Survey: 3/4 of Protestant Pastors Reject Evolution

[jedweber]

Christian pastors who accept "theistic evolution" are apparently a small minority among U.S. Protestants, according to a survey released by the Southern Baptists. Moreover, a slight plurality are young-earth creationists who believe the world is roughly 6,000 years old.

Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age
...
When asked if “God used evolution to create people," 73% of pastors disagreed - 64% said they strongly disagreed - compared to 12% who said they agree.

Asked whether the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, 46% agreed, compared to 43% who disagreed.
...
The Southern Baptist Convention survey, which queried 1,000 American Protestant pastors, also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people.
...
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/10/survey-u-s-protestant-pastors-reject-evolution-split-on-earths-age/

[velkyn]

and let me guess, a 100% of them go to hospitals, use computers, etc.   And 100% haven't a clue what evolutionary theory actually says just like our ignorant Christians on the board.

these people need to be sequestered from the rest of humanity if they so desperately hate science.

[jedweber]

The premise of the survey strikes me as absurd - it's like polling plumbers on their view of nuclear physics (or asking physicists to do your plumbing)...

But despite having no expertise on the subject, these pastors are so influential - they're the main reason 40-50% of U.S. adults claim to reject evolution. 

[jynnan tonnix]

And at least the physicist would probably be able to work out roughly how the plumbing was supposed to go together.

[jaimehlers]

I don't think religious people hate science.  I think they don't understand the basis of it.  It's like "acceptable magic" which is done by the people who do understand it.  They're okay with that, it makes their lives much easier.  The problem comes when the implications of science conflict with their beliefs.  They don't see that the two are closely-related parts of the same intricate whole, they see it as a heretical "science religious belief" (that threatens their sense of community, no less) which has nothing to do with the "science magic" that doesn't bother them.

I think, if it were just a matter of having the ideas out there, most would probably not care all that much.  The problem is, they see these very same "heretical" ideas required to be taught in classrooms, and to them, that's basically like an attempt to "convert" their children to an alien "religious belief".

[velkyn]

ignorance leads to fear and hatred.  This is why people need to be confronted and taught.  Nothing will change if we allow ignorance to fester.

[jaimehlers]

ignorance leads to fear and hatred.  This is why people need to be confronted and taught.  Nothing will change if we allow ignorance to fester.

I agree that ignorance needs to be corrected.  My post was to point out that it is an issue of ignorance for most people.  As you said, "ignorance leads to..."  Correct the ignorance, make sure that people actually know what science really is about and why you can't take only the parts you like and leave out what you don't, and things will sort themselves out.  Which isn't to say that the problem will magically solve itself.  In fact, things might actually be worse for a time.  But it will separate the people who simply are ignorant about the subject from the real "science-haters".

[Frank]

ignorance leads to fear and hatred.  This is why people need to be confronted and taught.  Nothing will change if we allow ignorance to fester.

I agree that ignorance needs to be corrected.  My post was to point out that it is an issue of ignorance for most people.  As you said, "ignorance leads to..."  Correct the ignorance, make sure that people actually know what science really is about and why you can't take only the parts you like and leave out what you don't, and things will sort themselves out.  Which isn't to say that the problem will magically solve itself.  In fact, things might actually be worse for a time.  But it will separate the people who simply are ignorant about the subject from the real "science-haters".

There is a difference betwen ignorance and wilful ignorance. These people love all the good stuff that science has brought them and they are not averse to using them. But when science starts to impinge upon their personal fiefdoms suddenly they decide science is wrong.
Now if they choose to be that was it's entirely up to them, but when they start to spread their wilful ignorance to others they have to be challenged for the good of us all.

[velkyn]

I agree that ignorance needs to be corrected.  My post was to point out that it is an issue of ignorance for most people.  As you said, "ignorance leads to..."  Correct the ignorance, make sure that people actually know what science really is about and why you can't take only the parts you like and leave out what you don't, and things will sort themselves out.  Which isn't to say that the problem will magically solve itself.  In fact, things might actually be worse for a time.  But it will separate the people who simply are ignorant about the subject from the real "science-haters".

pretty much "ditto" what Frank said.  They are intentionally ignorant.  For example, I would like to think that my father isn't a "science hater" but he simple doesn't want to know about the facts.  I've tried repeatedly to educate him about how geology works, and he simply doesn't want to accept it, in favor of his magic sky god.

