This is anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt, but I spent 4 years as a catechumen: 2 in a "cradle" parish, and 2 in a convert parish. The cradle folks seemed more secularized and culturally religious, but otherwise didn't profess any unorthodox beliefs. The convert folks were mostly from Catholic and Evangelical backgrounds, and some held idiosyncratic/fringe beliefs, sometimes even vestigial beliefs from their former backgrounds. As long as they weren't vocal about these quirky beliefs, the priest didn't feel particularly compelled to correct them.
So the meme about Adult Catholic converts might also apply to Adult Orthodox Christian converts?
It goes something like this:
> Every lifelong Catholic I've ever met is like "I think we're supposed to give this food to poor people" and every adult convert is like "the Archon of Constantinople's epistle on the Pentacostine rites of the eucharist clearly states women shouldn't have driver's licenses.
Heh, yeah I do think some of the Catholic convert stereotypes also apply to Orthodox coverts. The most quirky belief I ever ran into was a convert who identified the uncreated light of Palamas as 4th dimensional lightning energy, with the implication that God was a 4th dimensional alien. I never saw anything like this in ethnic/immigrant parishes.
I'm going to slide the slippery slope of simplicity here re: the question of women and throw out there that perhaps it is something to do with their ability to conceive, go through a pregnancy and deliver a child. I think some today take childbirth for granted. Having said that, if any of you men have survived a pregnancy with a very hormonal wife, gone through labor and delivery with them and did not once shed a tear and marvel at what you two have created then check yourself at the door. Just sayin'
Sometimes it's good to talk in percentages, sometimes in absolutes and sometimes both. "Only" 17% of the US popular is likely substantially over 50 million people. To be clear, that's 50 million people who reject a major cornerstone of modern critical thinking.
I am surprised that you did not include educational levels as a factor. My hunch is that education will correlate to age, denomination, belief in the Bible, as well as Creation.
I have an ED. D and my childhood friends and parents are not usually college educated or exposed to other faith based science that could expose them to the Discovery Center and evolution guided by the Lord. It is usually stated in many churches an either monkeys or God.
Re: Creation Museum and Ark Encounter, "significant majority" might need some qualification. Back when the Creation Museum first opened, it seemed to me that most of the visitors were already pre-disposed to creationism. And while that was some time ago, I have to wonder if that isn't also true about the Ark Encounter? (And Answers probably has their own data on this). That said, "significant number" is still intriguing.
Without reading the whole thing, what does one mean by the concept of evolution? Is it 1) change in a species over time, 2) is it the origin of new species or 3) is it just the origin of humans?
Two and three are mathematically impossible using known processes. Yet this is never considered when discussing the presence of the various species found in our world. In case one doubts this conclusion, explain how new proteins originate. This is necessary for 2 and 3 but has no answer.
There is a fourth explanation, one that is consistent with modern life science and consistent with traditional interpretations of God ln the Bible. That is the origin of the necessary proteins and combination of them was built into the initial conditions of the universe and has long since disappeared from discovery.
Small differences in wording make a big difference in the way theists answer this question, I think. For example, "beginning of time" would rule out Old Earth (Day-Age) creationism.
Phrasing and wording clearly matter. What struck me, though, is that Gallup’s more specific phrasing (“within 10,000 years”) might logically narrow the category, yet it still draws a bigger response. It makes me wonder if respondents are reacting more to the “God created” framing than the chronology itself.
Thank you for that - it provides some context. I think there are a lot of people who believe God created a literal Adam and Eve but are fuzzy on how and when all the other animals came about. It surprises me how many believe it is in the last 10,000 years - that's wild.
While 17% does not sound like a whole lot, if 17% of Americans had diabetes or some other condition, that same figure would be a crisis. Personal belief in creationism is mostly harmless until those believers of substantial minority alter curricula for the majority.
As somebody else noted, it would be interesting to see how educational level plays out. Or occupation. Many of the advances in oncology, infection treatment, and agriculture are highly dependent on some very fundamental evolutionary principles. While vaccines may be contentious, treatment of cancer, antibiotics, and economical produce at the grocery is not. Doubt if many docs or STEM workers opt for creation. The survey could probably extract that data.
