Think a minority of Christians are Young-Earth Creatinionists? Think again.

[laconicsax]

http://www.visioncritical.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2010.07.15_Origin.pdf

47% of Americans believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years

Remember that uncomfortable number and take a look at the the data http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf">here, which shows an estimated 76% of Americans as Christian, 1.2% as Jewish, and 0.6% as Muslim. This means that adherents of Abrahamic religions (i.e. religions that have a story where God creates "human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years") make up 77.8% of the US population.

What does this tell us? About 60.4% of people adhering to Abrahamic religions are mouth-breathing idiots.

So the next time you say to yourself (or someone else) that creationists are only a small minority of Christians, remember that they likely make up about 59-60% of all Christians (allowing for a lot of Jewish/Muslim YECs). The only way to get that number any smaller would be to co-opt a lot of adherents of other religions and/or 'nones' (two groups that are highly unlikely to believe that "God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years") as Young-Earth Creationists.

(Yes, I referred to Young-Earth Creationists as "mouth-breathing idiots.")

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. Thank the mega-churches

They're everywhere, and they are overwhelmingly fundie.

[RKP5637]

2. And no wonder this country is so F'ed for the future. n/t

[RKP5637]

3. Massachusetts among least religious states

Massachusetts is tied with Maine for the position of the third-least religious state in the nation, according to a new analysis by Gallup.

The analysis, based on 350,000 interviews, concludes that Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts are the only states in the nation where fewer than half of the residents say that religion is an important part of their daily lives. Here's the data:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/01/massachusetts_a.html

[laconicsax]

16. It's obviously not uniform.

Page 6 of the first poll I cited shows that the number in the Northeast is only 38%. Compare to 51% in the South.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamians-Iranians-Common.aspx">The poll that your link cites could suggest a correlation between religiosity and support for Creationism--the top 10 most religious states are in the South and Midwest, where Young-Earth Creationism has the most support and the top 10 least religious states are in regions where it has the least support.

To suggest that 47% of people everywhere are dumber than dirt Young-Earth Creationists would be dishonest. The 47% is an average of the whole country.

You can't say that the parts are identical to the whole any more than you can say that the whole is identical to the individual parts.

[RKP5637]

34. Anyway one slices it IMO the US is pretty ignorant. I thought that in the 50's,

then in the 60's I thought the US was advancing, now in 2010, IMO, the US is falling behind more than ever.

[mzteris]

4. no wonder I feel like I'm

surrounded by idiots! :eyes:

[Carnage251]

5. n/t

[Meshuga]

6. I am still looking to find stats on Jewish YEC...

However, I find it hard to believe that there is a significant number of Jewish YEC to say that it is a problem in the Jewish community. Jewish tradition (orthodox and non-orthodox) stresses that torah is not supposed to be taken literally and I understand that this is not enough to dictate what an individual Jew believes because the dominant culture can influence belief. But I found this study here showing that 17% of Jews don't feel that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life (as opposed to 77% who believe it is the best explanation). However, this still does not mean this 17% group is composed of young earth creationists.

I've met a Jewish man who believes in the Zacharias Sitchen stuff about the Anunnaki aliens from planet Nibiru who supposedly created humans as a hybrid of early human and Anunnaki but I have never met a Jewish YEC in all my interactions with religious orthodox and non-orthodox Jews. I have met old earth creationists (which I also disregard as stupid) but that is about it.

[struggle4progress]

7. It's a binary choice poll: pick this or pick that or pick not sure

So (1) it doesn't really probe anybody's thought processes: it might tell you that certain buzzwords generally matter more to the folk in one place than in another. Also (2) the pdf at the company website provides no indication whatsoever about religious self-identification of the surveyed populations

To elaborate on (1): a more precise poll might have offered a range of options, say

No deity created the world; humans evolved naturally
A deity created the world; but humans evolved naturally
A deity created the world; and humans evolved naturally with occasional divine intervention
A deity created both the world and humans, without relying on evolution

For international comparisons, one might expect, not only a different spread between the various options, but different tendencies for people who hold one of the middle views to choose the first or the last option when forced to make a binary choice. At issue is then the relative importance in different cultural groups of insisting that the notion "deity" be used when discussing human origins

To elaborate a bit on (2): since the polling pdf doesn't mention Christianity, or Abrahamic religions, it is entirely unclear to me how you justify your subject line in the OP

[skepticscott]

8. Oh, please

being deliberately obtuse again? Poll after poll over a long stretch of time shows essentially the same thing. So what was your point, exactly?

