Do Most Americans Believe in the Literal Interpretation of the Bible?

[russ_watters]

As a technical clarification, very few people actually believe "Intelligent Design" theory (necessarily less than 10%, according to the above poll). A 64% supermajority of Americans are creationists, which means they believe their God created everything in it's final form, period. ID theory is essentially a hoax, an attempt to re-state Creationism without explicit reference to God and thus force it into public schools (the Dover ruling acknowledges as much). Probably most Americans don't pay attention to the particulars of ID, which is psuedoscience and not religion.

Be careful with your conclusions, Rach3 - that isn't what the poll says. A good fraction of Christians believe that God did his creation through evolution.

Still - the poll Gokul posted is quite disturbing - it said 55%/51%.

That said, I think if you asked the question "is the Bible creation story literally true?" you'd get still a different answer.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think so. For example, how many of them shave? Check your Old Testament.

Many people confuse new-age and born again, and in this case, basic tenets of Christianity, with fundamentalism. There are many religions that consider the Bible to be the word of God, but not infallible; that is, they don't take every word literally. Also, at the heart of Christian diversity are the many interpretations of the bible.

I basically agree, but want to point out that there are many levels of funamentalism, so people might be defining it differently. Some might say anyone who believes in the Biblical creation story is a fundamentalist (though I would not agree). There are a lot of very strict religious beliefs/laws that the vast majority of American Christians don't follow. So to me, a "fundamentalist" is someone who their religion strictly controls a good fraction of their lives.

For example, I work with several guys who do not ever seek medical treatment and don't wear seatbelts or get insurance because of their religious beliefs.

I think a lot of people in the US who we label fundamentalists (the Christian Right) are not. Devout, perhaps, but in other countries fundamentalists' religions are practically tattooed on their forheads.

And let's go right where people want to be here: Bush. Is he a fundamentalist or just ignorant?

 

[Rach3]

Be careful with your conclusions, Rach3 - that isn't what the poll says. A good fraction of Christians believe that God did his creation through evolution.

Still - the poll Gokul posted is quite disturbing - it said 55%/51%.

That said, I think if you asked the question "is the Bible creation story literally true?" you'd get still a different answer.

I'm not the one who's careless here!

a new national survey shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that "human beings were created directly by God."

22% Human beings evolved from earlier species.

64% Human beings were created directly by God.

10% Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.

4% Not sure/Decline to answer

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

 

[misnoma]

There's too much "guesswork" and "opinion" in this thread's responses - rubbish I say! These are quantitative questions, and should be looked at with due respect.



Not quite; 28% take it literally. An additional 49% believe it is the "literal word of god", so a nice 77% supermajority interpret the origin of the bible literally, even if viewing the text as somewhat allegorical.
source: 2006 Pew Forum poll, n=1002
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=10618


"Intellect" is a very ambigious word. You can google for studies correlating education level and religious belief - there are lots of them with very different methodologies, so it takes some thinking to figure out what they actually mean (I'm not sure).

I can't answer this directly, because the PF guidelines prohibit us from discussing the truth values of religions (cause fights break out when we do).

To the point; no, there are no atheists in American politics, and there won't be anytime soon.



Correct, never mind what Ivan Seeking says. According to an n=1000 Harris poll from 2005, a 64% supermajority believe "Humans were created directly by god", and an additional 10% believe in non-theistic intelligent design. Less than 1/4th, 22%, think that H. sapiens is a product of evolution.
Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God

(There is some wavering, however, since a number of self-identified creationists have weird chimera-theories such as "humans were created but everything else evolved naturally"; see the poll.)

I'm writing another post to address this.

Thanks Rach3,
a very precise and concise reply. You seem to have valid data to draw upon.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not the one who's careless here!

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

Please notice that that poll does not have a differentiating category for that 64%, while Gokul's does. You can almost exactly subtract that 13% from your poll to get Gokul's.

 

[Moonbear]

For example, I work with several guys who do not ever seek medical treatment and don't wear seatbelts or get insurance because of their religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, the rest of us get to pay for them with "uninsured motorist" coverage on our insurance. I don't care if they don't want to protect themselves, but they ought to be required to have insurance to cover treatment of any injuries they cause to someone else, or not be allowed to drive a car.

