Two-Thirds of Polled Pastors Reject Evolution

A survey by the Southern Baptist Convention shows that 73% of Protestant pastors reject the concept of evolution — even when asked if they believe God used evolution to create humans. Forty-six percent maintained that the Earth is only roughly 6000 years old despite tests showing rocks that are millions of years old.

When asked if “God used evolution to create people,” 73% not only disagreed, but 64% “strongly disagreed.”

The poll of 1,000 American Protestant pastors also found that 74% believe the biblical Adam and Eve were literal people. Thus, roughly three-fourths of pastors believe that God literally began the human race with two actual people in the Garden of Eden.

Once again such polls only show how blasphemers like Bill Nye The Science Guy and scientists continue to live in some fantasy world with their carbon dating, telescopes, and fossils.

Source: CNN

52 thoughts on “Two-Thirds of Polled Pastors Reject Evolution”

  1. No surprises with the poll, for the concept of evolution is not in the business model of the religion business: creationism is the only concept that sells and keeps the coffers full.

  2. btw robert hagedorn

    i googled first scandal and it came up with someone named rihanna

    (although to be honest i didn’t use capitol letters)

  3. Geez, Bron. Did you have to Google a simple old proverb to figure out what it meant? If so, that is exactly what is wrong. Actually, the readers here would be amazed at the number of people who cannot understand an abstraction such as those proverbs cited. I have asked persons with a year or two of college those same proverbs and get literal answers. Concrete-mindedness seems to be endemic.

  4. OS:

    “This proverb certainly belongs to one of the most commonly used proverbs in the English language. This should not be surprising since it expresses the only too human idea of discontent, envy, and jealousy in a metaphor which is easily understood. Interestingly enough, the proverb is also literally true as has been demonstrated by James Pomerantz in a scientific article on “‘The Grass is always Greener’: An Ecological Analysis of an Old Aphorism” (1983).3 This scholar proves that optical and perceptual laws alone will make the grass at a distance look greener to the human eye than the blades of grass perpendicular to the ground. The “truth” of this metaphorical proverb can, of course, also be observed often enough in the countryside when a cow or a horse is trying to get at that juicy green grass just on the other side of the fence. And since people are equally dissatisfied with their lot in life, it should not surprise anyone that a modern psychologist has spoken of “the ‘greener grass’ phenomenon”4 by which modern individuals continually evaluate supposedly better alternatives for themselves.”

  5. Somebody brighter than I once said something to the effect that humankind loves to consider their own lives the New Year’s Eve of time.

    And it never is.

  6. “Theory” as used by the layman is the scientist’s hypothesis. “Theory” as used by the scientist is the layman’s common knowledge. Same word, two different meanings.

  7. Bob Kauten,

    Very cogent comment. When my son was in pre-med, he attended a private university run by the Methodist Church. In his first biology class, the professor made an announcement to the assembled students: “Evolution is a fact. A theory is a fact where all the details have not yet been attended to. For anyone in here who cannot accept that, you are in the wrong class.”

    There were gasps from some of the students who came from fundie families. The professor warned them that if they persisted in their anti-evolution nonsense, they could not complete the class. I don’t recall ever finding out what happened after that.

  8. 1. Science is about knowing, religion is about believing; science is about facts, religion is about faith; science is about how, religion is about why. One is about the material, the other about the transcendent. To use either to validate or disprove the other is a foolish effort enjoyed by only those who lack an appreciation of both.

    2. In church, folks give “churchy” answers to questions they would answer differently if they were elsewhere; same with pastors who are expected to answer a survey by a politically driven organization whose assurances of anonymity they hardly trust.

  9. Hi angrymanspeaks,

    “…to be perfectly honest; the evidence for evolution is practically non-existent. That’s why it is called the “Theory of Evolution”

    Um…no, please do some reading, about the Theory of Evolution, and about theories, in general.

    Fossil records (human and non-human), and experimental observation, provide abundant data to support the mechanism of Evolution. There’s no longer any doubt whatsoever in the scientific community that Evolution brought about the present variety of life on earth, and that Evolution is still occurring.

    Evolution can be verified by experiments involving organisms with very short reproductive times. A very well-known experiment is being conducted by humans taking antibiotics. Humans are given antibiotics, and instructed to take the antibiotics for a certain period. The humans feel better after a short time, and stop taking the antibiotics.

    Meanwhile, the bacteria causing the disease are reproducing very rapidly. Every generation produces mutations in the genes of the bacteria. By random chance, occasionally a bacterium evolves some sort of resistance to the antibiotic. If the foolish human stops the antibiotic regimen too early, only the antibiotic-resistant bacteria survive. These bacteria are now free to re-infect the human, and others. Next time there’s an infection by the antibiotic-resistant bacteria, guess what? ‘Super-bacteria’!

    What shall we call this process of survival of the fittest, antibiotic resistant bacteria? How about, say, Evolution?

    Now, on to theories. Here’s a few you may have heard of:
    Atomic theory
    Molecular theory
    Theory of Gravitation
    Theory of Evolution

    All theories, because scientists are still working on the details of how these phenomena work. But they do work.

    Atomic theory – not every tiny detail has been worked out, so it’s still a ‘theory.’ Do you think atoms aren’t real? Nuclear weapons were developed, using Atomic ‘theory.’

    Molecular theory – not every tiny detail has been worked out, so it’s still a ‘theory.’ Think there aren’t really molecules? Then how do we synthesize organic molecules, for example, drugs? By chance?

