|
By Jim Coggins
A Canadian Press-Decima Research poll has revealed that Canadians are strongly divided on the question of human origins.
Asked to choose the statement which "comes closest" to their views, 26 percent of those polled said: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Another 29 percent declared: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." The largest group (34 percent) held a middle position: "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." The survey said nothing about the opinions of the remaining 11 percent of Canadians. The poll of 1,000 Canadians was conducted June 21-24.
It differs considerably from a similar poll in the United States (done by Gallup for Newsweek March 28-19), in which 45 percent said God created human beings in their present form, 40 percent said God guided human evolution, and only 15 percent said God played no part in human development.
Eternity
Ed Neeland, associate professor of chemistry at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, told CC.com he is not surprised that 60 percent of Canadians believe in a Creator, since God has "set eternity" in human hearts - and, he believes, there likely isn't a single culture on earth that doesn't believe in a Creator.
On the other hand, Neeland said he is disappointed a larger percentage don't believe in direct human creation, since he is convinced the Bible and the evolutionary order are "diametrically opposed." He added: "As a scientist, I don't see any evidence for evolution."
Neeland said the direct creation option is especially held by evangelicals and others who "read the Bible and take it seriously." He said this allows them to approach the issue with "a different mindset." They are then open to the evidence for creation -- which he maintained is far greater than the evidence for evolution - and, consequently, "that makes them creationists."
Brainwashing
Neeland contended that the strong belief in evolution is due to brainwashing. "If you start feeding the same story to people from an early age" (in the school system), they will come to believe it. He said evolution is further reinforced by constant repetition in every university course, from biology to psychology.
This helps explain why only 15 percent of university graduates believe in direct creation of human beings, compared to 37 percent of those who haven't finished high school; and why 31 percent of those over 50, but only 22 percent of those 18-34, believe in direct creation. Neeland contended that the pervasive acceptance of evolution is why people who have never taken a university science course and "don't understand evolution" are nevertheless committed evolutionists.
Unholy union
Neeland suggested that people who believe in God-guided evolution are those who accept both what schools teach about evolution, and what their churches teach about creation; they decide both must be right, and so settle for what he termed the "unholy union" of God-guided evolution.
Decima CEO Bruce Anderson said, "These results reflect an essential Canadian tendency. We are pretty secular, but pretty hesitant to embrace atheism."
Neeland agreed, saying the poll is evidence of Canada's "lukewarm culture." Canadians are "polite" and "don't want to offend" anyone. Americans are more polarized because "they are not afraid to take a side."
On the other hand, Denis Lamoureux, assistant professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta, suggested that the different figures in the U.S. partly reflect the higher percentage of evangelicals there.
Neeland said universities, for the most part, present only evidence for evolution and keep creationist views from being heard. He cited an incident in which he overheard two academics who had just interviewed the leading candidate for an academic position. They said they had "by luck found out that he was a creationist" and so didn't hire him. Neeland thinks that if the issue had come up when he was being interviewed for his current position, it is likely he wouldn't have been hired either.
Continue article >>
|
Neeland said that those wanting to find evidence for creation can listen to lectures by scientists such as himself, or read books on the topic from their church libraries. He said the establishment of creation science institutes and Internet sites has helped greatly, and that the number of university students who are aware of the evidence for both sides is getting higher.
Lost faith
Neeland is not convinced Christian schools are necessarily the answer. He cited the case of a very bright student who had gone to Christian schools all his life, but had never been given all the evidence, or been taught to think critically. As a result, when he got to university, he was not ready for the challenge; he decided evolution must be right, and gave up his Christian faith.
Neeland said Christian parents should be more involved in their children's education, preparing them to face these challenges -- and then go into the world and make a difference.
Creation & politics
Both Neeland and Lamoureux said that one of the surprising things about the poll was its correlation to voting preferences. Those who voted for the Conservative Party and those who voted for the NDP had exactly the same views: 29 percent believed God directly created humans, 31 percent believed God had no part in human evolution, and 34 percent believed God guided evolution. Supporters of the Liberal party tended to be more concentrated in the middle, with 27 percent believing God created humans, 22 percent believing God had no part in human evolution, but 41 percent believing God guided evolution.
Among supporters of the Green Party, only 11 percent believed in direct creation, 35 percent believed God guided creation, and 41 percent believed God played no role. Among Bloc Quebecois supporters, only 16 percent believed in direct creation, only 30 percent believed God guided evolution, but 51 percent believed God played no role in the development of humans. This is somewhat due to the fact that Quebec is the most secular region in Canada on this question, with only 21 percent believing in creation, 31 percent believing in God-guided evolution, and 40 percent believing in evolution in which God played no role. The percentage of evangelicals in Quebec is also far lower than in any other part of the country.
Confusing
Lamoureux suggested that while all research is useful, people should be cautious about drawing firm conclusions from the Decima poll because the questions are confusing and open to interpretation. He said that "the people who created the questions don't understand all the possible categories of divine action."
For instance, one could believe in "theistic evolution" -- that God established the universe and set up the laws of evolution -- without believing that God "guided" the process in the sense of intervening to change the outworking of those laws. In the same way, one can believe God "ordained and sustains" the movement of the planets without believing that he is constantly guiding and adjusting their orbits.
Lamoureux said few Canadians have the broad training in Scripture and science to be able to adequately assess the evidence. While he considers himself an "evolutionary creationist," he expressed tremendous empathy for people who are "young earth creationists" because of their strong commitment to the Bible.
