But doesn’t this sort of thing get a bit old?
The next most popular statement was that “Adam and Eve, the first humans according to the Bible, were real, historical people.” Fifty-six percent of respondents affirmed this statement. But when they were pressed, only 44 percent said they were absolutely or very certain about it. A majority became a minority.
Well, of course, if we weren’t there ourselves. But how could we have been? Were you at your grandma’s wedding? Does that mean she never married?
When people were asked whether evolution, creationism, intelligent design, or “some combination” of them should be taught in public schools, only 18 percent said evolution should be taught exclusively. A majority, 55 percent, preferred “some combination.” But these people are pluralists, not absolutists. Only 19 percent of respondents said that creationism—the theory “that biological life was directly created by God in its present form at one point in time”—should be taught
But whoever thought creation-only was the issue? As opposed to the Darwin-bombing whose results we see in our culture today?
Follow UD News at Twitter!
What’s also odd is that this same kind of study was performed years ago by young-earth creationists. They had even more interesting results than biologos. Apparently, it is only newsworthy if the evolutionists are doing it. Somehow the data becomes tainted and icky if someone we don’t like performs the study, but it is newsworthy when someone we like does it. Very strange.
Also of note – it appears that secularists have not bothered to ever listen to what any evangelical has had to say, ever. I gather this from the “shock” that inerrancy doesn’t mean literalism on every word:
So, what Slate has admitted to is that secularists have been straw-manning evangelicals the whole time, and then turned around and believed their own lies.
It’s also interesting that he seems to take a different view of what constitutes “science-denial”. If you take him to really mean what he says, Intelligent Design would not be considered a form of science denial:
So, for him, Behe’s position would be considered compatible with scientific evidence.
As a non-American (yes, it is true, your News desk is outsourced to someone who lives way north of you), I am surprised by the continual drumbeat of hate for evangelical Christians in the US. Slate is owned by the uber-cool Graham family, late of the Washington Post. So one guesses they aim at the cocktail set.
What have evangelical Christians done to the US apart from being – probably – overrepresented in various rescue operations?
I find this fascinating. How to supporters of “big tent” ID deal with the fact that most of the people in your tent are, at least as far as the science goes, so horribly wrong about this subject?
wd400 –
I think you are wrong on both the evidence and the interpretation of the survey. There are many, for instance, who view Adam and Eve as being part of a population, and, for all intents and purposes, genetically identical and interbreeding with them, but as the first “biblically human” people. That is, God did something special in these two to set them apart. That “something” isn’t necessarily biological. I think that humanity descends from the pair, but that is not universally true of evangelicals, or even those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
Despite your blaring headline, News, you forgot to point out any way in which “Slate makes fun of Americans who doubt Darwin.”
Is this like your Slate dumps on Jim (pre-owned Nobel for sale) Watson piece, where you asked whether your readers could “bear to read the whole screed” and said that “listening to self-righteous progressives tear Watson apart is almost (no, not quite) enough to make one like him,” and then failed to disagree with anything Slate had to say?
A lot of News posts could be summed up quite simply: “I am a Canadian, and the following things are bad: materialism, progressivism, professional journalists and the multiverse theory. Also I am Canadian.”
Johnnyb, probably some of the survey respondents read the question as you do. But it must be a very small number, because that reading isn’t quite consistent with the question: “Adam and Eve, the first humans according to the Bible, were real, historical people.” Adam and Eve, according to the Bible, weren’t representatives of an extant population. They (and their bodies) were specially created.
People read everything creatively, so surely some respondents picked that answer for the same reasons you suggest. But fifty-six percent of all respondents picked it, and probably most of them were thinking along the lines of the traditional Bible story.
