American Majority accepts God-Guided Evolution - - Is this true for BioLogos as well?

This seems to be just what I expected…

To summarize with searchable text:

  1. 48% of US Adults believe human evolution was guided by God or a higher power!
    Versus 18% of US Adults who reject Evolution in every form.

  2. 53% of US White “mainline” Protestants believe human evolution was guided by God or a higher power! Versus 16% of this same category that reject Evolution in every form.

  3. 58% of White “Evangelical style” Protestants believe human evolution was guided by God or a higher power! Versus 38% of this same category who reject Evolution in every form.

  4. 66% of Black Protestants believe human evolution was guided by God or a higher power!
    Versus 16% of this same category that reject Evolution in every form.

48% - ALL US Adults: with 33% more accepting a purely natural form of evolution!
53% - White Mainline Protestants: with 30% more accepting a natural form of evolution!
58% - White Evangelical Protestants: with just 4% more accepting a natural form of evolution.
66% - Black Protestants: with just 6% more accepting a natural form of evolution.

How does this compare to the Catholic vote in the US?
56% of all US Catholics believe human evolution was guided by God or a greater power.
While only 13% of this same category rejected Evolution in every form. 30% of Catholics
(the same % as in White mainline protestants) accept a purely natural form of Evolution!

The surprising conclusion?!: in America, Catholics were the least likely to reject Evolution!

Only the completely unaffiliated were less likely to reject Evolution:
64% accepting purely natural Evolution, 24% god-guided evolution, and only 11% rejecting evolution completely.

I wonder what percentage of those 18% who reject evolution in every form accept devolution. Perhaps we should begin teaching devolution in science classes as part of our diversity and inclusion initiatives.

@Mung,

Are you saying that when there is birth defect, THAT is evolution?

Obviously the questions being used by PEW do not open that can of worms: “oh, ps, and you don’t believe birth defects occur…” etc. etc…

I don’t find that part to be surprising. The Catholic church made their peace with science a long time ago, admittedly with some ambiguity.

Additionally, in America many Catholics are cultural catholics or cafeteria catholics.

2 Likes

@Mung

Since you are such a big fan of Devolution … maybe you can help explain what Behe actually means by devolution?

He believes the only Evolution that occurs is Devolution… but he also says God Guides evolution.

So is Behe saying God only guides devolution?

Or is Behe saying that when God stops guiding, then evolution automatically starts going towards Devolution? So… when does God stop guiding?

I’m not and I can’t. But when my copy of the book comes in I’ll try to remember your request and try to answer what I think Behe means.

1 Like

And yet, @nwrickert, we have @Agauger here, who endorses I.D. to such an extent, she is willing to accept de novo creation of Adam and Eve as far back as half a million years ago (rejecting the 6000 time frame usually associated with Genesis 2) - -

    • because of how much skepticism she has in the idea that God would employ evolution to create humanity.

This is a pretty complex form of “Catholicity” expressed in a view of human origins!

Let’s compare this to Genealogical Adam:

Joshua thinks Adam and Eve were specially created, but after humans were already present as a large population of evolved humans… because God would use both natural and super-natural means to create humanity.

@Agauger thinks Adam and Eve were specially created 500,000 years ago (or more)… without any separate population of humans evolved … because God wouldn’t use Evolution to create humanity.

Wild.

People are complex.

2 Likes

But that’s not a worthy title for a song. :wink:

@Mung,

Speaking of complex… in your opinion, does being an “ID Advocate”

equate to

“Rejecting God-Guided Evolution”?

Personally, no. But other people, and not just IDists, see evolution and God-guided evolution as being mutually exclusive. They would say that intelligently guided evolution is an oxymoron.

This is where I miss @Eddie.

@Mung

So what do you think they or we should call a God-guided process involving God-led-mutations, God-led-natural selection and God-Guided common descent?

You certainly can’t call it “Creationism” in the sense that Young Creationists use the term Creationism… and they are, after all, the ones who coined the term Creationism!

Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation

Intelligent Design. Tell me you didn’t see that coming George!

To go along with Theistic tennis and Theistic golf.

For some people, it really is a miracle :wink:

1 Like

@Mung,
Well, I didn’t see it coming because you wrote: “Personally, no.”

We can’t just call it Intelligent Design if Intelligent Design ALSO includes de novo creation from dust and human ribs.

For some people, beating hearts would have to offered to the Sun to make sure it would come up the next day.

Yes, yes… .

But it is different from the miracle used to make Eve from a human rib, yes?

So… shall we continue to tarry in the weeds over this? Or get serious?

How many kinds of miracles are there?

Class A Miracles
Class B Miracles
Class C Miracles