 

[russ_watters]

Here is another poll, Rach3: http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/ZCS/CLB/NearlyOne-ThirdofAmericansBelieveBible.htm

According to the survey, about 3 out of 10 Americans continue to profess belief in a literal Bible today, which accounts a 10% drop over the past three decades. More than 1,000 adults were asked to describe their view about the Bible with 28% responding that the Bible is the "actual Word of God and is to be taken literally."

Poll results see a 45% to 49% increase among those who say the Bible is the inspired Word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally. However, the survey also records a larger increase of Americans who say the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man (13% to 19%).

Gotta love the headline there, though - 28% is closer to 1/4 than 1/3.

Anyway, the point is that the poll you posted was very general and you are reading into the results some things that they simply do not say.

 

[russ_watters]

Meanwhile, the rest of us get to pay for them with "uninsured motorist" coverage on our insurance. I don't care if they don't want to protect themselves, but they ought to be required to have insurance to cover treatment of any injuries they cause to someone else, or not be allowed to drive a car.

In PA, it is required by law, so they get around it by having company cars that are insured. Not sure how that jives with their beliefs.

 

[Rach3]

Argh, the polls are very different. Harris poll does not distinguish between theistic/nonthestic evolution, but does provide an option for "intelligent designer" other than God (10%). I'm not sure how to compare the two, especially since the voters might have changed their response based on cues in the wording. That's suggested by the fact that the numbers in no way correlate between the polls. (Or it might reflect the 2004-2005 difference, which is not trivial...)

 

[Rach3]

I think the CBS poll has better wording...

 

[misnoma]

to russ watters

No. Not really. No. No. Where do you get these misconceptions? There are good reasons why America is advanced in a lot of ways.

These questions say a lot more about you than they do about the US! Your screen name is appropriate, though.

Dis I say that I had misconceptions? If they are why should they be mine? Did I say that America was not advanced?
Why should these questions say anything about myself? The response will say more about the respondent. Bold print ?

 

[Rach3]

Look at table 6 of the Harris poll - 82% want either creationism or ID in the classroom, either on equal footing with evolution, or in place of.

 

[russ_watters]

Argh, the polls are very different. Harris poll does not distinguish between theistic/nonthestic evolution, but does provide an option for "intelligent designer" other than God (10%). I'm not sure how to compare the two, especially since the voters might have changed their response based on cues in the wording. That's suggested by the fact that the numbers in no way correlate between the polls. (Or it might reflect the 2004-2005 difference, which is not trivial...)

I'm not seeing the problem here - it looks to me like the two polls do corellate very well:

Harris: 64% agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that "human beings were created directly by God."

Notice that the words "directly" on "indirectly" do not appear in that question and it does not say anything about the level of influence. The CBS poll, however says:

"God created humans in present form" - 55%
"Humans evolved, God guided the process" - 25%

Now I had the proportion wrong in my previous post, but to me since the wording of the CBS poll is much more specific, you get different results. Ie, "God created humans in present form" is much more specific than "human beings were created directly by God", which is why you get fewer "yes" answers. Someone who answered "Humans evolved, God guided the process" may have also answered yes to "human beings were created directly by God", but not necessarily.

To me, the numbers corellate very well.

I think the CBS poll has better wording...

Yes - more/more specific choices is generally better.

 

[Rach3]

How do the numbers correlate?

(Btw, I agree the CBS wording is less ambigious).

 

[russ_watters]

Dis I say that I had misconceptions? If they are why should they be mine?

If you believe them, then they are yours, regardless of where you got them from. One of the great advancements in modern culture is personal responsibility. You are just as responsible for your own beliefs as American fundamentalist Christians are for theirs.

Did I say that America was not advanced?

You implied it with your "really?" question and dozen question-marks.

Why should these questions say anything about myself? The response will say more about the respondent. Bold print ?

You revealed your misconceptions and prejudices with the questions and implications.

 

[Moonbear]

In PA, it is required by law, so they get around it by having company cars that are insured. Not sure how that jives with their beliefs.

Okay, that struck me as funny. Everyone has a loophole it seems. I thought it was required everywhere in the US to have insurance to register a car, but was wondering if they somehow got an exception on religious grounds.