[struggle4progress]

10. My point? DU is a political website. I'm discussing how to read a binary poll.

If you disagree with anything I said, why not be explicit and exact about your point(s) of disagreement?

I have no idea what you think is "deliberately obtuse again" in what I wrote

[skepticscott]

12. And what is the point of nitpicking the structure of a poll

when the results are no different than those of many, many other polls? You're either aware of all of those other polls, and are trying to misleadingly discredit the results of this one by nitpicking and being deliberately obtuse, or you're weighing in on an issue that you're woefully uninformed about. Which is it? The factual results of the poll are what matters. Do you have a rational reason for disputing the FACT that 40% or more of all Americans believe that the world was created by god less than 10,000 years ago, or are you just being your usual apologist self in a subtle but transparent way?

[laconicsax]

17. In order to understand, consider this:

s4p has suggested previously in this forum that a valid discussion/debate strategy is to choose your "take" by concentrating "on the use of certain words or [concentrating] on certain metaphors. Then stick to your "take" and whenever you have to deal with [whatever you disagree with but can't refute], you change the subject: "I find it very interesting that the author chooses to quote such-and-such, which occurs in the context of a passage that blah-blah-blah (and then off you go on a tangent)."

He then suggests that "if somebody objects that you have gone off on a tangent, you simply deny that and explain how very important context is to understanding whatever it was that was being spoken of.

So to apply this to the current situation, it would appear that his "take" is to concentrate on certain words or the wording of the poll. As the responses that corroborate the poll results come in, he'll likely go off on a tangent while rambling about context.

[struggle4progress]

19. No, I simply inquired into the meaning of the poll. When people are forced to make

binary choices between two options, neither of which reflects their views accurately, then is worthwhile asking how we should understand what the results actually measure. It is likely that the results measure (say) relative intensity of their desires to accept/reject ideas such as "deity created world" and "world less than 10000 years old." People who (say) want to accept the first idea but want to reject the second are thus probed according to the relative intensity with which they want to accept reject. It's very likely the polling company actually collected more data on this than they released, since (after all) they can make money by political consulting on such issues

[cleanhippie]

22. For the sake of argument, lets assume you are 100% correct in your assertion.

It was noted that regardless of how THIS poll was conducted, the results are the same as every other poll taken on the subject. The question was posed to you, what difference does it make how the questions are asked if the results are always the same? The questioner also asked, that in that context, what was your point of noting how the questions were asked, when it makes no difference in the results. So, what was your point?

[skepticscott]

24. And would you have inquired

into the meaning of this poll, conducted in this way, if the results had been something you were comfortable with, rather than something you feel a visceral need to argue against, no matter how well supported? Somehow, I doubt it.

[struggle4progress]

27. Perhaps you should consider practicing other forms of argument beyond ad hominem

[skepticscott]

28. That's it?

That's ALL you have to respond to #24 with? The question was directed at your biases in arguing, not at you personally. If you claim is that my arguments NEVER address facts and NEVER consist of anything but personal attacks, you're just flailing and making things up as you go.

[darkstar3]

11. It's called math, s4p, you should try it.

Two scientific polls conducted within reasonable time distance of each other can in fact be combined to yield interesting comparative data. As for the binary choice, the question was very specific about the details of YECism and simply asked whether people believed those details or not. The findings are astounding thanks to the stupidity they reflect, but that doesn't invalidate them.

Why are so many people here and IRL so ready to attack the data when they see inconvenient truths?

[struggle4progress]

20. Do feel free to dazzle me with your arithmetic and algebra, if you can shed more light on such

issues

[cleanhippie]

23. Darkstar DID shed light on it....

and asked you "Why are so many people here and IRL so ready to attack the data when they see inconvenient truths?" Do you have an answer?

[struggle4progress]

25. "What we have here is a failure to communicate"

[skepticscott]

29. No what we have here

is a failure to answer direct challenges to your position when you get pinned on a point, and attempts to deflect the argument in every way possible. Savvy?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

40. He has reached "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" level, ain't he? -nt

[laconicsax]

50. It's all about "context" and the motive of whoever prepared the translation.

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

31. Only on your part, I think.

Unless you are having trouble reading and comprehending basic English, you should be able to answer the question, that you have now evaded several times.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. Hey, let's make a deal.

