Poll on Creationist Beliefs

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:59 am

http://www.christianpost.com/article/so ... nism/1.htm

Nearly Half of Americans Believe in Creationism

Tuesday, Jun. 6, 2006 Posted: 9:26:33AM EST

WASHINGTON — Almost half of Americans believe that human beings did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so, results from a new Gallup Poll revealed.

In a May 8-11 survey of American beliefs on evolution, 46 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

In comparison, only 13 percent chose the answer: “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.”

According to the poll results, which were released Monday, the biggest factor in determining the answer was religion. Almost two-thirds of Americans who attend church at least once a week believe that humans were created in their present form, compared to 29 percent of those who say they never attend church.

Analysts also found a strong correlation between the level of education and the response. About three-quarters of those with a post-graduate degree said humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, compared to just 22 percent choosing the “created in present form” option.

According to Gallup, the poll shows that Americans' view on the origin of life has remained constant for decades. Since 1982, when the poll first began, between 44 and 47 percent of Americans have consistently agreed with the option that God created humans in their present form, and between 9 and 13 percent believed man evolved without guidance from God. This was the seventh time the poll was conducted.

Meanwhile, 36 percent of Americans agreed with a third option, that man evolved with the guidance of God through millions of years.

Results are based on telephone interviews with 2,002 national adults from Nov. 7-10, 2004, and May 8-11, 2006. The margin of sampling error is 2 percentage points with 95 percent confidence.

Nothing new here. Any thoughts?

Birdie · Post by **Birdie** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:10 pm

Dang, really half of Americans? Wasn't there some ice man skeleton found from a really long time ago or something? Not sure if it was over 10,000 years though...

waynes world · Post by **waynes world** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:21 pm

I wonder that too. I am not sure if I buy the 10,000 year old date here. The universe could be quite a bit older than Adam.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:00 am

waynes world wrote:I wonder that too. I am not sure if I buy the 10,000 year old date here. The universe could be quite a bit older than Adam.

I agree.

If nothing else, I think this poll, which has been remarkably consistent for the last 30 years, shows that Young Earth Creationists have been very effective and framing their position as equating with the integrity of Scripture itself.

hetfield · Post by **hetfield** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:33 pm

I would vote undecided, not upon the evolution theory but between young earth and Old.

phoney · Post by **phoney** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:32 am

Canuckster1127 wrote:
waynes world wrote:I wonder that too. I am not sure if I buy the 10,000 year old date here. The universe could be quite a bit older than Adam.
I agree.

If nothing else, I think this poll, which has been remarkably consistent for the last 30 years, shows that Young Earth Creationists have been very effective and framing their position as equating with the integrity of Scripture itself.

Question: would it be wrong to think that the first five days could have
been a very long time period, before mankind, which may incompise
dinosaurs and giant things in the ocean?
We know these things lived on earth but the carbon dating suggest it
was longer than 10,000 yrs. I am asking is it possible earth itself is older than 10,000 years but not mankind.

Canuckster1127 · Post by **Canuckster1127** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:26 pm

That's a very viable solution.

I don't think there is anything Scriptural about 6,000 or 10,000 years. It is inferred, not direct, and there are multiple layers of assumption and presumption, involved at arriving at that kind of a time table. It wasn't really introduced into the mix until Bishop Ussher brought it into vogue in the 16th century.

So, I agree with you that it is very clear to me that the earth is much older than 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

hfd · Post by **hfd** » Thu May 31, 2007 6:32 pm

Quite frankly, Ussher performed a major feat in his chronology. His scholarship is beyond question. He assumed the Bible to be accurate as history. A point made in a book entitled 'The Cosmic Serpent'

"...wherever detailed correspondence of biblical accounts and archeological facts can be established, then it usually turned out that the Bible is an accurate description of what went on."

Clube, Victor & Napier, Bill - THE COSMIC SERPENT, (NY: Universe Books, 1982) p. 247

I find it interesting that a goodly portion of the 'Christian' world rejects literal presentations of the Creation narrative and The Flood, yet, accept The Resurrection as an historical event.

FFC · Post by **FFC** » Thu May 31, 2007 6:49 pm

hfd wrote:I find it interesting that a goodly portion of the 'Christian' wolrd rejects literal presentations of the Creation narrative and The Flood, yet, accept The Resurrection as an historical event.

So do I.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Thu May 31, 2007 6:50 pm

Been over this before....

WE believe that the literal interpretation of Genesis shows an old earth.

We are not giving in nor are we somehow giving up any historical accuracy.

FFC · Post by **FFC** » Thu May 31, 2007 7:19 pm

Zoegirl wrote:WE believe that the literal interpretation of Genesis shows an old earth.

I understand that, Zoe, but a literal reading of Genesis seems to point to a young earth.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

To me this seems to indicate a 24 hour period, and it is repeated 7 times.

I can't explain fossil records and carbon dating but it doesn't take much to see that a day is a day.

August · Post by **August** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:50 am

FFC wrote:
Zoegirl wrote:WE believe that the literal interpretation of Genesis shows an old earth.
I understand that, Zoe, but a literal reading of Genesis seems to point to a young earth.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

To me this seems to indicate a 24 hour period, and it is repeated 7 times.

I can't explain fossil records and carbon dating but it doesn't take much to see that a day is a day.

How was there day and night before there was a sun?

hfd · Post by **hfd** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:55 am

zoegirl wrote:Been over this before....

WE believe that the literal interpretation of Genesis shows an old earth.

We are not giving in nor are we somehow giving up any historical accuracy.

First of all, who is 'We'. Secondly, I've never witnessed a Resurrection...if I'm to accept The Resurrection on faith, why should that faith somehow succumb to 'reason' when it comes to Creation and the Flood.

The literal interpretation of Genesis does not suggest an old earth regardless of what spin those who relish acceptance by science want to put on it. Old earth, abiogenesis and macro-evolutionary philosophy are strictly antithetical to Biblical teachings.

There can be no question that a Biblically derived religion cannot in any way be compatible with a universe with no purpose. That purposeless universe and all that it contains is the very basis of evolutionary thought, a purely atheistic paradigm. It is a desire to be accepted by the mainstream that allows for dilution of the Genesis text.

The idea of an old earth is needed, of course, to support the thesis that all things are derived from a common ancestor and that time is the only requirement needed to produce those numerous offspring. To accept a literal Resurrection on 'faith' and to reject a Genesis based Creation, and the young earth it proposes, is anything but consistent.

William Provine addressed this reality when he wrote:

"Of course, it is still possible to believe in both modern evolutionary biology and a purposive force, even the Judeo-Christian God. One can suppose that God started the whole universe or works through the laws of nature (or both). There is no contradiction between this or similar views of God and natural selection. But this view of God is also worthless. Called Deism in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and considered equivalent to atheism then, it is no different now. A God or purposive force that merely starts the universe or works thought the laws of nature has nothing to do with human morals, answers no prayers, gives no life everlasting, in fact does nothing whatsoever that is detectable. In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism. "

Provine, William - Academe, January/February 1987 pp. 51- 52

FFC · Post by **FFC** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:35 pm

August wrote:How was there day and night before there was a sun?

I don't know, you'll have to ask God. I'm just saying what I see in God's word.

zoegirl · Post by **zoegirl** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:51 pm

Accepting old universe in no way means acceptance of a universe with no purpose or macroevolution or abiogenesis. Check out the parts of the webite addressing this issue.

The age question in no way compromises the role of God as omnipotent Creator

We meaning those Christians who think that Genesis and Scientific observation both agree that the universe is old.