But, I think that even helps illustrate the point I was trying to make about diversity even within specific religious groups. The religion says one thing, but even those who adhere to it very strictly in most ways will make exceptions for some things. Someone else in their congregation might say they should only use public transportation or walk if they can't drive a car without insurance (hypothetically speaking, since I don't know anyone in their congregation).

 

[Rach3]

Russ: On further Googling, I came up with a Chris Mooney article on this issue.

Polling for Intelligent Design (Doubt and About)

...Clearly, figuring out what Americans "think" about evolution depends on what questions you ask. As sociologists Otis Dudley Duncan and Claudia Geist--upon whom I have relied for many of the aforementioned polling results--note in a forthcoming article in Reports of the National Center for Science Education, "The evidence does not justify the assumption that respondents will always be logically consistent in their responses to different questions. (Why should that be a surprise?)"

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/

 

[russ_watters]

Look at table 6 of the Harris poll - 82% want either creationism or ID in the classroom, either on equal footing with evolution, or in place of.

I don't see the words "equal footing" in there, Rach3...

Again, you are reading things in these polls that they do not say.

Regardless, 23% saying "creationism only" is a little disturbing. That said, I think this issue is one that the US has a peculiarity about and I think it is a mistake to use it as a benchmark issue for judging who is a "fundamentalist".

 

[russ_watters]

But, I think that even helps illustrate the point I was trying to make about diversity even within specific religious groups. The religion says one thing, but even those who adhere to it very strictly in most ways will make exceptions for some things. Someone else in their congregation might say they should only use public transportation or walk if they can't drive a car without insurance (hypothetically speaking, since I don't know anyone in their congregation).

Yes - some in this particular group fly and some do not. That one is apparently more of a guideline than a rule.

 

[Rach3]

I don't see the words "equal footing" in there, Rach3...

Again, you are reading things in these polls that they do not say.

Evolution?
Creationism?
ID?
Or all three?Of course I'm referring to the "all three", which pretty much defines "equal footing" for me - they're all legitimate enough to be taught in school. I'm not taking much license there, or at least certainly less license than you take by trying to "line up" the numbers for the CBS and Harris polls.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ: On further Googling, I came up with a Chris Mooney article on this issue.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/polling/

Good article. Btw, I had a class in college (one of the more enjoyable liberal arts electives) called "public opinion and propaganda". I know it seems like I nitpick polls everywhere, but after being a pollster (we did a phone poll as a project), creating the questions, analyzing the results, etc., I really look at polls critically. I liked the class because it taught me to dislike most polls.

Anyway, your polls aren't perfect, but are considerably better than the ones discussed in that article.

[edit]: Who wrote that article? I wasn't finished when I first posted this, now I see the header:

Do It Like They Do at the Discovery Institute

A Bloodhound Gang reference? Funny, but...

 

[misnoma]

Evolution?
Creationism?
ID?
Or all three?


Of course I'm referring to the "all three", which pretty much defines "equal footing" for me - they're all legitimate enough to be taught in school. I'm not taking much license there, or at least certainly less license than you take by trying to "line up" the numbers for the CBS and Harris polls.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ONLY EVOLUTION SHOULD BE TAUGHT. next thing we will be teaching about santa claus - and who knows, in a couple of thousand years there will be a nice big book extoling his virtues and how we should pray for our presents.

 

[Moonbear]

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=581

After reading through the poll questions, I'm going to have to say at least some of those questions are flawed. For example, one of the questions is: "Please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries." Someone who is educated in the theory of evolution and believes the theory to be accurate, or who is generally well-versed in scientific method, or even just logic, would have to disagree with that statement. Theories are not "proven." Also, it is not JUST fossil discoveries that support the theory. What that question illustrates is the lack of knowledge of evolution by the person writing the poll questions.

Another question is: "Regardless of what you may personally believe, which of these do you believe should be taught in public schools?" You can't assume that people recommending a combination of theories be taught in school believe in any particular one of them. For example, I do not believe in creationism, but would argue that since many do, it ought to be at least mentioned in schools simply so that those learning about evolution know what it is that it's being held up against by others.

