Recently, Jerry Coyne posted his comments on the results of a telephone poll commissioned by the Center for Public Policy of Virginia Commonwealth University and published in May of this year. The study polled 1001 American adults on matters of science, and one line of questioning pertained to matters of faith. This is the portion of the poll Coyne seems most interested in, and I share that interest.
The poll reveals that one's thoughts on evolution depend on "the nature and extent of religious belief," as Coyne laments. I agree, the two are most definitely connected. Coyne also argues against "the accommodationist technique ... to accept that people are religious but to convince them that evolution really doesn't violate their faith." I agree that simply tacking evolution onto Christian faith minimizes the theological challenges. For many Christians, that theological challenge has involved a thoughtful re-examination of assumptions about the Bible.
Many Christians have been actively doing just that ever since Darwin. As I read the poll and Coyne's comments, however, I am struck by how the pollsters themselves, and likely those answering, seem wholly oblivious to that fact. At the end of his comments, Coyne complains of scientific ignorance and the importance of educating "people about what evolution is and how much evidence supports it." I agree that this is important, but theological ignorance is as much a problem as anything in the evolution/Christianity debate.
Let me give two illustrations.
On the question of how biological life originated, 43 percent said, "God directly created life," and 24 percent said, "Life developed over time, God guided the process." Coyne laments that 67 percent are "either creationists or believe that God directed evolution." Coyne lumps the two together, which is very unfortunate, but given how the poll is worded, I don't blame him. The phrase "God guided the process" suggests that God is pushing the buttons behind the scenes to "guide" evolution every step of the way.
Those two options don't reflect current discussions among theologically aware Christians. The pollsters should have given another option, something like: "Life developed over time, and that is God's chosen mechanism." This won't satisfy Coyne, I'm sure, but it describes what many Christians think. The third option is just as bad as the second: "Life developed over time, God didn't guide it" (18 percent). The problem is that "not guiding" implies that "guiding" is the only way that God and evolution can be reconciled, which is simplistic and fails to reflect what many thoughtful Christians actually think.
There are other problems with the poll, some of which Coyne addresses. What concerned me most is their question about the Bible. The choices offered are indicative of the fundamentally flawed notions about the Bible that contribute to the polarized discussion over evolution and Christianity:
Which of these statements comes closest to describing your feelings about the Bible?
Here is my beef: the first three options are not mutually exclusive. To present them as such is, to put it gently, misguided -- and I dare say any first-year seminarian could point out the problem. Yes, there are people who think like this, but they are as wrong as are people who believe in a flat, 6,000-year-old earth that sits in the middle of the solar system. Faulty notions of the Bible may reign in some fundamentalist circles, but what this poll presents is not even a remotely accurate description of what Christians across the spectrum have believed about the Bible for two millennia.
For the Bible to be the "actual Word of God," that means that "not everything is to be taken literally" and that it is "written by men." These are not separate options. All three belong in one positive statement of what the Bible is. Coming to grips with this historic Christian conviction about the Bible will not end the debate, but it will surely help insure that the discussion won't be hijacked by extreme voices on either side.
The options given in the poll about evolution, science, and the Bible are unwittingly set up to give the very results that neither Coyne nor I are terribly excited about. Coyne feels the poll gives clear reasons why the entire discussion is fruitless. I am more miffed at how these superficial poll questions set the entire discussion down a tedious and dead-end path. No one should be surprised by the results when questions are asked that way.
Only something slightly less than a mass theological education is needed in order for all sides to move beyond a superficial, either/or grasp of the issues. That sounds harsh, but we are dealing with matters that require a scalpel, not a sledgehammer, and neither extreme in this debate seems to be aware of it -- and neither are the pollsters.
Follow Pete Enns on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peteenns
Jonathan Dudley: Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution
Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion ...
FOXNews.com - Young People Less Tied to Organized Religion, Poll Finds
New Religion Poll Tries to Debunk Zogby Poll by Limiting ...
