
The study says that Republicans accept creationism. Despite the fact that we have a Republican president (who was elected through the electoral college - not necessarily through the popular vote) I’m not sure that speaks for Americans in general. It is certainly not my take on things or the popular belief in New England. Thanks for the link to the article. I need to read it thoroughly to better understand these crazy people I live with!
June 16th, 2007 at 7:11 am
I think you are right about the Stem Cell research problem, Louise.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Smith Family,
I wouldn’t think that Americans in general think that way either. I think people like to believe the scientists but are not sure where to turn when it comes to the matter of where life originated because there is no clear answer.
Another reason for the “seeming confusion” about people claiming to believe both in “evolution’s explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago”, I think the wording of the questions were not well thought out, which may have made for a bad survey.
June 16th, 2007 at 8:21 am
The problem with this poll is that it makes it seem like the people who believe the “10,000 years ago creation” are a majority of Christians. I’ve done a lot of research on the subject, and “Literal Interpretationists” are not. In fact, if they’re over 5% of the Christians in the US I’d be shocked. While I do believe God created the Earth, I believe the people who think that God created the Earth in 6 literal days and that it is only 10,000 years old are nuts. In the original writing of Genesis (in Hebrew) the word for day was Yom. Yom meant any passage of time, not just a day. A yom could be 10,000,000 years or 30 seconds. So 6 yoms could be 6 billion years, no problem. The word day in Genesis is a misinterpretation, and is not to be taken literally.
A majority of Christians believe in evolution. It makes total sense that animals adapt and change to their environment. In fact, most Christians do agree that the Earth is as old as science says it is. However, the complexity of life would require a creator to get the ball rolling. Many logical Christians just don’t see how a dinosaur turns into a bird, or how a fish turns into a monkey and then into a human.
It’s a lot like the Founding Fathers. They were all deists. The smartest men in the world all realized that SOMETHING had to of created the universe, even if that something wasn’t an active participant in our every day lives.
What really bothers me about scientists is that they think that a Big Explosion is more plausible than God. I mean, really. If I light a match big enough I’ll form the Universe? That doesn’t make any more sense than it being created, does it?
And another thing, if evolution is the completely correct truth, why don’t we , or other animals, have new body parts that are in the “forming” stage? Wouldn’t it be prudent with the changing environment for humans to develop new traits?
Also, assuming evolution is correct, why are only humans the one to have evolved this far? Why don’t sharks, who have been around since the age of the dinosaurs, have computers? What makes humans so special, and why haven’t other animals who have been around longer gotten further than us?
Both theories have a lot of holes in them, I’ll admit. The truth has to be somewhere in between.
/I am a Christian, but I also believe in evolution to an extent. Science hasn’t proven anything more than religion has. Any Christian who tells you the Earth is only 10,000 years old is delusional.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Matt,
I don’t know any more about the current climate of thought on the topic of evolution in the United States other than what the data from this Gallup Poll indicate, so when it comes to the statement:
“Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life”
The poll says that 44% of Americans believe that statement to be false and that’s a lot bigger number than the 5% you are saying would shock you.
As for the Big Bang theory on the creation of the Universe, I agree with you that the logic behind that explanation doesn’t satisfy my need to understand how the universe started.
But I think you might enjoy a little background:
Back in the 1920s, Edwin Hubble discovered galaxies beyond our own and at the same time noticed that light from those far away galaxies was “red-shifted” on the spectrum of light, indicating that they are all rushing away from each other at tremendous speeds. (This is good science—the red-shift phenomenon is similar to the Doppler Effect with sound)
This discovery led to a couple of theories, one being the “Big Bang” which was solidified in the 1960s when scientists discovered a background radiation of three degrees above absolute zero, which was predicted. This heat is apparently the leftover results of the initial explosion.
While virtually all astronomers and theoretical physicists now accept the Big Bang version of creation, something about it just doesn’t seem quite right to me.
Ironically, that explanation seems match the orthodox doctrine of creation ex nihilo (ie. creation out of nothing), or at least creation creatio ex deo, which is creation out of the being of God. But it doesn’t answer the question of where God came from? And if God gets to be infinite, then why can’t the universe be infinite too?
So where does that leave us? Well I like to subscribe mainly to science that can be proven, and although we have the “red-shift” and “background radiation” as evidence of a Big Bang, it doesn’t really answer any questions for me.
Personally I’d like to see the results of that 6 billion dollar experiment going on over in Britain this November (BBC video at YouTube), and just hope that it actually gives us some answers.
The religious beliefs of the “Founding Fathers” (of the USA?) are irrelevant. Aren’t these the same guys that also believed slave labour was a pretty neat idea?