Neeland said that while he is encouraged by the increasing availability of the evidence for creation, he does not expect Canadians' views on the issue to change quickly. For one thing, he believes there is a lot of brainwashing work to undo -- so that even when they are presented with "really good evidence" for creation, many people are reluctant to accept it.
Matter of the heart
Further, Neeland said that in many cases, "it is a heart issue, not a head issue." People have "an axe to grind against God," are "rebelling against the cloistered Christian environments" they grew up in, or are just not willing to believe.
He mentioned a non-Christian colleague who was describing a certain biochemical process. The colleague said, "This is so complex, there is no way it could have happened by itself." Then -- realizing what he had said, and not wanting to discuss the implications -- the colleague had walked away.
July 12/2007
|
-Charles Pedley
Follower of Christ
Bible Believer
Heir of Abraham
charles@cpedley.com
And did you notice that I gave a specific website for the evolution side? www.talkorigins.org, in case you missed it. They have a robust search engine, so if you want to see, for example, if there is evidence for a world-wide flood, you can search for Noah and it'll tell you why scientists don't accept it. Then you can come up with a counter-argument.
This helps explain why only 15 percent of university graduates believe in direct creation of human beings, compared to 37 percent of those who haven't finished high school; and why 31 percent of those over 50, but only 22 percent of those 18-34, believe in direct creation. Neeland contended that the pervasive acceptance of evolution is why people who have never taken a university science course and "don't understand evolution" are nevertheless committed evolutionists.
Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the brainwashing propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
And by evidence, I mean scientific evidence, not the image of Jesus on a potato chip or Mary in a broken window, or any event that can be explained as a coincidence.
And by evidence, I mean scientific evidence, not the image of Jesus on a potato chip or Mary in a broken window, or any event that can be explained as a coincidence.
In any case, until it does, it remains a myth. Just because I have an open mind doesn't mean my brains have fallen out.
I need evidence for anything important. Certainly the existence of a supreme being would fall in the category of important.
If a global flood had occurred, there would be specific physical evidence, and such evidence has never been found. For a really thorough look at why a global flood is unlikely, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
And as regards the bible, even if some of the historical references in the bible are correct, this in no way supports anything it says that is contrary to physical law. To say otherwise is to suggest that, since Marvel comics makes accurate references to currents and historical events, such as World War II or the terrorist attacks on New York, the Avengers must really exist.
UBC should really be looking at their recruiting standards for profs.
And I suspect he may have trouble getting that full professorship he's no doubt been hoping for, since he's now demonstrated that he doesn't accept science, but rather believes in magic.
Perhaps we are finding remains of the developmentally disabled or those with mutations detrimental to the species, and therefore not burned or buried with the majority of the population of their contemporaries.
Since this guy has stated multiple times that he doesn't believe in science or science education, why is he teaching at a university? If I was his supervisor I'd be looking at correcting that mistake as quickly as possible.
wow, is he serious????? how many people hear of creation before evolution??? ill guess and say 99%....brainwashing??? no kid is told that if they dont believe in evolution they will go to hell! id say that is brainwashing....
Poor GalapagosPete
Deceived enough to flame those who know differently. Only he is right of course.
The flood story is a nother good example. A flood did occur in Noah's time BUT it didn't kill off the dinosaurs. They were already dead for millions of years. And IF there were dinosaurs at the time of Noah, how come he didn't bring two of each kind onto the ark with the rest of the animals?
Evolutionists on the other hand are just as bad. The development of abiogenisis to prove the origin of life is nothing but junk science. Anyone with more than the most basic understanding of chemistry can see how the Miller-Urey experiment proves nothing. The first problem is he used a closed system using ammonia, methane and hydrogen to "simulate the atmosphere" at the beginning of life". He claimed there was no nitrgogen or oxygen at the time of this event. However, ammonia is very unstable and breaks down into hydrogen and nitrogen. Plus it it highly soluble in water.
Now, if this is the case, how can the claim there was no nitrogen at that time be true?
For that matter, the claim there was no oxygen at that time is a crock too. There was water, and you can't make water without oxygen.
Hydrogen is much lighter than air and thusly escapes into space quite rapidly. In a closed system such as Miller used, hydrogen can't escape. Now, let's assume for a moment that the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't irrelevant.
All they managed to do was create some amino acids. It is a QUANTUM leap from amino acids to actual life.
Now, how can inanimate objects spontaneously turn into a lifeform? They can't.
Sadly, while the two sides bash away at each other's ideologies, they forget that they are in pursuit of the same answers.
The fight continues for one reason. If there is hard, and I mean HARD empirical evidence for evolution, the theological implications would be staggering. On the other side of the coin, most scientists aren't interested in trying to disprove evolution because they would a)lose out on a LOT of grant money from private companies and government, and b)would force them to admit there may be more behind life on Earth than mere science.
In either scenario, one party or the other would have their worlds rocked.
However, using junk science, like abiogenisis, to "prove" a tenuous theory smacks of desperation.
And statements like "well it takes millions of years that's why we can't see it happening" is a convenient excuse. See neurodoc's comment about that. PLUS, various species of dinosaurs existed over millions of years. You'd think you'd see some of the mutations taking place through all the fossil records we have. But after every mass extinction, when a new crop of dinosaurs appeared, they were still related to the ones from the previous era but there were quantum leaps in their biology in many cases.
If evolution takes place over millions of years and happens slowly, how do they explain these quantum leaps after an extinction? And for that matter, where did all the brand new species come from after mass extinctions. There are so many holes in evolutionary theory that it is almost criminal that it is taught in many institutions as FACT and not theory. Keep in mind that "may have" and "might have" do NOT constitute hard scientific data.