And, lastly, this question: "Which of the following do you believe about how human beings came to be?"

The poll choices don't give people an option to choose more than one.

Human beings evolved from earlier species.
Human beings were created directly by God.
Human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them.
Not sure/Decline to answer

There are people that do not see a conflict between the first two choices. The poll forces them to choose one or the other when that may not really reflect their beliefs adequately.

What is helpful in that poll is the breakdown by geographical region and age. You can easily see how polls might vary in their overall results if too high of a percentage of your sample came from any particular region. For example, if your "west" group included a large number of respondents from Salt Lake City, UT, you would have a fairly different outcome than if they came from someplace like San Franciso, CA.

This particular disclaimer at the end is an important one to always remember when interpreting poll results:

Unfortunately, there are several other possible sources of error in all polls or surveys that are probably more serious than theoretical calculations of sampling error. They include refusals to be interviewed (nonresponse), question wording and question order, interviewer bias, weighting by demographic control data and screening (e.g., for likely voters). It is impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors.

I'd like to know what they say when they first introduce themselves on the phone? For example, if they start out with, "I'm conducting a brief survey on religious beliefs," a lot of non-religious or non-believers are going to hang up, while someone with very strong conviction in their religious beliefs may be interested in taking the survey and sharing their views. Even the time of day when someone calls can matter. If you're calling in the middle of the day when you're only reaching those who aren't working outside the home (whether they have a home business, or are retired, or students, or stay-at-home parents), that's a different demographic than if you call after 7 pm and catch more people who work outside the home.

 

[Moonbear]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ONLY EVOLUTION SHOULD BE TAUGHT. next thing we will be teaching about santa claus - and who knows, in a couple of thousand years there will be a nice big book extoling his virtues and how we should pray for our presents.

But Santa Claus WAS included in the classroom...at least when I was a kid (he's probably been replaced now by "The Multicultural Holiday Person Dressed in Faux Fur"). It didn't mean we spent time being taught the myth of Santa Claus, or being told we had to believe in Santa, but we did make arts and crafts projects with Santas in them...red construction paper and cotton balls are fun to glue together for any kid.

I agree with Russ that it does NOT imply equal footing to say all three should be taught in the classroom. It also does not mean they need to be taught as fact. Since people WILL encounter beliefs and teachings on creationism outside the classroom, it's important that these are addressed inside the classroom, if for no other reason than to explain that they are religious beliefs but not scientific theories. I don't see it as terribly different than presenting Lamarckian theory and explaining the evidence that has since overridden that in favor of Darwinian theory.

 

[Rach3]

Young-earth creationism is obviously correct; there are human records from past geological ages which document it.

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/01/what_in_creatio.html

 

[misnoma]

Young-earth creationism is obviously correct; there are human records from past geological ages which document it.

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/01/what_in_creatio.html

AND the meek shall inherit the Earth.

 

[D H]

Not quite; 28% take it literally. An additional 49% believe it is the "literal word of god", so a nice 77% supermajority interpret the origin of the bible literally, even if viewing the text as somewhat allegorical.
source: 2006 Pew Forum poll, n=1002
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=10618

Rach3, you misinterpreted the poll results.

You did get the 28% figure correct.

According to a recent survey by the Gallup Poll, 28 percent of Americans believe the Bible is literally true. ​

49% did not say the Bible is the "literal word of God".

Nearly half, 49 percent, said the Bible was the "inspired word of God." ​

That 49% includes people who think that the Bible was inspired by God but printed by a bunch of bumbling apes and people who think that the Bible, the Koran, and the Kama Sutra are all inspired by God (e.g., Unitarians). Inspired by God does not mean the literal word of God.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think this one was posted earlier. Is there some ambiguity with the wording?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/US/724_public_view_of_creationism_and_11_19_2004.asp

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?

Polled in November 2004, 38% of respondents chose (1), 13% chose (2), 45% chose (3), and 4% offered a different or no opinion. These results are also similar to those from previous Gallup polls, which extend back to 1982.

45% believe (I think this is within 5% or so of other similar polls taken around this time - like the CBS poll) the Creationist view that humans (or do you prefer the more Freudian "erect hominids") were created in the last few millenia, and only 13% believe in an evolution model independent of a god.

