Do Most Americans Believe in the Literal Interpretation of the Bible?

[misnoma]

Young-earth creationism is obviously correct; there are human records from past geological ages which document it.

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/01/what_in_creatio.html

AND the meek shall inherit the Earth.

 

[D H]

Not quite; 28% take it literally. An additional 49% believe it is the "literal word of god", so a nice 77% supermajority interpret the origin of the bible literally, even if viewing the text as somewhat allegorical.
source: 2006 Pew Forum poll, n=1002
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=10618

Rach3, you misinterpreted the poll results.

You did get the 28% figure correct.

According to a recent survey by the Gallup Poll, 28 percent of Americans believe the Bible is literally true. ​

49% did not say the Bible is the "literal word of God".

Nearly half, 49 percent, said the Bible was the "inspired word of God." ​

That 49% includes people who think that the Bible was inspired by God but printed by a bunch of bumbling apes and people who think that the Bible, the Koran, and the Kama Sutra are all inspired by God (e.g., Unitarians). Inspired by God does not mean the literal word of God.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think this one was posted earlier. Is there some ambiguity with the wording?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
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?

Polled in November 2004, 38% of respondents chose (1), 13% chose (2), 45% chose (3), and 4% offered a different or no opinion. These results are also similar to those from previous Gallup polls, which extend back to 1982.

45% believe (I think this is within 5% or so of other similar polls taken around this time - like the CBS poll) the Creationist view that humans (or do you prefer the more Freudian "erect hominids") were created in the last few millenia, and only 13% believe in an evolution model independent of a god.

To contrast, from a BBC-commissioned poll in the UK, last year, it turns out that 48% of respondents state that Evolution theory (as opposed to Creationism or ID) best describes their view of human origin and development. More importantly, only 15% of respondents didn't want Evolution taught in school (compared with the 37% in the US).

http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/bbc-horizon.shtml

Here's a comparison of the acceptance of Evolution among people from 34 Countries (from the EU, US and Japan):

http://www.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg

Here's a fairly comprehensive compilation of data from dozens of polls conducted in the US over the last 5 years : http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

 

[russ_watters]

But Santa Claus WAS included in the classroom...at least when I was a kid (he's probably been replaced now by "The Multicultural Holiday Person Dressed in Faux Fur"). It didn't mean we spent time being taught the myth of Santa Claus, or being told we had to believe in Santa, but we did make arts and crafts projects with Santas in them...red construction paper and cotton balls are fun to glue together for any kid.

When I was in Elementary school, our school play was on how Christmas was celebrated in different cultures. In junior high, language classes include culture and how Chrismas is celebrated plays a big role in that.

So Santa Clause is most certainly taught in school, and rightfully so.

I also read some of the Bible in an English class and covered different world religions in Social Studies.

I agree with Russ that it does NOT imply equal footing to say all three should be taught in the classroom. It also does not mean they need to be taught as fact. Since people WILL encounter beliefs and teachings on creationism outside the classroom, it's important that these are addressed inside the classroom, if for no other reason than to explain that they are religious beliefs but not scientific theories. I don't see it as terribly different than presenting Lamarckian theory and explaining the evidence that has since overridden that in favor of Darwinian theory.

Exactly. I wouldn't bet that many people would answer the poll that way, but to me it is critical for ID/Creationism to be covered in Biology class because it is precisely the lack of understanding of what makes a theory a theory that causes people to believe such things are scientific..

 

[paul_peciak]

Exactly. I wouldn't bet that many people would answer the poll that way, but to me it is critical for ID/Creationism to be covered in Biology class because it is precisely the lack of understanding of what makes a theory a theory that causes people to believe such things are scientific..

You don't need biology class for this - turning the age of reason is enough. They didn't teach us Rapunzel in biology class why should anyone be bothered with Creationism? (Creationism is self evident, you don't need creationism to understand what makes a theory a theory)

 

[misnoma]

it is precisely the lack of understanding of what makes a theory a theory that causes people to believe such things are scientific..

An excellent and valid point.

 

[misnoma]

but keep creationism to folklore, not biology or any other good science.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't need biology class for this - turning the age of reason is enough. They didn't teach us Rapunzel in biology class why should anyone be bothered with Creationism? (Creationism is self evident, you don't need creationism to understand what makes a theory a theory)

Rapunzel isn't being presented as science by Rapunzelists. Big difference. Teaching is done via examples and counterexamples - ID/creationism is a good counterexample.

 

[D H]

If the three concepts (evolution, ID, creationism) are to be taught side-by-side, it only makes sense to compare them and analyze them scientifically. Something makes me think that debunking creationism in the public schools is not quite what the religious right has in mind when they call for teaching creationism in the public schools. I like it!