You don't deny Abrahamic religions are THE source of young-earth creationism, and I don't deny Stalin was an atheist. Deal?

[Meshuga]

33. But I don't think the Math is really that exact here

There is no reason to "attack the data" or to say it is invalid. The data shows what it shows.

However, a person can use the data to come to different conclusions depending on the person's bias since there are a lot of unanswered questions here.

The thesis is stronger when other important facts are not taken into consideration. For example, US data alone is being used to help the conclusion but how do we explain the fact that the study cited by the OP shows that a significant percentage of Canadians side with evolution and (according to the Canadian census data) their Christian population is also at around 77%? Can't we further investigate the reason for the differences between Americans and Canadians (and the British) in their attitudes given the similar number in the religious/non-religious demographics without making assumptions that seem obvious? I am not saying the conclusions are wrong but it would be nice to present more specific data than to rely on generalities.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. No. The conclusions of the OP are correct.

The poll asked "which option comes CLOSEST", and those 47% flat-out rejected an evolution option that doesn't rule out religion at all.

And by the way, are you trying to suggest young-earth creationism isn't almost 100% connected with religious belief?

[darkstar3]

14. There's no almost about it.

Name ONE YEC who isn't religious. Find one in the US who isn't a member of an Abrahamic religion.

The search will prove futile.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

37. Well, yeah, you know me. Sometimes I'm nicer than I should be.

And give the benefit of doubt when I shouldn't.

[laconicsax]

15. Here, try this poll from a few years earlier.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings -- (ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?

Man developed, with God
guiding: 38%

Man developed, but God had
no part in process: 13%

God created man in
present form: 45%

Other/
No
opinion: 4%

(emphasis mine)

So you see, even a poll that asks the questions you suggest comes up with the same number of Young-Earth Creationists. There are also results from the same question going back to 1982 showing a fluctuation from 44-47% of respondents.

As for justifying my reference to Abrahamic religions, please name a non-Abrahamic religion (or group of religions) that can account for more than a tiny fraction of the 47% who think that 'God created Mankind in the last 10,000 years.'

Try doing your homework next time S4P. It'll make you look less foolish.

[struggle4progress]

21. That's an interesting link

Conservative Republican Protestant women, 30 or older, with no college degree, who are regular church attendees, are typical of the 25% who identify as biblical literalist who believe humans were created less than 10000 years ago; 18-29 year olds are typical of the 20% who deny being biblical literalists but believe humans were created less than 10000 years ago; high-school education only is typical of biblical literalist who do not believe humans were created less than 10000 years ago. And 45% of the population neither holds biblical literalist views nor believe humans were created less than 10000 years ago

The 20%, comprising nonliteralist 18-29 year olds believing humans appeared less than 10000 years ago, suggests that there may be a large chunk of the population, which is not religiously motivated but has no clue about geological time scales

Incidently, the largest Christian denomination in the US is the Roman Catholic population, which is more to accept evolution likely than the population at large

[struggle4progress]

26. Is the age of the Earth one our 'sorest troubles?' Students' perceptions about deep time affec

their acceptance of evolutionary theory
Evolution
Volume 64 Issue 3, Pages 858 - 864
Published Online: 26 Nov 2009
© 2010, Society for the Study of Evolution
Sehoya Cotner (1 ...) , D. Christopher Brooks (3) , and Randy Moore (1)
(1) Biology Program, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 ...
(3) Office of Information Technology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
... The age of Earth remains a divisive topic in the modern evolution–creationism controversy. Whereas mainstream science has long acknowledged that Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, a vocal group of citizens and religious activists continue to insist that Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Although most geocentrists and flat-Earth advocates have capitulated to scientific evidence, young-Earth creationists continue to reject scientific evidence in favor of religious dictum to claim that Earth is less than 10,000 years old. These antiscience claims have been surprisingly popular with the public ... In this study, we examined how college students’ selfdescribed religious and political views influence their beliefs about Earth’s age and how this may affect their knowledge and acceptance of evolution ... The political views held by students contribute significantly to their disposition toward evolutionary theory ...
(1) Deep time is conceptually difficult to grasp ...
(2) Students’ inability to accept an old Earth is a barrier to evolution acceptance ...
(3) Creationists’ explanations for life’s origin are easier to teach, learn and internalize than are scientific explanations that rely on an understanding of deep time.
<publisher's website:> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123192457/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
<link to pdf:> www.cbs.umn.edu/bioprog/staff/cotner/age-of-earth-evo-march2010.pdf

So there is some reason to pay more attention to that 20% of the population (typically 18-29 years old) that is not biblically literalist but nevertheless thinks humans were created less than 10Ka ago

[skepticscott]

30. And that's relevant to

the accuracy of polls that show 40-50% of American believe in YEC...how?