That’s not to say that most of them really believe that version of the story. These polls have a serious flaw, which is that any respondent has an incentive to support the story they were taught (or profess in church) and no particular incentive to buck it. That is, giving the answer I know ties me to my friends and family makes me happy, while questioning it does nothing for me. Consequently, we’d expect rational actors to be more likely to give the culturally acceptable answer than the scientifically accurate one where the two diverge. I think that’s what we’re seeing in these polls, by and large.
wd400,
(emphasis mine). You might be over-stating the case for the non-existence of Adam and Eve a bit. If you can provide me with evidence that humanity didn’t come from 2 distinct humans less than 10K years ago, that doesn’t involve at least 3 unprovable and untestable assumptions, I will agree with “horribly wrong”. Otherwise, I’d leave it at “disagrees with the majority opinion of evolutionists”. Which is, of course, kind of what the article says anyway. (edit) And a standard part of ID. (/edit)
LH,
You’re making the assumption that the “culturally acceptable answer” is pro-Bible anti-Evolution. Given the ridicule heaped upon the Creationist viewpoint by major media (ref the ever popular process of ridiculing Conservative politicians who don’t buy into Evolution hook, line, and sinker), I’d argue that at worst the “culturally acceptable” answer that people feel peer-pressured into answering is a wash between Bible/Evolution, and not a significant factor in how they answer these polls. I’d argue that it takes more courage to say “I believe in Adam and Eve” than to say “I accept Evolution”.
Personal opinion only, of course. You are certainly correct that answers to polls often reflect what people think they are supposed to say, rather than what they honestly think. These polls seem rather consistent from year to year, decade to decade though, which seems to indicate some level of immunity to cultural swings.
You’re making the assumption that the “culturally acceptable answer” is pro-Bible anti-Evolution.
Basically. But what’s relevant is the culture the respondent feels and values, not “the ridicule heaped upon the Creationist viewpoint by major media.” Most people care about what their friends and family believe, not what Bill Nye and U.S. News and World Report believe. In other words, it doesn’t take more courage to side with the Bible if your friends, family, peers and the people you look up to all profess a belief in the Bible.
In fact, the perception of disapproval from is known to be a factor in cementing beliefs about science and the natural world. When people start to see empirical questions as fronts in the culture wars, they’re less inclined to study evidence and more inclined to align with their preferred sides.
You are certainly correct that answers to polls often reflect what people think they are supposed to say, rather than what they honestly think.
It’s more complicated than that; you might say I’m not persuaded there’s much of a difference between the two positions. People honestly believe what they want to believe when there is no cost of error. The opinions of our peers help shape what people want to believe, and there isn’t any cost of error here.
@johnnyb
What you are recounting *is* a belief in a literal Adam and Eve. That there were other humainoids around with to breed with that aren’t mentioned in (or, perhaps under a strict interpretation, allowed by) the Biblical account doesn’t make your Adam and Eve any less ‘literal’, any less actual, or less fundamental theologically (you said humanity descended from this pair…).
The bottom line is, the beliefs you are espousing here, ostensibly more… I dunno… “reasonable” by the way you present it, are still so far away from any serious view of science that you might as well as hard-bitten a YEC as you might contrast yourself with, here. The problem is not solved by allowing for other ‘non-Biblical humans”, it’s this granting credence to the Adam & Eve store as “parents of humanity” or historical in any way. It’s just way out in left field in terms of science and evidence-based thinking. You’ve got lots of company, especially in America, sad to say, but that itself doesn’t bring those beliefs any closer to reconciliation with our scientific knowledge.
drc466,
(a) Humans are much too genetically diverse to arise from one couple (here’s the estimates of human populations sizes going back through time)
(b) The range of times to coalescence in human genes is too varied to all trace back to a single original couple
(c) Populations outside of Africa have ~4% Neanderthal admixture, Afrian populations do not
(d) There are genes which have retained distinct alleles in humans and chimps since human-chimp speciation
The only “asumptions” you have to make to establish these facts is that the mutation rate wasn’t vastly greater in the past, but it was we wouldn’t have survived and ancient DNA from humans wouldn’t so nicely into phylogenies of modern human populations.
“Adam and Eve, the first humans according to the Bible, were real, historical people”
I rarely comment; I am a simple-minded Christian. But I read this statement has simply saying that that they were historical. I honestly fail to see how that could be proven horribly wrong; I fail to see how such a simple proposition, even if wrong, could be deemed ‘horribly’ so.
I’m curious with those who don’t believe this — who is the earliest biblical figure who was historical? Noah? Abraham?
