Gallup - 40% Of Americans Are Creationists

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx

...
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Forty percent of U.S. adults ascribe to a strictly creationist view of human origins, believing that God created them in their present form within roughly the past 10,000 years. However, more Americans continue to think that humans evolved over millions of years -- either with God's guidance (33%) or, increasingly, without God's involvement at all (22%).
...

Deep in the heart of darkest America. We have a long way to go.

 

[ideologyhunter]

And 90% of American creationists imagine that God created them as gun-carrying Caucasians.

 

[Treedbear]

Interesting that 6% of Protestants and 18% of Catholics would admit that they think God had nothing to do with human development.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm a bit surprised, simply b/c I had seen some other indicators (that I cannot track down at the moment) that creationism had declined somewhat in the last 20 years, but these numbers are pretty similar to 20 years ago.

It's even more disturbing when you realize that most of the 33% who believe in "god guided" human development, don't believe in the scientific theory of evolution either. The ToE centers upon random variations and natural selection of which variants survive/thrive. If God is guiding the variations, then they are not random, and if God is doing the selecting, then it is not the scientific concept of natural selection. And if God isn't doing either of those, then he isn't guiding evolution.

Now, some of those 33%, may fully accept the ToE but just don't want to explicitly say "God played no part", which is the only alternative given to them. It's logically contradictory, but still accepting of the science of ToE. But I bet that most of that 33% are presuming a role for God that makes their accepted notion of evolution not the modern scientific theory of evolution. Which makes the % of Americans who reject the central defining aspects of the modern science of evolution around 55%-60%.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Now, some of those 33%, may fully accept the ToE but just don't want to explicitly say "God played no part", which is the only alternative given to them.

That's what I was wondering. If there would be more support for an option of 'can be explained without an appeal to God taking direct action, though He totally exists, for sure, He just isn't IMPLICITLY necessary for any scientific explanation, in biology or physics or whatever.'

 

[ronburgundy]

Now, some of those 33%, may fully accept the ToE but just don't want to explicitly say "God played no part", which is the only alternative given to them.

That's what I was wondering. If there would be more support for an option of 'can be explained without an appeal to God taking direct action, though He totally exists, for sure, He just isn't IMPLICITLY necessary for any scientific explanation, in biology or physics or whatever.'

Yeah, there are probably some closeted non-theists in that group. Basically that 33% are those being intellectually dishonest with themselves and pretending that their conception of God and modern science are not in conflict, when logically they are incompatible if it's anything close the kind of human-centric creator God that most monotheist believe in. Either they really do accept the science and are just pretend theists who still want to say "I believe in God" without it really meaning anything, or they are actually theists who are just pretending to accept the science but grossly distort what the accepted facts and theories are in order to eliminate the conflict with their notion of a God who created the world with humans as the central focal point.

The portion of each of those two subtypes in that "guided" group probably varies by other demographics. For example, 40% of college grads are in that group while 30% of non-college grads are. But I bet most college grads are the closeted non-theists sort while more of the non-college ones are of the theists pretending to accept science sort.

 

[Keith&Co.]

being intellectually dishonest with themselves and pretending that their conception of God and modern science are not in conflict, when logically they are incompatible if it's anything close the kind of human-centric creator God that most monotheist believe in.

Maybe they just haven't taken it that deep.
They accept that science has provided televisions, GPS, moon landings, polio vaccinations, and moving typeface, but don't want to question the nature of science enough to see if it's compatible with their God.
They accept that God exists, and loves us all, and provides Heaven and angels and cures cancer every so often, and that one time they were late for their flight to Grandma's funeral gave them that really good parking place just in the nick of time, but don't want to question the nature of God closely enough to see if He is compatible with the evolutionary theory they don't know all that well, either.

 

[ronburgundy]

being intellectually dishonest with themselves and pretending that their conception of God and modern science are not in conflict, when logically they are incompatible if it's anything close the kind of human-centric creator God that most monotheist believe in.

Maybe they just haven't taken it that deep.
They accept that science has provided televisions, GPS, moon landings, polio vaccinations, and moving typeface, but don't want to question the nature of science enough to see if it's compatible with their God.
They accept that God exists, and loves us all, and provides Heaven and angels and cures cancer every so often, and that one time they were late for their flight to Grandma's funeral gave them that really good parking place just in the nick of time, but don't want to question the nature of God closely enough to see if He is compatible with the evolutionary theory they don't know all that well, either.

Some of them, but even there the "don't want to question" part is itself usually a form of intellectual dishonesty, where they are deliberately avoiding questioning/thinking about either the science or the theology too much b/c on some level they suspect they are not compatible and don't want to have to admit it.

I think the closest thing to a more honest ignorance behind "guided evolution" would be people who sincerely have no grasp what evolution means beyond any form of "change over time", but they are still fully open to learning more about it and simply have not gotten beyond that minimal conception. I'm not sure how plausible that scenario is for many adults in a modern society with repeated exposure to what really are rather simple concepts of "novel variations of genes occur due to errors in copying and sexual combination, and some are more useful or harmful for survival and reproduction than others." I think far more of the "ignorance" of these aspects of evolution is willful and motivated by a desire to protect beliefs, and thus is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

As for the reverse situation where the person fully understands evolution but doesn't grasp how it leaves no room for a human-centric God, I think that's even less plausible unless their notion of God is so vague and they have given so little thought to what the concept of God means that they cannot be accurately described as believing in God so much as uttering the phrase without reference to a particular idea.

 

[bilby]

I think that the creationist lobby in the US has been very effective in persuading people that the theory of evolution says that humans arose by pure random chance.

In the face of that clearly nonsensical position, it's not at all unreasonable to at least consider creation by a God; After all, if 'it just happened randomly' is the best the scientists have got, then they clearly don't have much.

This is why you people need an educational system that's not dominated by local popularity contest winners.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I know lots of people who do not understand how evolution works, probably because magic makers are just much easier, not to mention people don't have to question their loyalty. Most of them have college degrees.

One can become fabulously wealthy in the U.S. without a whit of scientific acumen, so ignorance about evolution is understandable. Folks are only going to give up their stupidity when it becomes too embarrassing or too costly to maintain. The ones I have in mind aren't trying to be stupid about evolution, it's just presently their easiest option.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Some of them, but even there the "don't want to question" part is itself usually a form of intellectual dishonesty, where they are deliberately avoiding questioning/thinking about either the science or the theology too much b/c on some level they suspect they are not compatible and don't want to have to admit it.

I thnk that's giving a lot of credit where laziness is sufficient.

I mean, most people don't really understand what happens when they throw the light switch and the darktron-sucker comes on, but they're not dishonest. They just sat behind Mary Scoley during the electricity unit and spent most of their time thinking about, um, dipping her curls in the inkwell...as it were.