A survey on belief. Well I found it interesting

[MajGenl.Meade]

A recent survey of the congregation at St. John's Presbyterian Church, Bloemfontein, a predominantly white (but not by intent or design) group of Afrikaners who worship in English:

43% believe the world was created in six 24-hour days
57% believe the world was created millions of years ago

95% believe that extinct animals such as dinosaurs once walked this earth

72% believe in some form of evolution from simple animals to complex*
100% of that number believe that God controls and guides this evolution


*Clarification: the meaning of "simple/complex" as given in the question was not of the "amoeba/mammal" type but of the "wolf/dog" type - wolf being one kind of thing and there being many kinds of dogs evolved from that simpler form.

I find it interesting that the six-dayers (judging from the sample I've taken) seem unaware of the discussion of various day/year/indefinite interpretations of the Hebrew in the Genesis account and throughout the Old Testament. Nor have they considered the implications arising from the 7th day on which God rested from creation - since He has not "created" ex nihilo since that 7th day began, it is reasonable to believe that the seventh "day" is currently continuing.

I was also surprised that the number was as high as 43% when such a huge majority believe in dinosaurs (sensible people). Often a wooden interpretation of Genesis produces a disbelief in dinosaurs since they are not mentioned and require an acceptance of larger periods of geological time. Perhaps they can be accommodated for some six-day folks because Genesis doesn't actually deny the existence of dinosaurs?

Anyway this is not to start some kind of creation/evolution discussion (please! please I beg of you!). I was more interested in the degree to which people have indeed changed in belief or perhaps it is better to say 'understanding' over the years - how what might be conflicting views can be held in tension - how there is an evident agreement that science and Christianity are not de facto in conflict.

Meade

[Guinevere]

Try not asking the questions at church and see what kind of responses you get. A bit of a biased sample, this one.

[rubato]

"...

*Clarification: the meaning of "simple/complex" as given in the question was not of the "amoeba/mammal" type but of the "wolf/dog" type - wolf being one kind of thing and there being many kinds of dogs evolved from that simpler form.

I'm struggling with the idea that dogs 'evolved' or that they are more complex than wolves. It might be that the wolf genome is really more complex and most dogs were bred by eliminating different parts of the genome.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Try not asking the questions at church and see what kind of responses you get. A bit of a biased sample, this one.

But Guin the purpose was to find out about our own church and how our beliefs or understanding might be altered by the ongoing debate about science/religion. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough?

rubato - I think the idea was to see how many of the church accepted the idea of adaptation within a "kind" of animal. Simplistically (very), a wolf is one kind of a thing - very simple. But "dogs" come in many varieties and I think this is what they were trying to get out by saying "complex". (Ignoring that there may have been and are now different kinds of wolves) they were not asking the church to say Yes or No to evolutionary steps from (e.g.) minerals to mammals.

Mind you, it would have been interesting to have more questions as follow-up.... such as
Do you believe that evolution accounts for the development of mammals from simple one cell organisms?
and then:
Do you believe that humans could have evolved from simpler life forms?

I suspect there would significant anomalies in responses and I'd love to have the opportunity to conduct a discussion to find out why. Obviously I'd hear "because the Bible...." but I'd want to hear a defence from those who answered 'Yes' to the first question and 'No' to the second

Meade

[Big RR]

I was also surprised that the number was as high as 43% when such a huge majority believe in dinosaurs (sensible people). Often a wooden interpretation of Genesis produces a disbelief in dinosaurs since they are not mentioned and require an acceptance of larger periods of geological time. Perhaps they can be accommodated for some six-day folks because Genesis doesn't actually deny the existence of dinosaurs?

Or perhaps they were too big and wouldn't fit on the ark? I recall hearing that once for why they are extinct.

Of course that presentsthe problem that the fossil record does not support any conclusion that man (even cavemen, let alone people sophisticated enough to measure cubits and use tools to build a boat) existed at same time, but it does show that some strict literalists will try and make adjustments in their "understanding" to accomodate some facts (while othes would just deny the evidence proves what it cited for).

It would be interesting to poll those who accept creation in 7 24 hour days and dinosaurs as to when they existed. I would bet at least a substantial number would say only only a few thousand years ago.

[oldr_n_wsr]

let alone people sophisticated enough to measure cubits

Noah: God?
God: Yes Noah.
Noah: What is a "cubit"?

[Big RR]

God: Well, let's see, the square root of the ...

[Guinevere]

Try not asking the questions at church and see what kind of responses you get. A bit of a biased sample, this one.

But Guin the purpose was to find out about our own church and how our beliefs or understanding might be altered by the ongoing debate about science/religion. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough?

You didn't. You wrote:

I was more interested in the degree to which people have indeed changed in belief or perhaps it is better to say 'understanding' over the years - how what might be conflicting views can be held in tension - how there is an evident agreement that science and Christianity are not de facto in conflict.

