Only in America??

Quote from: ccvortex on September 24, 2009, 06:19:20 PM

Creationism doesn't necessarily reject scientific evidence...

But many Creationists do.

So what? it isn't the fault of the theory how it's interpreted by some of the people that believe in it. If that were the case then a person could say the theory of evolution states that cheese bread is a shoe wheel on ice cream making the theory invalid.


I'm not out to prove that Creationism is real, so if the debate goes in that direction then you pulled it there on purpose.
The topic is whether or not a majority of Americans believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, not whether it is 6000 years old, or if Creationism is a valid substitute for evolution.

I have lived in the US for almost 40 years and have been a Christian since 1988 and have never actually met another Christian that believes the Earth is 6000 years old. I have met thousands of Christians and have had several conversations about this very subject and can't recall any single one of them saying the Earth is anything younger than what science says it is.

I find this very heartening.  I participate in the list/serve of a professionals organization and of the scores of people who post on this subject I can tell you at LEAST 75% literally believe the Earth is 10,000 years old.  These are businessmen so it's not a random sample, but they are very educated; especially on this topic.

But I'm still confused how one reconciles his belief in Creationism with his belief that the Earth is millions of years old?  I understand how one can believe in evolution and still believe in God, (in a sense, I do so myself), but the former baffles me.  I'm sure I'm missing something.

If they really were very educated on the subject they wouldn't believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. The Bible does not say how old the Earth is... meaning, if they are saying the Bible says this, then they are wrong.

Here's how it's reconciled: God made all things. He did so by allowing or initiating the processes that led to where we are now.
It's a Holy participatory anthropic principle.

I found this poll which I thought was pretty interesting.

http://www.reginaldbibby.com/images/PC_10_BETTER_WITH_GOD_OCT0807.pdf

I didn't think we were talking about the existence or non-existence of God, a god, many gods.  I thought we were discussing firstly, if the religious right in the USA had the influence or power to stop a movie on evolution being presented to the American people and secondly, whether or not creationist/young earth believers existed in the US, in what proportions and if this demographic has a positive or negative impact on the world.

The Bibby research is interesting, but not especially relevant.  We already stipulated way back in the beginning that religion has always been used as a method of social control.  Although, as an aside, you might also be interested in the evolutionary psychology research that offers some good proof that altruism (caring for others, helping others, family orientation etc) is a survival mechanism, and does not only come in human form, but also in animal and insect form.   

I also note that the survey question was "God or a higher power"?  This could therefore be any form of spiritual belief.

As to the questions - we are not and have NEVER stated that a MAJORITY of USAnians believe in the 'young earth' theory, but we are talking about a significant percentage of them, as noted by Gallop poll.

Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

  I find this very CLOSE to a majority, and I find it scary.

I'm sorry ccv - the polls and surveys are showing, that whether you have met them or not,  they are there.  And added to that a number of people on this board have met them.  You have been lucky.

LE, that poll's results are different from the one that was posted at the beginning of the debate, which showed that 39% believe in evolution, 36% don't know/care, and about 25% don't believe in evolution. I'd say the differences are quite significant actually. Do you think the difference is in the wording (one asking about belief in evolution, one asking about belief in creation?), or the length or period sampled (26 years?), or something else? The original poll was quite recent. It is fine to post polls and all, but when the polls that we're using as "proof" start having major discrepancies, then I think it is ok to question them.

I still believe, as for the original question, regardless of how many people believe what, the religious right have very little influence over Hollywood. Ask the religious right themselves who runs Hollywood ... anyone who has ever lived in America has got to have heard the massive amounts of complaining from right wingers over the "liberal media."

This debate has taken a lot of twists and turns though, so I don't really know what the "real" question is at this point!

The poll I posted was a Gallup poll published in June 2008.  I'm not sure where the other one came from, but I figure Gallup has a fairly good reputation.  Longitudinal polls are interesting to show trends.  Wording is exceptionally important in surveys (see the Bibby poll as an example), as is the sequence of questions posed.  Methodology is vital in surveys - with the right methodology you can get people to say almost anything!     

For example - let's take the Bibby poll again - IF the survey was Q. 1 - Do you believe in God or a higher power? and you answer yes, then subsequent questions will be answered with that paradigm in your head already - what does god or a higher power say about these things?

IF, on the other hand, the God question was last, then the answers to the other questions would not have such an obvious frame of reference.

I wish I could find it, but there is a classic survey on military conscription that demonstrated that the question framing could have the same people answer 'yes' and 'no' to conscription just a couple of minutes apart, and NOT realise that they had offered diametrically opposed views to the topic.  Very cool.

What a tremendous coincidence that the poll you happen to disagree with is not correctly formatted and the poll you do agree with was. What are the chances?

The Gallup family is a hard-core conservative, Bible-believing clan so it's pretty cool to hear you say people like that have a good reputation.

I am sure there was no bias whatsoever in their poll though.

ccv, again, you did not read my post correctly.   I offered TWO alternatives - if it was does this way, if it was done that way.  I made NO comment on which way I thought it was done!!  I even made the 'IF' capitalised to show that it was an alternative proposition!!!