[jaimehlers]

And when did I say that wrong or ignorant ideas should not be challenged?

The problem, as I said in the "Advocating Atheism" topic I wrote earlier, is that they think science is religious in nature.  So they look at it as one "religion" dominating the others.  That's the reason why you get this "it's only a theory, teach the controversy" nonsense.  Because to the minds of the people who are ignorant about science, it's all about what a person wants to believe, not what is actually backed up by reality.  I wouldn't be especially surprised if they thought that science worked because God wanted it to (thus rationalizing why they use the benefits of science), and so if people no longer worship God, science will stop working (thus rationalizing why they need to continue believing).

I think it needs to be made absolutely perfectly clear that science is not religious and has nothing to do with any deities.  For example, evolution remains true whether or not Protestant pastors reject it.

[screwtape]

I don't think religious people hate science. 

I think they do.  I think ignorance plays a part in that.  But mainly I think it makes them feel threatened and mad that someone challenges their stupid beliefs. 

If you saw the underwhelming "Religulous", there was a trucker who was just about ready to throw down simply because Bill Maher questioned the idea of god.  His reason was something like "I don't like when people dispute my god."

He has his stupid beliefs and anything that contradicts them is bad.  I think that is part human nature and part of the mind virus that is xianity.  Every manner of evil is equated with not believing.

[Nick]

Would you expose the grand game if it was your source of income and acceptance among the heard?

[velkyn]

As far as I can observe, Christians (and other theists like Muslims) are stuck with their religion *requiring* them to see science as a direct counter to their nonsense and lies. That's why they hate it.  Humans hate to be shown that they are utterly wrong.   PZ Meyers has a good blog entry about Christian homeschooling science fairs:http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/06/home-school-science-fair-this-weekend/ 

I'm curious, would anyone go to the science fair and tell them they are wrong?  This would be assuming that would be in a public venue where you would not get kicked out by mall management as the science fair in the blog post is.  I would, if only to say, to the parents, "The evidence does not support the claims you've told your children are true."   

[Tero]

They are protestants! the have to be contrary to the Pope.

[jetson]

ignorance leads to fear and hatred.

...which leads to anger, and anger leads to...the dark side of the force.

sorry.

[velkyn]

ignorance leads to fear and hatred.

...which leads to anger, and anger leads to...the dark side of the force.

sorry.

well, of course    especially if you are a whiny idiot. 

[Discern]

Protestants are simply a product of their belief in scriptures. For a protestant to say that God used a long process of evolution to create man, is like a muslim saying the Koran does not say to kill infidels. You have to do a lot of scripture twisting and apologetics to get to that point.

I think it's more absurd to be a dedicated christian and believe in evolution. They believe in the bible God, yet they don't believe the bible itself (so what's the point?). Jesus and Paul both validate the Adam and Eve story. That's why most protestants believe in a literal creation. The protestant position is to take the text literally, unless the text itself implies that the story is a dream/parable/illustration.

It reminds me of Sam Harris' frustration regarding 'moderate' vs 'extremist' muslims. They're not extreme followers taking the Koran out of context, they're simply obeying what their book says. The moderates are the ones ignoring their scriptures.

[jaimehlers]

It reminds me of Sam Harris' frustration regarding 'moderate' vs 'extremist' muslims. They're not extreme followers taking the Koran out of context, they're simply obeying what their book says. The moderates are the ones ignoring their scriptures.

And this is a good thing, in its own way.

[jedweber]

Protestants are simply a product of their belief in scriptures. For a protestant to say that God used a long process of evolution to create man, is like a muslim saying the Koran does not say to kill infidels. You have to do a lot of scripture twisting and apologetics to get to that point.

I think it's more absurd to be a dedicated christian and believe in evolution. They believe in the bible God, yet they don't believe the bible itself (so what's the point?). Jesus and Paul both validate the Adam and Eve story. That's why most protestants believe in a literal creation. The protestant position is to take the text literally, unless the text itself implies that the story is a dream/parable/illustration.

I don't really agree with this. I don't see why "Believing the Bible" necessarily equals "always taking the text literally."

