Canadians split on creation/evolution

Canadians split on creation/evolution


The Creation of the Sun, by Michelangelo

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

Comments

In my view, theistic evolution is an untenable concept. It appeals to those who would like to close the controversy by using a
#1 Ronald Cote - 07/14/2007 - 16:21

As a former science teacher I do see evolution but it is within a species. For example, look at the armour of medieval times. Could you fit inside it? People have developed larger [sometimes much too larger!] frames due to reduced diseases and better health care and nutrition. We dod see that horses developed from a much smaller variety. But they WERE ALL HORSES. To pretend that God was writing a science textbook instead of a spiritual textbook is to disagree with God about why he had the Bible written.
-Charles Pedley
Follower of Christ
Bible Believer
Heir of Abraham
charles@cpedley.com
#2 Charles Pedley - 07/15/2007 - 05:09

Here's the problem: It's really not useful to talk about "both sides" of the issue and then refer us to some non-specific books from a church library or generic creation science sites to learn about the evidence for creation. Most if not all of what these books and sites assert has either been shown to be wrong by talkorigins.org or is of the "here's something science can't explain so all science is suspect" variety. The really lame sources suggest that you "open your heart to Jesus" or words to that effect. What we need is a few really specific proofs of creation. How about Ed posts a few of those on a website, stuff that'll curl the hair of evolutionists everywhere, stuff they absolutely cannot refute without looking foolish. And, perhaps, he could try to do it without mentioning incidents with unnamed atheist colleagues who inadvertently reveal that evolution is a sham, then slink away. I'm afraid that until he does that, he is, shall we say, not convincing.

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.
#3 GalapagosPete - 07/15/2007 - 22:21

Professor Neeland is totally correct. I have long believed that brainwashing is the root cause of many people's belief in evolution. Prof. Neeland contends 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.


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!
#4 James Collins - 07/17/2007 - 04:09

No, what it clearly shows is that the more ignorant you are, the more likely you are to believe in the supernatural.
#5 GalapagosPete - 07/17/2007 - 22:18

To Galapagos-of all the knowledge in the world, you and I possess less than 1%. On this basis, you declare belief in the supernatural to be a sign of ignorance. With your having only 1% or less of knowledge, perhaps you should reconsider the validity of the supernatural and the degree of your own ignorance!
#6 Ronald Cote - 07/20/2007 - 08:23

It's pointless to talk about "evidence" for either creation or evolution, since the evidence is the same in both cases. We interpret the physical evidence according to our worldview: one disposed to believe Biblical history will look at the fossil record and see evidence for rapid deposition and burial (the order of burial determined by liquefaction) during a cataclysmic, global flood; whereas one indisposed to believe will see evidence for slow accumulation and gradual change over long ages. Ultimately, what you believe is your choice; but realize that the Bible, as a collection of historical records, has been proven reliable time and again: to disbelieve such is illogical.
#7 Ruth Bard - 07/21/2007 - 09:22

Ronald, I am perfectly willing to accept that the supernatural is possible; however, the supernatural must demonstrate itself as valid first before I will accept it. Evidence first, always.

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.
#8 GalapagosPete - 07/22/2007 - 13:12

Ronald, I am perfectly willing to accept that the supernatural is possible; however, the supernatural must demonstrate itself as valid first before I will accept it. Evidence first, always.

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.
#9 GalapagosPete - 07/22/2007 - 17:09

Galapagos-If you are willing to accept that the supernatural is possible, What makes you so special that God and the "supernatural" have to demonstrate to you as valid. There is much that we, as humans, have to take on faith. Do you need evidence for everything before you accept it? There must be a lot that you don't have evidence for , but believe. But you make exception and excuse for the supernatural. Don't look for a potato chip, just look out the window for evidence of His wonderful Creation.
#10 Ronald Cote - 07/22/2007 - 17:48

Why would an omnipotent, et cetera, god have a problem showing itself?

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.
#11 GalapagosPete - 07/22/2007 - 22:47

Ruth, It's certainly pointless to discuss it with people who don't know how to interpret evidence, i.e., in the light of experience and observation of reality. Science has a great deal of experience with floods. The behavior of debris during and after a flood is well-documented. A flood would not leave debris in the manner in which we find fossils. That's a physical fact. Debris after a flood would be mixed up, with heavier objects settling to the bottom and lighter above, but it would all be in the same layer. This is not what we have found. Dinosaurs are not found mixed with rabbits, or humans with trilobites. There is a separation by time. We don't find things 50,000 years old below things millions of years old.

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.
#12 GalapagosPete - 07/22/2007 - 23:08

Did Needland really say: "As a scientist, I don't see any evidence for evolution."??

UBC should really be looking at their recruiting standards for profs.
#13 tw - 07/23/2007 - 12:42

Well, he's an associate professor of chemistry, so I guess it doesn't matter if he thinks that chemical reactions are caused by magic as long as he describes the reactions correctly to his students and doesn't tell them he thinks it's magic.

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.
#14 GalapagosPete - 07/23/2007 - 20:24

As a neurologist, I find it strange that we claim humans have evolved over millions of years, yet we have not found adequate numbers of pre-human remains to document the statistical sample size required to sustain a population in which a mutation would lead to natural selection and an improvement of the species.

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.
#15 neurodoc - 08/09/2007 - 02:10

Interesting thought. I suggest you write it up and submit it for peer-review.
#16 GalapagosPete - 08/13/2007 - 21:25

This article is so sad. It is a testament to the dire need for vast science educational reform. If there is this much confusion over the science of evolution, then science needs to be taught much better.
#17 eoosen - 08/31/2007 - 08:32

His bit about attacking scientific education as "brainwashing" was funny, too. There's certainly one side of this argument that requires weekly brainwashing sessions, but it's not the scientists.

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.
#18 Will - 09/05/2007 - 10:56

Thank you GalapagosPete for arguing for what can sometimes seem like a hopeless cause. keep up the good work. Oh and yes, I too chuckled when I heard about the child indoctrination and brainwashing James Collins spoke of. No hypocrisy there.
#19 Cynicalcybersam - 10/27/2007 - 18:48

Wait a second. People who read anything put forth by highly educated members of the scientific community are being brainwashed? All this time, I thought I was learning.
#20 Estan - 10/28/2007 - 11:59

Wait a second.. Teaching evolution in school is brainwashing? When kids are brought to church earlier in life than they can even remember? You don't start school until age 5, and I don't quite recall but i don't think evolution was really the subject matter until roughly grade 6. And I dont think ive ever been told by a science teacher that my body is made up of cells and if i dont believe that i'll burn and suffer for eternity after i die. I can't even believe that Christianity has accused evolutionists of brainwashing. I have actual first hand experience with people who i have seen come back from 'Bible Camp' brainwashed, and I have actually been deeply upset and broken-hearted to see someone come back from as little as a week at these camps and seem like a totally different person. Who is really guilty of brainwashing?
#21 Idddiot - 03/28/2008 - 14:38

Comment
To prevent automated Bots form spamming, please enter the text you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.



Email (won't be shown)
Name

canadianchristianity.com encourages readers feedback, and in the forum interaction. We will not edit your comments, but reserve the right to select responses and delete any inappropriate ones. All comments are immediately forwarded, read and screened. To report offensive or inappropriate comments, contact our editor.