In my historical research I have found most white evangelicals in the 20th century had virtually no interest (nil almost) in the evolution question from 1925 until almost 1981, when evolution was connected to secular humanism.
Jerry Falwell apparently didn’t focus much on Henry Morris’ ideas because they were nothing new.
In 1981, there was McLean v Arkansas.,
Evolution re-entered textbooks roughly around 1960. Only about 27% of evangelicals today accept evolution.
It seems like that says Christian evolutionists are largely unable to be persuasive. For theological reasons #1 like the Fall and the existence of Adam, and #2 because of a belief that “randomness and chance cannot produce complex forms from simple forms”.
These are consistently the two complaints I hear from antievolutionist evangelicals.
What is preached in churches reflects the trusted information that is available. I do not know well the situation in USA today but my impression is that the material directed towards the ‘common’ (non-academic) believers is seriously one-sided. The material advocates a single interpretation and seems to condemn those that disagree or at least reject the alternative interpretations in quite strong words.
A basic tactics in Soviet information war was that if you repeat a message often enough, many will believe it, no matter how obvious lies you tell. The same tactics are used in many countries today, not only in Russia.
If you hear and watch a one-sided message telling that the alternative interpretations are false and potentially dangerous, told by sources you trust, you are likely to adopt that message.
Think about the material about creation that is available in your church or social circles (non-academic ones). How one-sided vs. balanced is it? What is the interpretation that the material advocates?
Then compare it to what you hear from the pulpit - is it the same message?
[quote=“jbabraham88, post:1, topic:57795”]
unable to be persuasive
[/quote].
This is an interesting choice of term. Unable in what way?
Facts do not pursuade someone who is unwilling or frightened to believe them.
People in the pew who really are afraid they will go to hell as a result of accepting real science are going to find every possible explanation to avoid it.
I don’t find it surprising that evolution became part of the larger cultural wars within American evangelicalism. It’s not hard to find other examples, such as low acceptance of anthropogenic climate change.
We might want to ask why evolution is much more widely accepted among European Christians. What is different about those Christians?
Good to hear from you, Josh. It has been awhile. I agree, growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, evolution was not really a concern in churches. I personally struggled a bit with it in my college years studying biology, but it was pretty much a nothing burger. I looked back a few weeks ago at the obituary of the pre-med advisor in biology who taught comparative anatomy which at that time was essentially an evolution class, and saw he was a member of a Bible church. And this was at a state school (Univ. of North Texas).
I agree that the big problem with evolution is re-thinking those Christian doctrines you mentioned. I do think the number of evangelicals is somewhat higher who accept evolution depending on how you ask the question, however. And how you define it. Many who are in the ID camp or RTB camp believe in some form of evolution. Even YECers believe in some form of evolution. Interesting world. Just wish that was our biggest problem.
What else happened during those time… The ‘60’s?Rethinking of past norms in race and society. Loving v. Virginia. Roe v Wade. And the expected counter reactionary realignment. The emergence of religio-political organizations like the ‘Moral Majority’ and the opportunistic polarization.
It’s easier to produce lots of material if your only goal is to sound persuasive, not taking time to check for accuracy or quality. Plus, there are plenty of theologically bad claims that invoke evolution. Careful thinking is needed, and advertising does all it can to discourage thinking.