For those Europeans participating in this thread, I put a lot of the blame for the US' religious fervor on your ancestors. Your ancestors chased their religious fanatics overseas to the Americas. We have to live with their descendents and their memes.

The Puritans are a prime example. The same desires that led to the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell's brief reign drove the Puritans to emigrate to Massachussetts before the Civil War. We are taught the Pilgrims left England to escape religious persecution. They left England because they wanted to establish a theocracy. The government they created in Massachussetts offered far less religious freedom than did pre-Civil War England.

English Puritans, French Huguenots, and German Calvinists greatly contributed to the two Great Awakenings in the 1730s and early 1800s. We feel their influence to this day.

 

[paul_peciak]

Rapunzel isn't being presented as science by Rapunzelists. Big difference. Teaching is done via examples and counterexamples - ID/creationism is a good counterexample.

I don't think the difference is that big between Rapunzelists and Creationists personally. Could you further discuss?

I agree with your 2nd point.

 

[paul_peciak]

For those Europeans participating in this thread, I put a lot of the blame for the US' religious fervor on your ancestors. Your ancestors chased their religious fanatics overseas to the Americas. We have to live with their descendents and their memes.

Thats a ridiculous argument.

 

[D H]

And what is so ridiculous about it?

Did Europe have a religious theocracy that rivaled the Sharia Law in its severity, as did the US in Massachussetts?
Did Europe suffer the two Great Awakenings that occurred in the US?
Did Europe react as vociferously against Darwin as did the US?
Did any European nation attempt to legislate that pi=3, since that is in the Bible?

 

[Rach3]

Did Europe have a religious theocracy that rivaled the Sharia Law in its severity

No, only for a few hundred years

 

[D H]

Did Europe have a religious theocracy that rivaled the Sharia Law in its severity the onset of immigration to the New World?

My point is that Europe exported most of its religious nutjobs to the Americas. The memes that they brought with them are still rampant in the US but are much less rampant in Europe.

 

[Severian]

To contrast, from a BBC-commissioned poll in the UK, last year, it turns out that 48% of respondents state that Evolution theory (as opposed to Creationism or ID) best describes their view of human origin and development. More importantly, only 15% of respondents didn't want Evolution taught in school (compared with the 37% in the US).

http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/bbc-horizon.shtml

I think this poll exemplifies what I hate about polls made by journalists (who basically don't know their arse from their elbow). The poll is completely rigged to make classifications that they percieve, not to find out what people really think.

For the site, their first question was:

Can you tell me which of the following theories best describes your view?

1. The "evolution theory" says that human kind has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
2. The "creationism theory" says that God created human kind pretty much in his/her present form at one time within the last 10,000 years.
3. The "intelligent design theory" says that certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, e.g. God

I would have had to answer 'none of the above' to this, even though I am a scientist who believes in evolution, because I am also a Christian, and have to reject the 'God had no part in this process.' statement. I wouldn't answer no 2 because I am not a Young Earth Creationist. I would almost be inclined to answer yes to number 3, but I don't know what the hell they mean by 'intervention' so I would feel deeply uncomfortable answering yes to this, because I am sure they mean ID in the new American sense.

I may have answered 1 depending on what mood I was in.

So basically, this poll is almost entirely useless in distinguishing what people believe (although atheists are presumably a subset of 1.)

The second question (should each of the three views be taught in school sceince) is also pretty useless, because it makes no attempt to distinguish reasons. Clearly I think evolution should be taught in science class because it is a scientific theory. I don't think creationism should because it is not a scientific theory (unless to point this out). But that says nothing about my view on their correctness - it is simply a statement of categorization.

I don't think I have ever seen a poll that asks reasonable questions.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Apparently there is a difference of opinion between those who feel that creationism is not falsifiable and it is true, and those who feel that creationism is not falsifiable and it is false. As a result, the argument that creationism is not science because it is not falsifiable seems to have been replaced by the argument that creationists are stupid because they are not scientists.

 

[D H]

It is not so much creationism that is no falsifiable as ID. Biblical inerrancy is falsifiable unless one invokes a whimsical god who created the universe and mankind and created a lot of fake geological, biological, astronomical, chemical, physical, mathematical, archeological, ... evidence against creationism.

ID, on the other hand, takes on many forms. There is not one intelligent design theory, and most can accommodate any evidence.

I say call their bluff. Expose creationism for the myth that it is.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Biblical inerrancy is falsifiable unless one invokes a whimsical god who created the universe and mankind and created a lot of fake geological, biological, astronomical, chemical, physical, mathematical, archeological, ... evidence against creationism.

That "unless" hogs a mess of ground. But creationists don't normally invoke whimsy, just bad science. The argument that scientists are stupid because they are not creationists would be inappropriate in this thread. But you know that's what they're thinking. Retaliation is all too common a response.

 

[Evo]

As with all discussions involving religious beliefs, this thread has reached a dead end.