This weekend a new Gallup survey was released that sampled 1,012 adults in the United States. It provides them with three options: (1) human beings evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process; (2) human being evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God has no part in the process; (3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 1o,ooo years or so.
Apparently 46% of those surveyed affirm (3), 32% affirm (1), and 15% said (2).
Of course, there is the small problem of saying a little over one-thousand participants represents “Americans” when our nation’s population is nearly 313 million.
This is quite relevant since I have been addressing this subject of a “historical” Adam and Eve here. I wonder how readers of this blog match-up with the Gallup survey:
Do you affirm #1, #2, #3, or do you have a different opinion on the matter?
__________
Commentary elsewhere:
Brandon G. Withrow, Gallup Poll: Forty-Six percent of Americans are creationist
the archives near Emmaus 
I’m consistently surprised by how high a percentage I see affirm YEC in poll after poll.
As a survey researcher, I’d say that 1,000 Americans is an acceptable sample size for estimating the overall American population assuming (and Gallup is a very good research organization) that they properly control sample bias. Your variance should be reasonably low.
Right now the readership of this blog is polling (1) 70.59% ; (2) 11.76% ; and (3) 17.65%. I wonder if that will hold or if this blog tends to attract the confessional-critical types?
When broken up by Gallup by education, it was 42%, 29% and 25% for people with post grad, which is what most readers of this blog would most likely be.
Adam
That is a good qualification.
You have an interesting readership, Brian.
I would like to see someone make a theological argument for the macro-evolutionary creation of humanity.
#1 is very open ended. It could be anything from God setting the spark to start life and just letting things go , or controlling every step in the evolutionary process. I think the point of the option is to show that one can accept evolution and still believe in a God who is involved in our lives. Both Ken Ham and Richard Dawkins would agree option #1 is not possible.
Belief in God is (or should be) unconditional. Belief in evolution is contingent upon the evidence, for if it weren’t would not be scientific.
Bobby
I imagine it has been done (maybe Alister McGrath in his series of books on theology and science?), but I haven’t read widely enough to know.
Thomas
Very true.
Andrew
This sounds like Alvin Plantinga’s defense of belief in God as a “basic belief” like our existence or the existence of other minds.
Thomas
Though I might clarify that I think the basic idea of #1 is more theistic than deistic. One could affirm #2 and be a theist of some sort.
Brian, for you to compare one of my arguments to one we would find Alvin Plantinga make is a very great compliment (however generous the comparison)!
Andrew
I took my Vitamin D today, so I am feeling especially positive. 🙂
I appreciate the grace.
Have you read Plantinga on the subject? I tried many years ago, but my brain is too small.
Brian, it can’t be done; theologically, that is.
Well, I guess that settles it then.
Yep, that was easy.
I guess if human evil can be explained before ‘The Fall’, then we could have an theological argument or basis to start speaking of macro-evolution, theologically. But since Christianity’s beliefs are subordinate to God’s Self-revelation in Christ as disclosed in Scripture; then it seems exceedingly hard to imagine how one could make a theological argument for macro-evolution as the mechanism that was used to create humanity. On a side note: It would be interesting to try and extrapolate an argument from all of this, and apply it to the resurrection-recreation of Jesus. Since, theologically, humanity was first created in God’s image (in the image of Christ Col. 1.15); in order to ultimately be recreated in the incarnation-resurrection of Christ. Anyway, I’m just thinking out loud; it seems interesting to me that we would want to argue, maybe, for a macro-evolutionary original creation of humanity—but in the same instance, I would highly doubt, that anyone would want to argue for this in regard to what happened to Jesus (according to Col. 1:15ff, recreation) in the resurrection (that is, that his resurrected-recreated humanity became such through a macro-evolutionary process … I suppose the need for millions of years would pose a problem for this theory). And yet, theologically, humanities’ creation and telos is tied directly into the recreation of humanity in Christ. I’m trying to draw a line between creation and recreation, and understand humanities’ creation through a Christ-conditioned lens, or theologically.
It just seems, that definitionally, that theologically, we cannot argue for macro-evolution as the mechanism that was used by God to create humanity in his image (who is Christ, the imago Christi). And so when folks mix disciplines (theology and the natural sciences), like most seem to be doing in your survey, Brian; that this just seems really sloppy to me.
Bobby
Well, you know I am quite comfortable with sloppy. I live with a lot of cognitive disconnect! I agree that there are major biblical themes and motifs that are difficult to fit into a paradigm wherein God uses the slow process of evolution to create humans. Along with Christology we have eschatology. Christian eschatology seems to be about the restoration, renewal, and advancement of creation—a creation that was once good gone sour. I am paying attention to whether or not this idea is addressed at all.
Andrew, as you said, ” Belief in evolution is contingent upon the evidence, for if it weren’t would not be scientific.” That is why I use the word accept for evolution. Many people say they believe in evolution but I don’t think they have really thought about their use of the word. Like you say science is based on evidence. You can accept the evidence or reject it.
Brian, it seems to me that the intent of the survey was that #1 would be theistic #2 would by atheistic or deistic and #3 YEC. But responders are going to take it however they wish. I think you maybe right that #2 could be theist but I would have to here more. Think about it this way, God exists but was not involved in the creation of plants or animals or man. It sounds to much like deism to make a difference.
Brian,
I didn’t say you were being sloppy; I was saying that I often have a hard time understanding what apparatus folk are using when they try to wed the natural sciences with Christian Theology. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but I don’t usually see an intentional methodology being employed that seeks to somehow place these two disciplines in complementary ways. I’ve see some Christian philosophers try to do this (like JP Moreland, William Lane Craig), and Christian Scientists (like those at Biologos); but I haven’t seen how they try to do this in a robustly Christian way; so that theology is not sacrificed on the altar of nature. I know that Intelligent Design is often accused of functioning from a God-of-the-gaps method, but I don’t see how folk who hold to theistic evolution aren’t guilty of the same thing. Can you explain that to me?
Thomas
I assume someone could be pantheistic and hold to #2, maybe? If creation is a deity would they say creation created itself? I could be wrong, but that is one example. Another would be that for whatever reason someone takes one more step within the paradigm of deism and decides that they think there is a deity, but that this deity had nothing to do with creating earth–like it created aliens who created earth. In other words, people have quite the imagination, so I imagine a theist or two who could hold to #2.
Bobby
If I understand the main problem people have with ID it would be that it seems to mess with scientific research methodology, not theology, per se. So yes, both ID and theistic evolution would see a deity as being involved, somehow. But people get frustrated with ID because they fear that when science comes to a problem ID encourages people to stop and say, “Well, this is where we appeal to God.” Meanwhile, theistic evolutionist are committed to methodology that assumes there is a natural answer. John Walton did a good job discussing this in Proposition 15 of his book The Lost World of Genesis One.
In this discussion we need more puritans. – I’d recommend Thomas Boston. Who, you ask, is Thomas Boston?
He wrote about ‘Human Nature in it’s Fourfold State’
1. State of Innocence
2. State of Nature
3. State of Grace
4. State Eternal
When speaking of the ‘evolution of man’, surprisingly the puritan Thomas Boston might have some thoughts on the matter (even if he himself didn’t realise it).
Brian, you are right a deity could have created aliens who created earth but the deity would be ultimate cause. It seems to depend on how you understand “involved in the process”. This whole line of thought reminds me of the gnostic idea that the almighty god did not create the earth but that a lesser god did. By the way the term “evolutionary creation” might be a better term than “theistic evolution” because issues of deism,atheism, or pantheism would be less likely to come up. The focus would be on creation be means of evolution compared to creation by other means.
Thomas
That is a useful clarification.