I have no idea about the politics and beliefs of the Gallup people - I merely know their wide reputation as extensive pollsters, across 140 countries in the world, and general accuracy.  BUT.. if they are as you claim

The Gallup family is a hard-core conservative, Bible-believing clan so it's pretty cool to hear you say people like that have a good reputation.

then surely that would lend more weight to their findings in your eyes?

You read the poll question they posed - please describe the bias. 

ccv, again, you did not read my post correctly.   I offered TWO alternatives - if it was does this way, if it was done that way.  I made NO comment on which way I thought it was done!!  I even made the 'IF' capitalised to show that it was an alternative proposition!!!

Exactly, which you did not do for the poll in the very beginning of this thread.

Where was your sense of fair poling yesterday?

tisk tisk

ccv - please read TLD's post immediately above mine.  I was answering her.  I totally agreed with her, and showed why I agreed, using as an example the most recent poll posted. And I pointed out where the poll I used came from, stating my level of ignorance on the other - something I am quite happy to remedy, if pointed in the right direction. This post was totally about the reliability and validity of polls.

Do you think the difference is in the wording (one asking about belief in evolution, one asking about belief in creation?), or the length or period sampled (26 years?), or something else? The original poll was quite recent. It is fine to post polls and all, but when the polls that we're using as "proof" start having major discrepancies, then I think it is ok to question them.

Sophistry.

You said, and I quote:

"As to the questions - we are not and have NEVER stated that a MAJORITY of USAnians believe in the 'young earth' theory, but we are talking about a significant percentage of them, as noted by Gallop poll.

[Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.]

I find this very CLOSE to a majority, and I find it scary."

You never gave this Gallup poll a second's thought regarding it's validity, you just assumed these numbers were correct and that's why you said "I find this very CLOSE to a majority, and I find it scary."

Why didn't you question the poll in the beginning of the thread?
This is a quote from you on page 1:

"I would tend to believe the poll, because unless they are about choices people make at a certain time (voting patterns) they can be pretty accurate.

This is scary!!"

Again, no objective reasoning there either. You just immediately jumped on the band wagon and haven't stopped since.

Great topic...............See what you started George!

Bruhaahaha   

OK.  My final post on this thread because it is clearly going round in circles.

We are looking at whether 'young earthers' exist.  ccv says no, or basically in very small numbers.  Evidence:  

• HE has never met any.

Other members of this board say yes.  Evidence:  

• We have met them, in sufficient numbers of a particular cohort to believe that either (please note alternatives here!!!) there are a statistically significant percentage of YE believers if they are distributed on a bell curve and proportionally come here; OR the sample population here is skewed.
• US media clearly reports certain Senators (Stone et al), aspiring V-Presidents (Palin), various Education Review C'tee chairs etc  as having these views.  Presumably these people were elected to their positions of power and influence, and the public knew of their views.
• Various polls will cite various stats - claiming up to 47% of people are YE believers.  The most reputable of these major polling organisations is Gallup, and is relied on by Governments in a number of areas.

Therefore, I think, given this level of evidence we can conclude that YE believers DO exist and in a statistically significant percentage.  Certainly not a majority, but clearly in there, in positions where they can use influence to impact on decision making.


And there is still no listed release date for the 'Creation' movie in the USA.

Sadly (or happily - depends on your POV), fringe groups make good press and usually get over-reported.

I've met the 6000-10,000 year crowd.  They either reject almost all scientific evidence or else apply some odd ways to explain it away (earth built with fossils pre-installed to test their faith, higher oxygen pressure in the past causing normal animals to be giant as explanation for dinosaur bones, etc.).

I've also met a growing number of Christians (and other religions that believe in some form of divinely directed creation) who believe that God initiated the big bang and, via little tweaks here and there, "created" humanity via mostly natural processes that followed the laws of the universe as per the will of its creator.  I'm not aware of a plausible scientific argument to support or deny such a theory.

As for the story of Genesis, I'd suggest reading "The Dragons of Eden" by Carl Sagan.  He shows how a large part of the story about Adam and Eve can, when taken as allegory, fit the scientific version quite nicely.  Kind of makes me suspect that Carl was a closet "scientific creationist" (but not a fact-denying young earther type).  After all, how could someone from 4000-10,000 years ago write such a good allegorical version of what really happened without some outside source of knowledge?   (Oh wait - von Daniknn's aliens must have told them.  )

Just for the record, I think the first poll quoted in the original article was also a Gallup poll, taken sometime earlier this year, but it wasn't longitudinal. It also phrased the question in terms of evolution rather than terms of creation. It seems like the same thing, but like LE said, phrasing can mean a lot. It seems to me, at least on the surface, that it sort of implies that people are more willing to aknowledge evolution than to deny the creation story.

Not sure really what it says about people's actual real beliefs (which are, I'm sure, much more varied and complex than any polls can accurately capture), but kind of interesting anyhow.

Lunatic, I read a book way back sometime in high school that explained Adam and Eve in terms of DNA and cloning. I can't remember what it was called but it sounds a bit like Dragons of Eden.