"A Gallup survey, Google.com search trends and some Amazon.com sales numbers all suggest evolution’s ideological opponent, creationism, is on the rise in America."
Looks more like the trend is toward a hybrid… more creationists are accepting some flavor or other of theistic evolution, and perhaps more formerly atheistic ev. types are opening up to a supernatural element as well.
The trend makes sense to me… as the west moves further into post-modern view of things.
The trend makes sense to me… as the west moves further into post-modern view of things.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
It’s interesting that the questions asked by Gallup deal with human origins only. So in theory someone could believe in billions of years for the earth, plants and animals, and still be among the 45% of creationists. I do think the human origin question is most important in terms of witness, so I’m quite happy to read these stats.
The fundamental question, as Aaron alluded, shouldn’t be evolution or creation, but naturalism vs. supernaturalism. Pure naturalism is waning, and that’s a good thing.
The fundamental question, as Aaron alluded, shouldn’t be evolution or creation, but naturalism vs. supernaturalism. Pure naturalism is waning, and that’s a good thing.
Arguably, the shift from naturalism to supernaturalism is kind of sideways. That is, people can move from anti-God naturalism to anti-God supernaturalism. Movement toward belief in the supernatural feels like movement in the right direction, but it isn’t necessarily. The Devil is supernatural, too.
That said, I think the trend isn’t quite that sideways. Because, for many, I think it’s a shift away from belief in a world that is completely knowable via science vs. a world that is not. That shift in itself is positive. It’s just a question of where they go from there. (Is pantheism better than rationalistic materialism?)
As for the biblical record, though our view of the creation of man is weightier, it’s pretty hard to see how one can claim biblical authority for God’s creating man personally and in a moment and then turn around and deny the biblical account in reference to everything else God made over six days. A view that affirms one and rejects the other fails internal consistency.
That said, I think the trend isn’t quite that sideways. Because, for many, I think it’s a shift away from belief in a world that is completely knowable via science vs. a world that is not. That shift in itself is positive. It’s just a question of where they go from there. (Is pantheism better than rationalistic materialism?)
As for the biblical record, though our view of the creation of man is weightier, it’s pretty hard to see how one can claim biblical authority for God’s creating man personally and in a moment and then turn around and deny the biblical account in reference to everything else God made over six days. A view that affirms one and rejects the other fails internal consistency.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Right. I guess my point is that one can’t move from anti-God naturalism to pro-God naturalism. To admit to oneself that there is a spiritual, non-physical world is a barrier that has to be broken before one can discuss what this non-physical world means for us. So it’s helpful during witnessing situations if at least you agree in a supernatural universe. It’s kind of like missionary work in the jungles of Africa: they don’t have to be told demons exist. They know it. What they haven’t heard is that there’s an infinitely powerful God.
Discussion