Just another silly cut-and-paste attempt to divert from issues you're unable to address without undermining your position. Typical.

Now, accuse me of another ad hom attack...please.

[struggle4progress]

32. The gallup poll referenced by laconicsax indicates:

* about 1/3 of Americans are biblical literalists
* about 1/4 of Americans are biblical literalists who believe humans were created less than 10Ka ago
* about 1/5 of Americans are not biblical literalists but still believe humans were created less than 10Ka ago

Just to double-check, this gives
* about 1/4 + 1/5 = 9/20 = 45% of Americans believe humans were created less than 10Ka ago (roughly your figure)
* about 1/3 - 1/4 = 1/12 = 8% of Americans are biblical literalists who believe humans were created more than 10Ka ago (Gallup actually says 9%)

I don't know how to converse effectively with biblical literalists. So I want to know about the 1/5 = 20% of Americans are not biblical literalists but still believe humans were created less than 10Ka ago. What's going on with them? The article I linked might provide some insights

[laconicsax]

36. Strictly speaking, you only have to take certain parts literally to wind up a YEC.

It shouldn't be necessary to take much of the Torah, or any of the Nevi'im, Ketuvim, or New Testament literally to be a YEC. Unless I'm mistaken, it's all in Genesis.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. Hence, why the Jewish calendar is at 5770.

They made up shit with the same shit-making method Ussher used, or very similar.

[laconicsax]

41. It's even wronger.

It starts on 1 Tishri, 1. Which, working backwards gives you October 7, 3761 BC. Ussher started on October 24, 4004 BC.

[struggle4progress]

45. That corresponds roughly with the beginning of writing in the region

Writing emerged in Egypt somewhere around 3500BC or about 5500 years ago

So whatever you think of what the early Hebrew scribes were compiling, they had a reasonably good idea about how far back they could reliably look

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

47. If they were aware of the writing timescale

it's comprehensible they'd imagine the world began at that point. Of course, other things looked true at a first sight too, like the Earth being flat.

[struggle4progress]

48. When I was younger, it was very popular to sneer at the Victorians, and then

one day I realized how much of my world was the product of Victorian industry and inventiveness: electric appliances and movies and radio and automobiles and ...

We easily think we're superior to our predecessors -- but in fact much of our "superiority" consists of what they found and handed down

Our heritage from remote antiquity is substantial: it includes language and writing, and domesticated plants and animals, and glass and brick and skilled metallurgy, and wine and cheese and bread, and ...

People five thousand years ago weren't stupid: it is true that, in some sense, they were culturally children compared to us, but only because we have some of their hard-won experience and some of the hard-won experience of the folk who came after them

[rrneck]

49. I sometimes wonder what we've lost.

Years ago I was watching a television show about some hunter gatherer tribe. It seems that the anthropologists who were studying them taught them how to play checkers, but they played the game in a startlingly different way. Instead of each player moving each piece in turn, they moved each others pieces with both hands simultaneously so fast it was impossible to tell what was going on. Only after they filmed the game and examined it frame by frame did they find that each piece had been moved correctly and in the correct order.

We might have learned a lot, but I think we've forgotten a lot too.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. So we shouldn't say there's no luminiferous aether because that would disparage the Victorians?

:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

52. Michelson-Morley's experiment was about a decade and a half before Victoria's death, and

Lorentz and Fitzgerald independently and almost immediately proposed the relativistic contraction

And Planck had introduced quantization in an effort to explain blackbody radiation before Victoria died, as well

Marconi sent wireless signals across the English channel during Victoria's reign

[laconicsax]

53. So?

There have been significant advances in every century since the enlightenment. Galileo first realized the basics of relativity, laying the foundation for all subsequent developments. Fellating the Victorian era because of the achievements in the 19th century is a bit ridiculous.

To modify CPD's question, "so we shouldn't say that the universe is expanding because doing so would disparage the Victorians?"

