Evolution, God and Americans.

Here's an interesting poll on Americans believes regarding evolution and God. 

A new poll finds that a majority of Americans believe that God played a part in the evolution of humans.

A YouGov survey shows that 62 percent of Americans believe God helped create humans.

Thirty-seven percent of those believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years while 25 percent believe human beings evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years but God guided the process. Only 21 percent believe that God did not play a part in human evolution.

Seventeen percent of those polled were not sure if God played a part in the existence of humans.

YouGov found that more people favored having creationism taught in schools than those that opposed.

Forty percent of those polled believe that intelligent design – the belief that God created the universe – should be taught in public schools, while 32 percent opposed such teachings. Twenty-nine percent of Americans were not sure if creationism should be taught.

The poll also found that those who say God played no part in human evolution rose from 13 percent in 2004 to 21 percent in 2013, an 8 percent increase.

YouGov surveyed 1,000 people on July 8-9. According to its website, YouGov is a professional research and consulting organization to help deliver insight for political and media organizations.

Despite the continued hostility to belief in God in the public school system, a good majority still believe in Him.  That He's involved in the creation of mankind.  And a plurality think Intelligent Design should be taught in the public schools.  I suspect many of the 21 percent who say God played no part in human evolution may still believe in God but somehow think he wasn't involved in evolution.  (Not sure how that would work if he's the "supreme being" who created all things, including evolution.)

What's the solution to those who believe God shouldn't be shut out the public schools and those who do?  A true, across the board choice in education system.  Let parents decide.  Not educational officials or judges.

Are Darwinian evolution's days numbered?

Here's an interesting story on the events which are working to undermine Darwinian naturalism -- the belief that the universe and all that exists, including you and me, developed through a random, chance, materialist process -- and the mechanism for that theory, the gradualism of natural selection. What's conspiring to discredit Darwin's theory are scientific discoveries of the last several decades.

For many this is an arcane, obscure, philosophical debate which occasionally hits the mainstream media in disputes between parents and school officials over the teaching of evolution in the schools.

However, what's at stake is much deeper and more earthshaking than that. Darwin provided a scientific justification for the scientific materialist philosophical perspective that the material is all that exists. There is no overarching meaning and purpose to the universe. There is no God. The implications are felt in all areas of life including ethics, morality, education, and law among others. The impact of evolutionary thinking on morality is nothing is fixed and knowable. It's all personal preference at best. If there is a moral standard, it's evolving. (How often have I heard that the family, marriage is an evolving social construct rather than rooted in the mind of God and our human nature.)

When Darwin's theory is fully discredited it will have wide ranging implications -- the rest of the super structure will fall.

Again, ideas have consequences for good or for ill.

Look who the atheists are broadcasting with -- 950 AM Air America

A January 14 story in the Pioneer Press and carried in a number of local newspapers statewide highlights a new radio program by Minnesota Atheists on 950 AM, Air America. The story was entitled, "Erasing the atheist stigma". Interestingly, the story is no where to be found on the Internet.

I thought there were a number of interesting aspects to the story.

One, it's scheduled for Sunday mornings when of course the atheists' chief protagonists, Christians, are in church. August Berkshire, founder of the show and Minnesota Atheist, is quoted as saying, ""We're not trying to convert people, We're trying to engage them in a discussion. We want people to realize atheists are their neighbors, family, nice people, and that they should get to know us." So much for efforts at dialogue when their chief protagonists are in church. That last line is also what one generally hears from homosexual activists.

Second, it's being aired on the local Air America affiliate. Air America is the radio network for the political and cultural Left in America and I think there's a natural, philosophical affinity between the left and atheists. (The story's author writes, "Berkshire said Air America liberals are a natural audience.") They both reject, generally speaking, a transcendent authority in life, a natural law which is embedded in the creative order, the Declaration's "Laws of nature and nature's God." Atheists outright reject the existence of a Creator and the left rejects the implications of such a Creator for human existence, e.g. the existence of binding ethical authority beyond man. Both groups have drunk deeply at Darwin's well of evolutionary naturalism which holds that man and everything else in the material world are simply the result of a mindless, purposeless, chance process.

And third, the goals of the radio program include the usual "warn people about... erosion of the wall between church and state" but also "anti-gay marriage laws, restrictions on embryonic stem cell research and creationism in schools." That's standard liberal fare. It again shows the natural affinity between the left and atheism.

Atheists are and always will be a small percentage of the general populace, because their beliefs don't line up with the evidence of design and order in creation which point to a Creator. I would argue it takes much more faith, even a faith blind to the evidence, to suggest that the universe and human existence is merely the result of a blind, purposeless, chance process.

Atheists and atheism on the defensive

Recent debates by atheist Christopher Hitchens with defenders of God and Christianity, author Dinesh D'Souza and Oxford scholar Alister McGrath highlights the changing intellectual climate regarding debates on the existence of God and the Christian God in particular. In a nutshell, atheists and their defenders are on the defensive. This is pointed out in an interesting article in World magazine written by Marvin Olasky.

Back in the days of the Scopes trial and even before that, Theists and Christians tended to be on the defensive. Today, the roles are reversed. Advances in science pointing to design and an Intelligent Designer and the utter devastation wrought by atheistic ideologies like Marxism and Nazism have changed the terms of the debate and provided powerful evidence for the theistic, Christian position.

In the debate between between D'Souza and Hitchens, you can sense it even in the tone of taken by the debaters. D'Souza said in essence, I'll debate you on your own terms, using science and reason while Hitchens reverted to name calling, generalities, and accusations. The latter usually occurs when the side you're defending is weak and lacks evidentiary support.

I saw this a few years ago when a state Senate committee took up the proposed science standards and the topic of evolution came up. Those who oppose the materialist foundations of evolution simply argued that new scientific evidence, drawing into question evolution and other scientific theories, be included in the discussion. The atheistic representative and other supporters of evolution saw a grand religious conspiracy at play and made broad, generalized accusations. Defenders of including new evidence simply made scientific arguments. It struck me that this mini-debate was a microcosm of Scopes in reverse. That same dynamic is being played out in many other venues on the broader topic of God v. no god and design in nature v. Darwinian materialism. As always, I believe the truth will ultimately win out.