    Theory of Gravitation – No one really understands how gravitation works. Stand on a chair. Jump off. What happened? Is there no evidence that gravitation exists?

    Theory of Evolution – not every tiny detail has been worked out, so it’s still a ‘theory.’ Did it, and does it happen, anyway? You can bet on it.

  10. Clarence Darrow performed an interesting experiment back in TN. He had the first chapter of Genesis translated from its original language to (as I recall) Greek then Latin then English. This was done word for word and what came out was “God evolved the Earth”

    Since there are two creation myths told in Genesis and they are different it may be something people who take the book literally want to consider. IF they can wrap their heads around that we can discuss the 20-some versions of the 10 commandments, few of which match.

  11. St Augustine warned of such nonsense 1600 years ago. He warned believers that the Bible is God’s revelation of Himself and the relationship He wants with mankind–not a science (“natural philosophy”) book. Where a believer would use the Bible to demonstrate some scientific principle, someone with a greater knowledge or understanding of the subject would scoff at the believer’s assertions–and thus minimize just what the true meanings of the Bible were intended.

  12. “I wonder if that 23 year old pastor (pastor Anthony Lee Drumgoole) from Monday’s thread … you know the guy charged with kidnap and robbery … voted.”

    lol, Blouise… (Still laughing…)

  13. Well that sounds like it should start with the “Likes of …..and Salem……”…..just saying…

  14. Anonymously Yours,
    Lilith in the kaballah and apocryphal texts as far as I know left the garden and went to the coastal areas which were populated with fallen angels whom she intermixed with. She displeased adam because of her aggressive nature and wanting to be on top, so God bore Eve from his rib. I don’t know exactly where lilith came from or if she was made in the same way as Adam, Eve or a fallen angel. At any rate the giants, and other demonic offshoots were thought to be lillian.

    Its interesting to note that DNA tracing finds certain people whose more recent ancestry (IE 1000 years ago) is no where near the Tigris Euphrates area where the Garden was have a higher percentage of Cromagnon DNA than those from that area. Could these Cromagnons which have been scientificallly proven to be a different species of Human than the Homo-Sapiens and Homo-sapiens sapiens such as us, have been these Lillians and other demonic offshoots described in the text?

    While not a strict fundamentalist (IE one of those people who believes every word of the bible is to be taken literally) I do believe in a higher power, spirituality, and that the bible holds some value. If you watch ancient aliens on the history channel it talks of the book of Ezekial (Old Testament) and how the measurements the “angels” asked him to take for the flaming chariot and the surrounding building (very complex and fine dimensions) were recreated separately by an architect and a structural engineer respectively, and the two fit together perfectly. Their conclusion was that these angels were not angels at all but in fact aliens. Make of it what you will

  15. raff,

    You were most too kind……

    Ok….Adam and Lilith….were the first….after Lilith displeased Adam…then comes along Eve…..what ever happened to Lilith….

    Then Cain kills Able….then this 3rd dude pops up….Seth….then Cain goes over the Mountain…and marries…. wait….too many players…too quick…to keep track of…

    Maybe I am getting my mythology mixed up….

  16. Mark,

    “And the faithful look to these folks for guidance in their lives?”

    And therein lies the problem.

    Looking to men for answers about God is always a mistake.

    Those answers are available to each man.

    The early Christians met together to encourage one another primarily as they were all familiar with the teachings. Paul wrote letters to encourage the distant groups and to give them new ways to think about the words of Jesus and what they meant.

    Only in a case where no local man of respect inthe group was unable to find an answer were inquiries sent to Jerusalem for mediation or decision.

    This is totally unlike what we think of as the Christian Churches of today.

    The worst thing ever to happen to True Christianity; Original Christianity was the founding of the Catholic Church.

    What I find ridiculous is not the Bible or the belief in God.

    What I find so ridiculous is the belief that a man needs another man to intercede between himself and God. That a man would trust another human being to interpret the Bible; or to dictate the wishes of God.

    No surer recipe for confusion; misunderstanding; multiple interpretations etc.

    Of course the Catholic church was just a beginning and as the various sects popped up; other interpretations of men came to the fore and as always; some followed these men.

    Inmy experience and from my reading; the conflict between science and the Bible exagerated and closer examination reveals many more similarities than conflicts and as time has gone on; many things from the Bible have proven to be true; as proven by science.

    When science confirms a Biblical fact/statement it reassures me that there is more to come.

    I don’t know what proccess was used to create any of this we see around us. The Bible doesn’t say and to be perfectly honest; the evidence for evolution is practically non-existent. That’s why it is called the “Theory of Evolution”

    But this doesn’t mean that it is untrue. I wish they could find more evidence of the proccess. I suspect it would line up with the more vauge account of the Bible.

    I believe the conflict is not so much between the Bible and Science but between the men who use the Bible and the men who use Science to further their own personal goals or that of their institutions and organizations.

    After all if you have no opponent; what will you use to draw attention to yourself?

    There could be other reasons for these people insisting on conflict where none exists and amplifying it where it does but….you know. Time

  17. I wonder if that 23 year old pastor (pastor Anthony Lee Drumgoole) from Monday’s thread … you know the guy charged with kidnap and robbery … voted.

  18. “Probably because we have not discovered the unity particle yet.”


    We have; however, had some black holes of logic show up on this site.

Comments are closed.