By the way, Morley, Michaelson, Fitzgerald, and Lorentz were all working to measure and explain the aether. Their findings only made sense in light of Einstein's relativity.

[struggle4progress]

55. All I said was: it's inappropriate to sneer at the Victorians, since their era really produced our

modern world

The first photograph of a human being dates from the Victorian era, and Victorians pioneered color photography

Roentgen discovered x-rays during that era, around the time Becquerel discovered radioactivity

Lilienthal, who first demonstrated human controlled flight, was from that time

We tend to underestimate people who came before us. I'm sorry if you dislike that observation -- but the next time you feel an urge to sneer at the Stone Age, pause for a bit and try to make a passable arrow- or spear-head from flint

[laconicsax]

56. So we shouldn't say that the Earth is round because that would disparage stone age hunters?

:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

57. Frankly, I have no idea what you're trying to ask. I see similar questions asked

repeatedly "So we shouldn't ... ?" so I guess there's an issue there that's important to some of you, but I have no idea what that issue is

I don't think I suggested anything like we shouldn't say that the Earth is round because that would disparage stone age hunters

I do think it's arrogant and ignorant to sneer at the people who were here before us: they weren't that different from us, and in some sense our world is the product of their ingenuity and labor. If we can easily do things they could not, we are also always in the process of repeating their mistakes on a ever-grander scale: they hunted the large pleistocene mammals to extinction and deforested Lebanon; we poison the whole of Gulf of Mexico

[Leontius]

18. Good point

I was talking to a friend at work and mentioned that about half of the people in a poll did not believe in evolution, his response was 'I don't believe it either'. When we talked about what evolution really was his response was 'Well I do believe that'. His initial reaction was based on his idea that 'evolution' meant 'man came from apes' not adaptive change in time but when he understood what the term really meant his view was that evolution was correct.

[laconicsax]

42. Except the numbers are the same no matter how you ask the question.

Whether you ask if people believe in evolution, accept evolution, believe in creationism, believe that everything was magicked into existence in the last 10,000 years, etc., the numbers are always consistent with the poll I posted in the OP.

[uberllama42]

43. Humans are apes.

It is accurate to say that humans are descended from apes because our immediate ancestors were apes. Our closest biological relatives are apes, and taxonomically, we are classified as apes. Why is "man came from apes" an inaccurate view of evolution? I don't know what your coworker's specific misconception was.

[Leontius]

44. Your understanding of current human origin theory is wrong

man and apes both came from a common ancestor. The branch goes back to about 5.3 million years ago. So while it is true that they are our closest relatives, ape and man are not the same.

[laconicsax]

46. Actually, you're incorrect.

Taxonomy is inclusive, not exclusive--species are categorized by what they have in common. The fact that we're (mostly) hairless, walk upright, and have big brains is superficial when compared to the characteristics we share with other great apes.

Look at the classification for gorillas:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primata
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Gorilla
Species: Gorilla gorilla

Now, look at the classification for chimpanzees:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primata
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Pan
Species: Pan troglodytes

Orangutans:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primata
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Pongo
Species: Pongo borneo

(Species names always include the genus.)

What you'll notice is it's the exact same through the family (Hominidae) for all of these great apes. That's because Hominidae is the family classification for great apes.

What happens if you look at the species classification for humans?
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primata
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens

Huh. Looks like we're great apes too. Saying that "ape and man are not the same" is akin to saying "ape and chimpanzee are not the same." The split you're talking about is between humans and chimpanzees, not humans and apes.

[Leontius]

54. Everything you post is not in question by me in the general sense

of your point that man and the other apes are the same family. The poster who I was replying to after rereading their post I think understands the relationship we share but did not understand the misconception that I was referring to when I wrote 'man came from apes' what I have found not only in the example I told about but which seems is fairly common is that man evolved directly from gorillas, chimps, etc that exist today and that is quite simply false. Each group traces back to a common ancestor from which they each branched off at different times in the past. And after looking for the info you're right in saying I was mistaken in the timeline, it seems that the current trend of opinion is that man and gorilla have their last common ancestor at least 10 million years ago and some claim that it occurred as much as 14 million years ago.

[rrneck]

9. Stupidity can generate a huge revenue stream. nt

[RKP5637]

35. EXACTLY!!! Yep, follow the money trail. Well said!!! n/t