In a former life, I was very involved in evolution vs. creationism curricula battles in Kansas. (There were big conflicts in 1999 and 2005.) I've followed these conflicts for pretty much my whole adult life. And, going along with Ryan's data, I note: when was the last one? One of the biggest organizations fighting against creationist education back in the 1990s and early 2000s was the National Center for Science Education. Today, they mention evolution, but mainly mention climate change. About evolution, their big gripe is that 1/3 of teachers don't teach it well--not that teachers aren't allowed to teach it. (See their website here: https://ncse.ngo/ ) Recently, their big evolution-related story was celebrating the 25th anniversary (!) of the Dover decision against teaching intelligent design in schools.
So, Richard, while I agree that it would be bad if 17% of the population were controlling education on evolution, are they though? Or is that a 20th century problem?
Some variant of intelligent design or theistic evolution is basically the semi-official Catholic position. Nobody other than maybe a few weirder trads would teach YEC to their kids.
I wonder if some of the pop-science versions of evolution turn women off from acceptance of evolution. Note that most people haven't, like, memorized sections of "On the Origin of Species" or have views about whether genes, individuals, or populations are the units of selection. For most people, what "evolution" means is the popular version of it, and that can have embedded in it misunderstandings that make evolution seem less plausible, and even seem morally wrong.
As a key example, evolutionary psychology has been widely embraced and promoted by a lot of manosphere influencers, including more benign folks like Jordan Peterson and less benign ones like Andrew Tate. Here's how that version of evolution goes:
"Men and women evolved differently. Men evolved to want to make lots of babies with as many women as possible, and be really aggressive and dominating to do so. Hot women are young and fertile; a woman past menopause has no evolutionary value whatsoever, while men are virile and useful until they die. This is why it's just natural that men dominate women and women should not expect faithful spouses, much less someone who loves them when they age."
You can see how this version of evolution may be slightly off-putting to women--maybe especially women who are already in religions with more traditional views on gender. It also doesn't make sense: How would sexes evolve separately? Aren't men and women equally related to both their mom and their dad? So if this is the version of evolution you know, I think you're going to be less likely to accept evolution as a woman than as a man.
Now, personally and as a woman, I don't find manosphere influencers' views on how evolution works as something pushing me away from acceptance of evolution--in large part because I'm pretty well educated about what evolution does and does not predict, evolutionary theory being a major underpinning of my own scholarly work. I've spent a lot of time studying how people learn about evolution and pop cultural misunderstandings of evolution. I actually have read "On the Origin of Species" more than once and do have opinions on Dennett vs. Gould. But if all I had was a pop culture version abut how men and women evolved separately, in a way that makes women worse? Man, I don't know what I'd think then.
I'll also note that in an earlier time, battles about evolution were similarly not just about evolution, but about the moral implications of the pop-culture version of evolution that was being promoted at the time. For instance, in the Scopes monkey trial, anti-evolution lawyer William Jennings Bryan was not just arguing that humans could not have evolved "from monkeys," but was arguing against social Darwinism, the idea that charity should not be provided to the poor because helping the disadvantaged was not "in the evolutionary interests of the human species." For Bryan--who was known for his advocacy of a minimum wage, unionization, social safety net and women's right to vote before he argued against evolution in 1925--it was this moral implication of the pop culture version of evolution that led him to crusade against evolution, not an examination of the fossil record.
I suspect that part of what is going on here is that many people who say the Bible is very important to their life are mostly ignorant about the contents of the bible but adopt it as an identity marker. If this is correct then such people may never have thought much about how evolution and theology may or may not contradict one another.
I hold this view pretty loosely. The books by Stephen Meyer have helped me think through this. Even Ken Hamm who has to be the for most famous young earth creationist doesn’t believe this to be a salvation issue. I do see the slippery slope argument and I can see his point but the intelligent design seems to fit biblical teaching to the world we see and can study.