As for your questions, “why don’t we, or other animals, have new body parts that are in the “forming” stage?” and “why are only humans the one to have evolved this far?”, if you are really interested in the science behind evolution, take a biology class. These questions should be answered by a standard introductory course, and you might be surprised that we are all in a continuous forming stage (if by continuous, you mean, from one generation to the next).
June 16th, 2007 at 11:01 am
I guess I just want a third eye, Jeff.
And I threw the founding Fathers thing in there with a previous argument that I later changed and forgot to take out.
Interesting stuff you bring up!
November 16th, 2007 at 10:57 am
I’m just wonder when it was that evolution became anything more than a theory. It’s noted as a science on the blog, when it fact, as far as i am aware, there have no advances so significant over the past couple of years in the theory that we should be inclined to change it from one to the other. In fact, evolution is no more a science than monkeys flying out of my butt. You want to call it a theory…fine, have at it. But please, don’t play verbal engineer and try to redefine people’s perspective on evolution by calling it a science. Really, the concept of the evolutionary theory fits very exacting criteria for the definition of “theory” as set forth by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. m-w.com if anyone is interested. Search “theory”. Evolution is a theory and nothing more, to call it a science is verbal engineering and intellectually dishonest.
As for your comments on the Founding Fathers…I believe it was the Dutch who started the slave trade, as we think of it. That aside, slavery has pretty much always been around since ancient times, in almost every ancient culture. I’m not sure one can blame slavery on them. And wrong yes, it was, but you give them to much credit for accepting what was by that time tradition. Your point is moot at best, and again, intellectually dishonest, seeing only what you really want to.
As for your red shift and Big Bang, if that is what you are basing a belief in Evolution on, you should probably do some further research into things like carbon-14 dating, and its ridiculous inaccuracies. The guys who are telling you Evolution is a science are the same guys telling you this stuff is accurate. Not to mention that the Big Bang theory completely ignores the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. I found as even a small child it was exceedingly difficult to play a game with another certain child, because whenever it favoured him, he changed and ignored whatever rules were in place previously. Much the same case with the Evolutionary Theory i find. Things are brushed to the side whenever evolutionists see it benefitting their cause.
A man by the name of Roger Penrose, a colleague of Stephen Hawking, who also notably has an Erdos number of 3, did a calculation as to the probability of the occurrence of a universe where life can form. Pretty interesting…you can check it out here: http://www.hyahya.org/create03.php, if you’re truly interested in seeing something real from someone who isn’t teaching an introductory course at Uni.
I apologize…i don’t have time to go into the biological factors of why the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, and a ridiculous one at that. I have better chances at taking a bottle of milk, smashing the open container on the ground, and hoping the the spillage forms an intricate and detailed map of London.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
“I’m just wonder when it was that evolution became anything more than a theory.”
Here’s what they’ve been saying in University textbooks since at least 1990:
“Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves… it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.”
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
“As for your comments on the Founding Fathers…”
It’s true my comment on the Founding Fathers is an association fallacy. Saying that the US Founding Fathers believed in slavery, believing in slavery is wrong, therefore all the beliefs of the Founding Fathers is wrong—is irrelevant. I apologize.
I was responding to Matt’s own fallacy that, “The smartest men in the world all realized that SOMETHING had to of created the universe, even if that something wasn’t an active participant in our every day lives.” Which is a fallacy because, even if they were the smartest men alive, (not that I’m convinced) their beliefs aren’t immune from religious/dogmatic influence.
“As for your red shift and Big Bang, if that is what you are basing a belief in Evolution on”
No, it isn’t.
“Not to mention that the Big Bang theory completely ignores the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.”
I’m not certain that scientists who subscribe to the Big Bang Theory conclude that it does, in fact, violate those laws. At least not the second one.
The first law of thermodynamics states: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed.
So it seems reasonable that whatever happened at the Big Bang, energy was changing from one form to another.
If someone believes that the Universe suddenly sprung into existence from nothing, I would consider that belief to be eerily similar to the creationist view that God created the universe from nothing. A violation of the first law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the energy available after a chemical reaction is less than that at the beginning of a reaction; energy conversions are not 100% efficient.
I don’t see how this violates the theory.
“Roger Penrose [...] did a calculation as to the probability of the occurrence of a universe where life can form.”
I didn’t love the link you sent, I couldn’t find anything about Penrose. Also it was a little to tricky to navigate. Perhaps a link to the actual article would be better—preferably something not so blinky and absolutely nothing with a “Jesus will Return” button appearing anywhere on the page.
“i don’t have time to go into the biological factors of why the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory”
Are you a biologist? Have you taken any biology in school? Does your expertise in biology come from reading about it, or from personal study? Why should I take your word for it?
Please excuse me for being skeptical about your notion that evolution is ridiculous, but I find your argument condescending in tone and unconvincing in practise.