A recent Newsweek survey presented people with three explanations for the origins of human life: that humans developed over millions of years, from lesser to more advanced forms of life, while God guided the process; that God played no hand in the process; and that God created humans in their present form.
The first option is a sort of hybrid creation-evolution endorsed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during the debate; "I believe in evolution," he said. "But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon . . . that the hand of God is there also."
The second option is evolution as explained by science, and the third summarizes the idea of creationism.
Nearly half the sample, 48 percent, said the creationism option was closest to their beliefs, and 30 percent chose the hybrid option. Just 13 percent of the sample chose evolution alone as the best approximation of their view of human development.
Those results have been mirrored in a series of Gallup polls that have asked nearly the same question at several points over the past 25 years. Cilizza in WaPo by way of Somerby.
If you asked me twenty years ago what I thought the relative percentages would be, I’d say, 66% in the hybrid camp, 20% in the Darwinian Camp, and 13% in the creationist camp. If you asked me yesterday before reading this article, I’d have predicted more in the Creationist camp–maybe 33%, but never 48%. That number is astonishing and depressing. I am a Teilhardian on evolution, so I suppose that would put me in the 30% hybrid camp. (I think that Darwin accurately explains the mechanics, of evolution, but that mechanics aren’t the whole story.) The !3% of pure Darwinians doesn’t surprise me, although it’s a little lower than I would have predicted. But the hybrid 30 and the Darwinian 13 combined are only 43% to the Creationist 48%. I don’t quite know what to think about that.
Update: Just read in our local paper an interesting article about sports and religion. I think that when people show the sane face of religion, it should also be given some pub. Some excerpts:
Religion’s place in sports has long been controversial. Introducing into a locker room belief systems intended to unify athletes hailing from diverse backgrounds can lead to problems. And more than a few people — including sportswriters — roll their eyes derisively when athletes use postgame interviews to "give all glory to God." To certain minds, that feels self-serving, a disingenuous way for athletes to announce "I’m a great person and God loves me."
The UW athletic department might have the highest concentration of Christians in our secular city. So this was a good venue to explore the sports-faith intersect.
So, it follows that putting representatives of these parties into a lecture hall, calling it a forum on religion and sports and having them explain themselves would produce a mixture of two things: 1) Boredom; 2) A lot of hooey.
It wouldn’t include, say, Huskies linebacker Dan Howell, a Christian, announcing that, yes, he believes atheists can teach people of faith about morality: "It’s very possible to be moral and good without faith."
I don’t think the people at this forum fit into that 48%.
Leave a Reply