Considering that many Christian traditions are fine with evolution, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion, does it really matter that one particular denomination, which has cultural ties to the young earth creationist movement, has not been swayed at the institutional level?
1 Like
I think not. Quite honestly, while it is an issue with some individuals, I think most have moved on to other more pressing issues that affect their lives
1 Like
You now thats an interesting claim…in the US, THE STATISITIC IS ABOUT 46%…hardly an overwhelming majority there…id say close enough to 50%. So despite the largest christian religions errant influences, its still a close race which is interesting…
Sorry to burst your bubble here but…
within the baptist community in the US Biologos publishes the following (you must not be aware of it)
The problem is, we arent literalists because we make it up. We are literalists because we apply a normal reading of language to our world view. You do not.
I can easily prove my point…rarely are any of your world view dilemmas answered through scripture…whereas all of mine are. If you cant agree with that, then i would ask you to start supporting your beliefs usijg the bible…i will put money down that you wont. So unless you start being honest here and do that, youre fooling yourself.
You can say anything you like about my posts here, but you cannot say i dont use a large amount of scripture (which is almost always well cross referenced using knkwn and published concordance references found in any study bible) to support my world view. Almost no one else does that here. Go back through my posts and see for yourself.
Btw…Answer in aGenesis use science…a lot of it. This isn’t science versus literalism…thats a made up parrot statement used by naive twits who cant find support for their beliefs biblically…so they parrot that kind of response instead of logical well supported theological argument with appropriate corresponding scientific argument.
Thats the problem here…a science only approach leaves ones world view open to corrupt theological error that isnt supported by published bible concordance referencing. The fact i reference using those resources whereas others her claim they are flawed and that we shouldnt cross reference is proof of that. Even scientific resewrch methods rely heavily on cross referencing…so what is parroted here by the anti cross reference group…thats a fools errand the scientific community as a whole doesnt even agree with.
I would certainly agree that numbers are hard to measure, but you can make a case that even for white evangelicals, a minority are young earth creationists. That does not necessarily make them evolutionary creationists, as other old earth groups have a big following, particularly various flavors of ID and Hugh Ross’s Reasons to Believe group. Here is a Pew survey that is interesting. I am not aware of a global survey, but can only extrapolate from denominational positions, which seem to indicate that the US leans more young earth than much of the rest of the world.
Of course, looking at these polls, I am using the question of evolution as a proxy for a young earth, and realize that has its problems as well.
3 Likes
It is literalism vs. observable facts. That’s the problem. When you tell people they have to use a specific interpretation of the Bible and it doesn’t line up with what they can observe themselves it is hard to blame them for thinking the Bible isn’t trustworthy.
7 Likes
Of course, you are not going to see EC adherents using scripture to support evolution and an old earth, because they (and myself) do not interpret the scripture as addressing issues of science other than obliquely. You won’t read of how scripture supports astrophysics, geology, or auto mechanics either, even though the apostles were in one Accord, which must have been a tight squeeze. (Acts 1-4)
7 Likes
As @T_aquaticus replies
People see the world for themselves differently, even as lay folk, when they have the benefit of scientific education and awareness. Only a basic understanding of astronomy, plate tectonics, and microbiology, and anyone can see for themselves how the basic scientific view of the world just makes sense. Data once beyond the reach of the most brilliant philosopher is now commonplace - panoramas from rovers on mars, photos of galactic collisions and cosmic jets, asteroids clumping together beyond Pluto, DNA tests of ancestry, all easily accessible. With extra interest and effort, people can click down into any topic as far as they care.
Raised in a technological society, this exposure to reality is unavoidable. It is not a matter of do you trust science or literalism; it comes down to do you trust your own eyes, senses, and rational faculties, and if there is the dissonance of conflict, what are you going to do with that?
6 Likes
No, you are literalists because you insist on imposing your MSWV onto the text.
AiG lies about science, a lot.
4 Likes
Modern Scientific World View?
To disprove science.
You couldn’t make it up.
1 Like
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use” –-Galileo Galilei
7 Likes
I didn’t say it was logical.
2 Likes
Nah, SBC has never been liberal. The Southern Baptists split from Northern Baptists over the issue of slavery before the Civil War. Likewise, the PCA was formed in 1973 when southerners formed their own denomination over disagreements on civil rights and voting rights with their northern brethren. The cover story was inerrancy, just as it was with the conservative takeover of the SBC in the late 1970s-early 80s. The target was “liberalism” in SBC seminaries, but there were no theological liberals at SBC seminaries. The moderates were kicked out in a pure power play. Incidentally, the instigators were Paige Patterson and Judge Pressler. The former covered up rape and abuse at several churches and seminaries, and the latter was convicted of sexually abusing at least one young man.
Not a lotta good people on both sides in either case.
Yep
Good gosh.
That’s the rub. If you came clean to the congregation, most would tolerate you, but a large number wouldn’t even regard you as a brother in Christ. It reminds me a little bit of LGBT Christians who remain in the closet because they still believe yet know they’d be disfellowshipped in a minute. Why worship where you’re not wanted?
The Missouri Synod is a separate denomination. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, for example, accepts evolution and science.
No it doesn’t.