Actually when the genetic evidence is looked at without Darwinian blinders on, the genetic evidence clearly supports humans originating from one couple and is antagonistic towards the Darwinian narrative:
:The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve – Robert Carter – 2014 – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1_nMuq_lH4
eigenstate –
Just to be clear, my goal is to clarify the beliefs of others. For myself, I *am* the “unreasonable” person that you are thinking of. I just wanted to clear up the variety of belief on the subject. We do a disservice to the conversation itself by trying to block everyone into small, predefined, polar boxes, without recognizing the true variety of options that are available. We have to be ready, willing, and able to *really* talk to each other, and that requires taking other people’s beliefs seriously, and not just judging them as being “with us” or “against us”, as neither of those categorizations leads us any closer to the truth.
podcast: On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us
http://intelligentdesign.podom.....6_16-08_00
Casey Luskin speaking at a recent Science and Human Origins conference. Casey discusses why the fossil evidence doesn’t support the claim that humans evolved from ape-like precursors.
Also of note is this recent podcast:
podcast: “The Universe Next Door: Dr. Ann Gauger”:
http://intelligentdesign.podom.....7_48-08_00
cmow –
I attended a left-wing seminary, so I can attest to at least some of the beliefs on that side. Usually, most of the Old Testament is considered an epic and theological retelling of a community’s understanding of themselves. Therefore, it is more or less irrelevant whether or not said people actually existed – they may have, but probably didn’t do very many of the things attributed to them, or at least not in the way it was told. It is considered a bit like the stories of John Bunyan. There was probably someone named Paul Bunyan, but the stories told about him tell more about the values which were important to 19th century woodsmen than it does about the historical character of Paul Bunyon.
We have to be ready, willing, and able to *really* talk to each other, and that requires taking other people’s beliefs seriously, and not just judging them as being “with us” or “against us”, as neither of those categorizations leads us any closer to the truth.
Well said.
@johnnyb,
Fair enough, can’t argue with that!
And after having just answered question of “why planets always orbit suns” this best explains the power of the scientific forces that are now at work for Adam and Eve that are expected to spectacularly collide into the ridicule against them thanks to ID having stirred things up just right to make such a splendid thing possible:
Powerman 5000 – When Worlds Collide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsV500W4BHU
WD400:
I find this fascinating. How to supporters of “big tent” ID deal with the fact that most of the people in your tent are, at least as far as the science goes, so horribly wrong about this subject?
I guess it depends on who is defining “big tent” and how. How could one even entertain the idea that fundamentalist Christians or Orthodox Jews would not be very thankful that the illogical underpinnings of the scientific materialist cult are being exposed by us for what they are – the foundation for an unmistakable cult with a creation story (nature creating itself), a figurehead personality, persecution (firings from academic employment), hush-hush confidential admissions of wavering faith (see below link), in short all of the behavior associated with the the power of cultists and their priesthood, including an obsession with getting to the children at an early age for indoctrination purposes and obliterating childhood common beliefs. In short why would any non-Darwinist resent what we do? If you call it joining under a tent, go ahead — its just a metaphor anyway, with meaning mainly for yourself right?
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/
Evidence for Human Evolution is severely overblown
This slate mag/rag seems to think they know better then the people.
These stats admit enough people agree with creationism as a viable idea for origins and absolutely deserves equal time. the ppeople simply are reasonable about a fair hearing in science class about options for origins.
Its the oppressive elites/establishment that is the enemy of truth, freedom, and mankind and God and christ.
Up here in the frozen north of Canada even our ‘conservative/alternative’ news organization is pro-evolution. This week the Toronto Sun had an article “Bill Nye: ‘Fighting against Creationists is a hard job’.” What I appreciate at the Sun is that readers can blog on every article. The blogging didn’t seem to go the way the reporter, Jim Slotek, would have liked because comments were cut off within hours. I guess he never expected to read so many intelligent rebuttals to evolution. The creationists had the reasoned arguments while the evolutionists mostly resorted to name calling without any indication that they did any investigation into evolution.
http://www.torontosun.com/2014.....hard-job-3
JB: I suspect that some clarification on the meaning/message and truth of Scripture is needed. First, that scripture must be understood on grammar, language [esp. Heb. Aramaic and Koine Greek], genre and imagery [What does Jesus mean to say, I am the Door . . . sensus literalis does not commit us to thinking of Oak or Cedar etc, and when Scripture portrays how Paul and Silas were beaten and thrown in stocks at Philippi it does not commend kangaroo courts but just the opposite, etc . . . ], context, setting and occasion, authorial intent, etc and so taking the text at its proper meaning per what it actually says vs what many may read into it, becomes important. You are right to highlight the problem of strawman caricatures and a subtext of contempt. Which, is ever more luridly revealing of the thoughts and intents of the heart in a culture where the chattering classes so often preen themselves on tolerance and cultural sensitivity. It is time for a rethink. KF
PS: This thread caught my eye as I was about to shut down UD after a win 8.1 performance checkout.