I don't know if it's true that "most protestants believe in a literal creation," especially outside the US. The mainline Protestant churches (i.e. Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, etc.) for the most part do NOT insist on a strictly literal interpretation of scripture. The evangelical and fundamentalist sects which do are more recent creations (mostly 19th and 20th century), and they have only become more numerous than old-line Protestants in the US in the last few decades. Worldwide, they may well be a minority even among Protestants, though I'm not sure on that...

[ParkingPlaces]

First of all, welcome to Discern. And welcome to our side.

Second. Science is hard. And probably scary because of that fact. And even if you are no more than mildly interested in the subject, it takes work to stay up to date with the latest findings in the various fields. Pre-internet you had to subscribe to magazines and such. Now you have to at least have RSS feeds coming in from an assortment of science blogs. That you check regularly. And if you're not willing to do that, either you have no scientific knowledge or what you do have is dated, depending on when you went to elementary and high school. And where.

If all you remember was that dissecting frogs was either icky or cool and the periodic table was confusing, you may well not know much about anything scientific. And if you toss into the mix the inculcation into your religion of choice, especially one that does not prize human discovery, then you have had two doses of ignorance and that clearly disqualifies you from making major decisions on subjects of importance. Like science.

If the only flash card you ever memorized had a question mark on one side and "God did it" on the other, you don't have the tools to consider contrasting opinions, let alone contradictory information.

[GodlessHeathen]

According to one source, 16 percent of Assemblies of God students and faculty believe in theistic evolution (http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/ejonline_201002_origins.cfm). Assemblies of God is a Pentecostal church organization. I don't know to what extent that compares to other Pentecostals, but it has been my experience that the Assemblies of God are a bit more liberal than nondenominational Pentecostal churches.

[velkyn]

According to one source, 16 percent of Assemblies of God students and faculty believe in theistic evolution (http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/ejonline_201002_origins.cfm). Assemblies of God is a Pentecostal church organization. I don't know to what extent that compares to other Pentecostals, but it has been my experience that the Assemblies of God are a bit more liberal than nondenominational Pentecostal churches.

that could be an interesting study, if having a bigger audience makes churches less wacky.  I would guess that it would prove true. 

[GodlessHeathen]

According to one source, 16 percent of Assemblies of God students and faculty believe in theistic evolution (http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/ejonline_201002_origins.cfm). Assemblies of God is a Pentecostal church organization. I don't know to what extent that compares to other Pentecostals, but it has been my experience that the Assemblies of God are a bit more liberal than nondenominational Pentecostal churches.

that could be an interesting study, if having a bigger audience makes churches less wacky.  I would guess that it would prove true.

Pentecostals tend to be very fanatical and will believe almost anything as long as it doesn't contradict a literal reading of the Bible (unverifiable healing, simply because another Pentecostal reported it, every near death experience story ever told, etc.). I'm actually surprised that the percentage came out so high, provided it's correct.

[Nick]

All that proves is that your IQ can be below 70 still be a preacher.

[jss]

Protestants are simply a product of their belief in scriptures. For a protestant to say that God used a long process of evolution to create man, is like a muslim saying the Koran does not say to kill infidels. You have to do a lot of scripture twisting and apologetics to get to that point.

I think it's more absurd to be a dedicated christian and believe in evolution. They believe in the bible God, yet they don't believe the bible itself (so what's the point?). Jesus and Paul both validate the Adam and Eve story. That's why most protestants believe in a literal creation. The protestant position is to take the text literally, unless the text itself implies that the story is a dream/parable/illustration.

But that's exactly the position that intellectuals took during the Enlightenment!  Jefferson, Madison, Paine and Franklin (earlier) all espoused the deist notion of a clockwork universe wherein reason reigns supreme, God does not (or very rarely) interfere with the day-to-day business of mortals and all prayers go unanswered.  Of necessity this world view dictates that the bible cannot possibly be read literally.

I think the current wave of biblical literalism in American Christianity is merely an aspect of popularism and trend.  Of course, this doesn't mitigate its annoyance or danger.

[atheola]

Oddly enough in another survey the same number of pastors agreed young boys tight buttocks were a constant source of gods divine inspiration.....

* note..I'm just making this stuff up..yeah..that's the ticket..