New Therapy Soup Weekly Poll: Belief in God & Religion | Therapy Soup
In fact, the founders of Christianity - Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc - had neither the knowledge of nor the desire to create a "Bible" that includes what we now call the "New Testament". What we call a "Bible" today - the concept that there are some texts that are canonical to the exclusion of all others - took more than 300 years to evolve. Yes, that concept was an afterthought in the evolution of Christianity. In fact, to even use the term Christianity to imply a monolithic set of beliefs is an historical absurdity. Starting with Peter and Paul/Saul and continuing through today, there have been deep divisions on what that term meant.
Enns surely knows all this, so I hope he will use this platform to educate the masses with facts, not fiction.
And surely people understand that 1) in this context implies preference for literalism 2) implies preference for selective or metaphorical reading and 3) emphasizes the man-made nature of the book.
I don't think we need to send people to divinity school over that. Perhaps a course in ethnography, and survey design?
Most people today do not know about the Bible what the people who looked at it with "Enlightened" eyes saw almost 300 years ago ~ that it was compiled and edited many times over the centuries and has mistakes and inconsistencies through out. Personally, I take the Bible seriously but not literally.
Find out how a person approaches the Bible and you can predict the nature of his or her faith.
My guess is, like most things, they don't know what they profess to believe, and only believe what they are told to believe by others.
As with Israel in the days of the prophets, this country, too, will pay for its ignorance and hypocrisy.
Very well said! Unfortunately, I think extremists will always take extreme views ;) but it would be nice if we could find some way for the religious fundamentalists and the completely self-assured atheists to join in the discussion. Because it should be a discussion, not a debate.
And we wonder why the United States lags behind in science, and how we can allow our elected leaders to make ruinous policy decisions based on their "beliefs" versus sound, pragmatic analysis.
Don't get me wrong, please indulge in whatever meditation/prayer/elaborate fantastical construct that helps you lead a moral, mortal life, but calling for something approaching "mass theological education" —in what happens by chance to be the religion into which YOU were born— is major league hubris. Not to mention a tremendous waste of the aforementioned finite resources of time, money, energy, and mental faculties.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." —Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Finally, I like your quote from Jefferson, but I’ve found that the best place to dissect and critically question God is while studying that phenomena.
What's wrong to an xtian about a poll showing 67% are god/creationist inclined?
It reflects a troubling trend, at a time in the not so distant past the poll would have returned the desired 100%, of course with a sly wink to the omnipresent inquisitor.
"Only something slightly less than a mass theological education is needed"
We've already tried that, mass theological indoctrination failed, the church fragmented, 33% are moving on, and today pedophiles find sanctuary in Vatican closets.
33% casts way too much doubt out there to "feel" secure about one's conformist faith. Is that what's really behind the obsession to convert all heathens?
One of the largest sub-groups amongst the hippies in the 1960's revered the wildest of the wild men of history; Jesus Christ.
All that Mexican "dirtweed" and cheap wine couldn't budge it; no wonder these twenty-first century "happy pills" haven't put a dent in the most bizarre antics amongst THESE faithful.
Maybe, if your job title is a1ter boy. Otherwise don't be so pessimistic. Lay off the mexican dirtweed, the cheap wine, and 21st century happy pills, you may feel better in the morning.
From every pulpet around the world Christian Preachers portray the Bible - whichever of the many, many versions - as "the word of G_d."
Christian Preachers work, each and every Sunday, try to get their flock to believe this.
So now, you believe that that flock is just to ignorant and naive to understand those messages without getting a thorough theological education?
Pass the plate...
Isn't "biological life" redundant?
Please explain if I have missed something.
For now.
Evolution is exactly about the accumulation of very small changes, resulting in very different creatures over long periods of time. It is never the case - never - that mom and dad were species A and junior was species B.
often tell you what the pollsters are looking for in the responses, what
figures they want to publicize.
Political polls from any political party are the most blatant.
An automobile manufacturer conducts a poll of customers after having
a car serviced at a dealership.
Signs posted all around the service department states clearly that
the customer is NOT allowed in the service area.
The pollster, two days later, asks if the work done on your automobile
was done to your satisfaction!
If I can't see what was done, how do I know what was done (or not done)
and if it was done to my satisfaction?
There is some data to be found, even when there is undeniable bias involved in most or all of the polls in question, because a pattern will appear without question.
In the public schools, of course.