To contrast, from a BBC-commissioned poll in the UK, last year, it turns out that 48% of respondents state that Evolution theory (as opposed to Creationism or ID) best describes their view of human origin and development. More importantly, only 15% of respondents didn't want Evolution taught in school (compared with the 37% in the US).

http://www.mori.com/polls/2006/bbc-horizon.shtml

Here's a comparison of the acceptance of Evolution among people from 34 Countries (from the EU, US and Japan):

http://www.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg

Here's a fairly comprehensive compilation of data from dozens of polls conducted in the US over the last 5 years : http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm

 

[russ_watters]

But Santa Claus WAS included in the classroom...at least when I was a kid (he's probably been replaced now by "The Multicultural Holiday Person Dressed in Faux Fur"). It didn't mean we spent time being taught the myth of Santa Claus, or being told we had to believe in Santa, but we did make arts and crafts projects with Santas in them...red construction paper and cotton balls are fun to glue together for any kid.

When I was in Elementary school, our school play was on how Christmas was celebrated in different cultures. In junior high, language classes include culture and how Chrismas is celebrated plays a big role in that.

So Santa Clause is most certainly taught in school, and rightfully so.

I also read some of the Bible in an English class and covered different world religions in Social Studies.

I agree with Russ that it does NOT imply equal footing to say all three should be taught in the classroom. It also does not mean they need to be taught as fact. Since people WILL encounter beliefs and teachings on creationism outside the classroom, it's important that these are addressed inside the classroom, if for no other reason than to explain that they are religious beliefs but not scientific theories. I don't see it as terribly different than presenting Lamarckian theory and explaining the evidence that has since overridden that in favor of Darwinian theory.

Exactly. I wouldn't bet that many people would answer the poll that way, but to me it is critical for ID/Creationism to be covered in Biology class because it is precisely the lack of understanding of what makes a theory a theory that causes people to believe such things are scientific..

 

[paul_peciak]

Exactly. I wouldn't bet that many people would answer the poll that way, but to me it is critical for ID/Creationism to be covered in Biology class because it is precisely the lack of understanding of what makes a theory a theory that causes people to believe such things are scientific..

You don't need biology class for this - turning the age of reason is enough. They didn't teach us Rapunzel in biology class why should anyone be bothered with Creationism? (Creationism is self evident, you don't need creationism to understand what makes a theory a theory)

 

[misnoma]

it is precisely the lack of understanding of what makes a theory a theory that causes people to believe such things are scientific..

An excellent and valid point.

 

[misnoma]

but keep creationism to folklore, not biology or any other good science.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't need biology class for this - turning the age of reason is enough. They didn't teach us Rapunzel in biology class why should anyone be bothered with Creationism? (Creationism is self evident, you don't need creationism to understand what makes a theory a theory)

Rapunzel isn't being presented as science by Rapunzelists. Big difference. Teaching is done via examples and counterexamples - ID/creationism is a good counterexample.

 

[D H]

If the three concepts (evolution, ID, creationism) are to be taught side-by-side, it only makes sense to compare them and analyze them scientifically. Something makes me think that debunking creationism in the public schools is not quite what the religious right has in mind when they call for teaching creationism in the public schools. I like it!

For those Europeans participating in this thread, I put a lot of the blame for the US' religious fervor on your ancestors. Your ancestors chased their religious fanatics overseas to the Americas. We have to live with their descendents and their memes.

The Puritans are a prime example. The same desires that led to the English Civil War and Oliver Cromwell's brief reign drove the Puritans to emigrate to Massachussetts before the Civil War. We are taught the Pilgrims left England to escape religious persecution. They left England because they wanted to establish a theocracy. The government they created in Massachussetts offered far less religious freedom than did pre-Civil War England.

English Puritans, French Huguenots, and German Calvinists greatly contributed to the two Great Awakenings in the 1730s and early 1800s. We feel their influence to this day.

 

[paul_peciak]

Rapunzel isn't being presented as science by Rapunzelists. Big difference. Teaching is done via examples and counterexamples - ID/creationism is a good counterexample.

I don't think the difference is that big between Rapunzelists and Creationists personally. Could you further discuss?

I agree with your 2nd point.