"People" can certainly include "members of our church." But I took it for its broader definition, since there were not limitations on the word. Ah well.

[Sue U]

Anyway this is not to start some kind of creation/evolution discussion (please! please I beg of you!).

What happened to the creation/evolution discussion we were already having????

[MajGenl.Meade]

It would be interesting to poll those who accept creation in 7 24 hour days and dinosaurs as to when they existed. I would bet at least a substantial number would say only only a few thousand years ago.

Exactly Big RR. That's the kind of question I'd like to develop - a large number of the 43% must have answered positively to the dinosaur one. Your bet may be a safe one but I will try to find out.

You raise a good point about Noah though (as well as a good old joke). I suppose it's possible for a 6x24 person to even say that there might have been millions of years between creation and Noah - although unlikely. "A few thousand years ago" is probably more likely.

Now I don't blame Christianity (or the Bible) for people thinking that humans and dinosaurs hung out together - I blame Ray Harryhausen and the secular media consipiracy

Holding contradictory ideas in tension is of course not what some of my friends think they are doing. Maybe we are all used to doing that!

Meade

[rubato]

"...
Do you believe that humans could have evolved from simpler life forms?

... "

There is something you're really not getting.

"simpler" is not a physical concept. Chimpanzees are not "simpler" than you are in terms of biology. Parasites actually have some of the most complicated life cycles in nature, much more so than yours.

Natural selection does not refer to "simpler" and "more complex" it refers to the greater chance of survival of one ( and good theories of natural selection can account for all of these) genome, phenome or organismic.

And while I think our abilities in the moral and practical reasoning departments set us apart from the rest of, ah, 'gods creation' it does not make us more "complicated" in any physical sense.*

The arc of time does not favor "more complicated" vs "more simple". It favors "success" with great singularity of purpose.


yrs,
rubato

* Although there is a body of knowledge which suggests that the female of the species, our species, is capable of a subtlety of reasoning which mere masculine mortals cannot penetrate. Research in this area is incomplete and inconclusive. Studies are ongoing.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thank you rubato. I appreciated your asterisked joke!

What you are really not getting perhaps is the need to phrase a question for the general masses that expresses an idea in a few words that could (granted) be explained in a lot better detail in (say) 10,000 words.

Most people comprehend that a single-cell critter is "simpler" than a multi-cell critter - it has less moving parts. Hence the uncomplicated manner of phrasing such questions in surveys. In any debate between a human and an amino acid guess who wins? Likewise in a 100m dash - or the writing of a book - or piloting an airplane. The amino acid just doesn't do the job. It's just too simple to grasp anything.

I do not know if the complications of your life-style exceed my own but am prepared to accept your verdict

Meade

[rubato]

First of all; the first creation of a living organism which could reproduce and transmit its own structure to offspring was a unitary event whether it was special creation or some stochastic process of nature. Unitary events are great for speculation but not so good for systematic investigation.

Thus there is no conflict if someone who believes in special creation by a divine being also accepts that natural selection (unhindered by deus ex machina) is what happened next.

Secondly; there is a common flaw in understanding which goes like this: "our retrospective model of how all of the dense fabric of life came into being is based on a premise that at some point a unicellular organism appeared and after this all of the rich parade of the biosphere came into being including spirochetes and spider monkeys. Therefore the arc of evolution is from simple to complex."

It is not.

It is just a coincidence that nature has evolved both more simple and more complex organisms over the long period of time which it has had to operate. In fact, in quantitative terms the absolute numbers of 'more simple' organisms is much greater than the 'more complex' organisms. EVOLUTION DOES NOT TEND TOWARDS COMPLEX! It tends towards success. Right? All of the viruses and bacteria and fungi of the modern world were selected for by this process.

Like a great deal of science it is important to get your head around a very simple idea and let go of the dross.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

With the exception of the final sentence, that last post of rube's is so different in both style and content from the original content that he generally posts, (cogent, well organized, words used properly, etc.) I have to believe he copied it from another source but didn't give proper credit. There's no way he wrote that himself.

[MajGenl.Meade]

EVOLUTION DOES NOT TEND TOWARDS COMPLEX! It tends towards success. Right? All of the viruses and bacteria and fungi of the modern world were selected for by this process.

Like a great deal of science it is important to get your head around a very simple idea and let go of the dross.

Thank you for the unnecessary lecture. I repeat (with emphasis):

What you are really not getting perhaps is the need to phrase a question for the general masses that expresses an idea in a few words that could (granted) be explained in a lot better detail in (say) 10,000 words.

Most people comprehend that a single-cell critter is "simpler" than a multi-cell critter - it has less moving parts. Hence the uncomplicated manner of phrasing such questions in surveys.

And LJ - rubato's last line is perfectly acceptable. He was at the very least responding in kind to my own last line which was in turn a response to his very first line

Meade