The fact about Orthodox Christians surprises me (I am Orthodox). Our Church takes a highly allegorical, not literalist, view of the Old Testament
This is anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt, but I spent 4 years as a catechumen: 2 in a "cradle" parish, and 2 in a convert parish. The cradle folks seemed more secularized and culturally religious, but otherwise didn't profess any unorthodox beliefs. The convert folks were mostly from Catholic and Evangelical backgrounds, and some held idiosyncratic/fringe beliefs, sometimes even vestigial beliefs from their former backgrounds. As long as they weren't vocal about these quirky beliefs, the priest didn't feel particularly compelled to correct them.
So the meme about Adult Catholic converts might also apply to Adult Orthodox Christian converts?
It goes something like this:
> Every lifelong Catholic I've ever met is like "I think we're supposed to give this food to poor people" and every adult convert is like "the Archon of Constantinople's epistle on the Pentacostine rites of the eucharist clearly states women shouldn't have driver's licenses.
Heh, yeah I do think some of the Catholic convert stereotypes also apply to Orthodox coverts. The most quirky belief I ever ran into was a convert who identified the uncreated light of Palamas as 4th dimensional lightning energy, with the implication that God was a 4th dimensional alien. I never saw anything like this in ethnic/immigrant parishes.
I'm going to slide the slippery slope of simplicity here re: the question of women and throw out there that perhaps it is something to do with their ability to conceive, go through a pregnancy and deliver a child. I think some today take childbirth for granted. Having said that, if any of you men have survived a pregnancy with a very hormonal wife, gone through labor and delivery with them and did not once shed a tear and marvel at what you two have created then check yourself at the door. Just sayin'
Sometimes it's good to talk in percentages, sometimes in absolutes and sometimes both. "Only" 17% of the US popular is likely substantially over 50 million people. To be clear, that's 50 million people who reject a major cornerstone of modern critical thinking.
And an evangelical would say "only 17% of our own people actual hold the correct view of the Bible."
I am surprised that you did not include educational levels as a factor. My hunch is that education will correlate to age, denomination, belief in the Bible, as well as Creation.
I have an ED. D and my childhood friends and parents are not usually college educated or exposed to other faith based science that could expose them to the Discovery Center and evolution guided by the Lord. It is usually stated in many churches an either monkeys or God.
Re: Creation Museum and Ark Encounter, "significant majority" might need some qualification. Back when the Creation Museum first opened, it seemed to me that most of the visitors were already pre-disposed to creationism. And while that was some time ago, I have to wonder if that isn't also true about the Ark Encounter? (And Answers probably has their own data on this). That said, "significant number" is still intriguing.
Without reading the whole thing, what does one mean by the concept of evolution? Is it 1) change in a species over time, 2) is it the origin of new species or 3) is it just the origin of humans?
Two and three are mathematically impossible using known processes. Yet this is never considered when discussing the presence of the various species found in our world. In case one doubts this conclusion, explain how new proteins originate. This is necessary for 2 and 3 but has no answer.
There is a fourth explanation, one that is consistent with modern life science and consistent with traditional interpretations of God ln the Bible. That is the origin of the necessary proteins and combination of them was built into the initial conditions of the universe and has long since disappeared from discovery.
How would you contrast your findings with the 2024 Gallup poll that suggests 37% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?" https://news.gallup.com/poll/647594/majority-credits-god-humankind-not-creationism.aspx
Small differences in wording make a big difference in the way theists answer this question, I think. For example, "beginning of time" would rule out Old Earth (Day-Age) creationism.
Phrasing and wording clearly matter. What struck me, though, is that Gallup’s more specific phrasing (“within 10,000 years”) might logically narrow the category, yet it still draws a bigger response. It makes me wonder if respondents are reacting more to the “God created” framing than the chronology itself.
Thank you for that - it provides some context. I think there are a lot of people who believe God created a literal Adam and Eve but are fuzzy on how and when all the other animals came about. It surprises me how many believe it is in the last 10,000 years - that's wild.
Combine the 2. 20% of Americans believe that humans were intelligently designed within the last 10k years.
While 17% does not sound like a whole lot, if 17% of Americans had diabetes or some other condition, that same figure would be a crisis. Personal belief in creationism is mostly harmless until those believers of substantial minority alter curricula for the majority.