Learned Hand:
Yes, and that relates to the question of whether ridicule and mockery are good tactical moves when combating ID and creationism.
The accommodationists generally think that they aren’t, but I disagree.
I was raised as a creationist, and for most of my childhood I was unaware that scientists regarded creationism as a complete crock. The message I got from within creationist circles was that evolution was “just a theory” and that scientists were actively arguing over its truth.
It would have done me a world of good to know that scientists were laughing at my ridiculous views, because then I would have been motivated to a) learn why they were laughing so that I could b) refute the smug bastards. Perhaps then I would have realized, a few years sooner than I eventually did, that they were right and that my beliefs were untenable.
I’ve been following the Scientology saga for a long time and you see the same thing there: Scientologists who are protected for years or even decades from the knowledge that outsiders are laughing their asses off at the idea of Xenu, “body thetans”, and implant stations on Venus and Mars.
I understand that for some people ridicule can have the opposite effect, though, hardening them into an us-vs-them mentality.
I’m reading The Soul, by J.P. Moreland, and the us-vs-them thinking is striking:
It’s all about us versus them, bowing to this authority or that. What about simply looking at the evidence to see who makes the better case? That’s what I did, and it’s what enabled me to escape the irrationality of my youthful creationism.
For a terminal case of us-vs-themism, look no further than UD’s own kairosfocus.
From his #26:
Re #28, KF confirms my diagnosis.
KS, it seems you are blind to what you and your fellow design objectors have been doing in and around UD, and refuse to acknowledge revealing documentation from sources such as leading science ed bodies, the US Academy of Sciences and leading scientists on their ideological context; notice, you have sneered not addressed the substance. That speaks volumes, especially now that you want to personalise and polarise the situation by blaming the inconvenient messenger — and doing so in a separate thread. In short, your diagnosis, so-called, collapses into all too well known agit-prop tactics, in this case Alinski’s RFR # 13. Please, wake up and think again. KF
kairosfocus, no one is more blind and asleep than you are, no one is more guilty of refusing to acknowledge scientific evidence and methodology than you are, and no one is more guilty of sneering, not addressing the substance, and personalizing/polarizing the situation by falsely and maliciously blaming people who don’t bow down to your theocratic demands.
In case you missed this in another thread:
Gordon, setting aside your unsubstantiated, irrelevant, endless drivel about FSCO/I, fishing reels, nodes-arcs networks, nanomachines of the cell (look who’s being a reductionist as usual), warm salty ponds, etc., for the moment, I want to point out some things about your drumbeat repetitive, character attacking, motive mongering, contemptuously dismissive, ideologically driven, disrespectful, factional, accusatory, slanderous (actually libelous), emotion-laden, fundagelical-theocratic worldview based intimidatory Marxist Agit-Prop Alinskyite tactics and rants that you lead out to strawmen and red herrings soaked in oily, incendiary ad hominems set ablaze to cloud and poison the atmosphere in the teeth of correction (Whew!):
You are what you condemn, and then some, even though you zealously claim to have ‘God grounded’, is/ought, impeccable, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., morals.
Your ridiculous whining about “outing” is apparently because I addressed you in a previous comment by your first name. Your name, Gordon E. Mullings, and a lot more about you is easily available by clicking on your kairosfocus username and then clicking on some of your links to other pages of yours on your own blog(s). Your full name and other information is also easily available by doing an internet search of your kairosfocus username. You publicly provide your real name, your email address, where you live, and lots of other information about yourself and your family, and some of it you provide on this very blog, yet you flip out and make up lame, dishonest stories about email spam and security/privacy when someone addresses you by your real name (even just your first name).
I’ve seen you claim many times that you, your wife, and your “minor children” have been threatened, held hostage, stalked, etc., yet you never provide any evidence to support those claims, even though you’ve been asked multiple times to do so. I’m calling your bluff: put up or shut up and retract and apologize.