A normal reading of language? I think you mean a normal reading of literature, but in any case, it’s nothing more than a naive reading worthy of an elementary school student.
Right. The majority of people can’t close their eyes and pretend hard enough to believe a literal interpretation of Genesis. I stopped believing in Noah’s Ark when I was 10. I’d been to the San Diego Zoo.
2 Likes
I don’t have anything to complain of–I struggled a ton when I was young as being YEC, and I guess I see where they’re coming from. It’s not easy when the book that seems to give us eternal life also seems to disagree with other tracks.
I really have enjoyed what I just have learned of Richard Haass, who seems to the refrain, even when he doesn’t agree with someone, “I can see where they’re coming from.” It’s not easy being human.
I like how you open the sympathy to others who struggle.
Thanks.
2 Likes
Thank you. I wish I had more sympathy for those who cause others to struggle, but I seem to have landed in the “millstone around their neck” camp.
2 Likes
So when everyone in your social circle, your parents, the adults you know, the people at Church, the Pastor, and most of the community — filled with good, hard-working and honest people that are your neighbors—think the earth is young and the Bible you have known since youth forms the cornerstone of your worldview, what are they going to believe?
I think you are approaching form the angle of science and trusting those institutions. It’s not as easy as acquiring a “basic understanding of astronomy, plate tectonics, and microbiology….” Most people with a basic understand of these things still cannot respond to YEC counterarguments. They would have to essentially pick a side first. Then find literature that supports their view. This is what I think most people do most of the time. But I have to ask, will an introduction to atoms and radioactivity allow a non-scientist to so easily swim through the link below?
Are the non-science majors, picking the easiest science course to satisfy a science elective credit going to be able to respond to YEC arguments? I strongly doubt it.
Most conservatives just want to know if the Bible is trustworthy and reliable when they read it. A view that teaches half of scripture is made-up fiction really isn’t doing much to bridge the gap between science and faith. Inerrancy advocates often tend to think the entire Bible is useless if it has the smallest of errors in it.
Vinnie
1 Like
My own reevaluation of my beliefs was first instigated not by any presentation of science, but in sociology class. We were studying the social context of belief systems, and I saw that my own beliefs were no less reinforced by institution than any other people groups. So yes, I agree that those raised YEC will see things differently. Some will live their lives without ever the slightest shadow of doubt, and not feel any urgency to dig deeper. But the trend, despite vocal exceptions, tells us that people are finding their way out of literalism.
Everyone has their own story - often it seems to be some unexpected tidbit that caught someone off guard and triggered doubts, a supernova from the far reaches of space in the news, an apologetic lecture that comes off lame, some scandal, a PBS nova program, and most especially internet websites, that penetrate an insular worldview and precipitate a cascade of questioning.
So there are people, who despite being enveloped by YEC and the sway apologetic organizations exert, find their way out of that fold. The latest Gallup poll (2024) found that 37% of their respondents agreed that God created humans in present form, a record low. I would attribute that broadly to the difficulty of maintaining a hermetically sealed worldview in a technological world.
3 Likes
This link discusses the differences extensively!
Below is a portion from the article’s link.
G.Brooks
One approach in the Pew Research Center survey asked about evolution in a two-question “branched choice format.” First, survey respondents were asked if they believe humans have evolved over time. Those who said humans have evolved then branched to a second question which asked for their views about the processes behind evolution, including the role of God in those processes.
When asked this way, about two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants (66%) took a “creationist” stance, saying that “humans have always existed in their present form since the beginning of time,” consistent with past Center surveys using a branched choice format with somewhat different question wording.
But the results differed when the question was posed in single-question format to a random sample of respondents from the same survey. This approach asked about people’s views on whether or not human evolution has occurred, the processes behind evolution and the role of God in those processes together in one question. In this case, a 62% majority of white evangelical Protestants took the position that humans have evolved over time.
Similarly, 59% of black Protestants asked about this topic in the two-question format said humans have always existed in their present form. By contrast, with the single-question format, just 27% of black Protestants said this, while a 71% majority said humans have evolved over time.
3 Likes
As a teacher, a slight change in how a question is worded is often the difference between a student getting a question right and wrong in my experience. I suspect if I gave my physics students another teacher’s physics test and vice versa, even if we taught the same content, scores would drop. How questions are worded matters. And this tells me my students understand the subject to a degree but do not have ownership over it and/or comprehension is an issue.
Is that all people or only Christian? I suspect that also the percentage of people who lack faith is rising as well so that might not be a good thing. Would you rather have:
A) a bunch of people committed to Christ who think the earth is young and evolution false?
Or
B) a bunch of non-theists who think the earth is old and evolution true?
There is only one correct answer here.
Vinnie
1 Like
There are THREE possible answers … and you have left out the one that matters here at BioLogos! Your narrative is similar to: 1) I will shoot you and abduct your daughter; or 2) you can sell me your daughter. These are not the only options.
Please revise your posting.
G.Brooks
2 Likes
It’s my question and restricted to two choices for a reason, that follows upon the polling data being discussed. If those are the only two options, what do you choose?
If the reason YECism is declining is because non theism is increasing, what say you? I’m not interested in evasive responses.