As somebody else noted, it would be interesting to see how educational level plays out. Or occupation. Many of the advances in oncology, infection treatment, and agriculture are highly dependent on some very fundamental evolutionary principles. While vaccines may be contentious, treatment of cancer, antibiotics, and economical produce at the grocery is not. Doubt if many docs or STEM workers opt for creation. The survey could probably extract that data.
In a former life, I was very involved in evolution vs. creationism curricula battles in Kansas. (There were big conflicts in 1999 and 2005.) I've followed these conflicts for pretty much my whole adult life. And, going along with Ryan's data, I note: when was the last one? One of the biggest organizations fighting against creationist education back in the 1990s and early 2000s was the National Center for Science Education. Today, they mention evolution, but mainly mention climate change. About evolution, their big gripe is that 1/3 of teachers don't teach it well--not that teachers aren't allowed to teach it. (See their website here: https://ncse.ngo/ ) Recently, their big evolution-related story was celebrating the 25th anniversary (!) of the Dover decision against teaching intelligent design in schools.
So, Richard, while I agree that it would be bad if 17% of the population were controlling education on evolution, are they though? Or is that a 20th century problem?
Some variant of intelligent design or theistic evolution is basically the semi-official Catholic position. Nobody other than maybe a few weirder trads would teach YEC to their kids.
I wonder if some of the pop-science versions of evolution turn women off from acceptance of evolution. Note that most people haven't, like, memorized sections of "On the Origin of Species" or have views about whether genes, individuals, or populations are the units of selection. For most people, what "evolution" means is the popular version of it, and that can have embedded in it misunderstandings that make evolution seem less plausible, and even seem morally wrong.
As a key example, evolutionary psychology has been widely embraced and promoted by a lot of manosphere influencers, including more benign folks like Jordan Peterson and less benign ones like Andrew Tate. Here's how that version of evolution goes:
"Men and women evolved differently. Men evolved to want to make lots of babies with as many women as possible, and be really aggressive and dominating to do so. Hot women are young and fertile; a woman past menopause has no evolutionary value whatsoever, while men are virile and useful until they die. This is why it's just natural that men dominate women and women should not expect faithful spouses, much less someone who loves them when they age."
You can see how this version of evolution may be slightly off-putting to women--maybe especially women who are already in religions with more traditional views on gender. It also doesn't make sense: How would sexes evolve separately? Aren't men and women equally related to both their mom and their dad? So if this is the version of evolution you know, I think you're going to be less likely to accept evolution as a woman than as a man.
Now, personally and as a woman, I don't find manosphere influencers' views on how evolution works as something pushing me away from acceptance of evolution--in large part because I'm pretty well educated about what evolution does and does not predict, evolutionary theory being a major underpinning of my own scholarly work. I've spent a lot of time studying how people learn about evolution and pop cultural misunderstandings of evolution. I actually have read "On the Origin of Species" more than once and do have opinions on Dennett vs. Gould. But if all I had was a pop culture version abut how men and women evolved separately, in a way that makes women worse? Man, I don't know what I'd think then.
I'll also note that in an earlier time, battles about evolution were similarly not just about evolution, but about the moral implications of the pop-culture version of evolution that was being promoted at the time. For instance, in the Scopes monkey trial, anti-evolution lawyer William Jennings Bryan was not just arguing that humans could not have evolved "from monkeys," but was arguing against social Darwinism, the idea that charity should not be provided to the poor because helping the disadvantaged was not "in the evolutionary interests of the human species." For Bryan--who was known for his advocacy of a minimum wage, unionization, social safety net and women's right to vote before he argued against evolution in 1925--it was this moral implication of the pop culture version of evolution that led him to crusade against evolution, not an examination of the fossil record.
I suspect that part of what is going on here is that many people who say the Bible is very important to their life are mostly ignorant about the contents of the bible but adopt it as an identity marker. If this is correct then such people may never have thought much about how evolution and theology may or may not contradict one another.
I hold this view pretty loosely. The books by Stephen Meyer have helped me think through this. Even Ken Hamm who has to be the for most famous young earth creationist doesn’t believe this to be a salvation issue. I do see the slippery slope argument and I can see his point but the intelligent design seems to fit biblical teaching to the world we see and can study.