Quote:

---

The percentage of U.S. adults who believe that God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years or so -- the strict creationist view -- has reached a new low. Thirty-eight percent of U.S. adults now accept creationism, while 57% believe in some form of evolution -- either God-guided or not -- saying man developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.

---

Quote:

---

Higher education levels are associated with less support for creationism and higher levels of belief in the evolutionary explanation for human origins. Belief in creationism is 21% among those with postgraduate education versus 48% of those with no more than a high school diploma. Agreement with evolution without God's involvement is 31% among postgrads versus 12% among Americans with a high school education or less.

---

Quote:

---

Views by people's religious preferences or lack thereof paint an illuminating picture as well. More Catholics believe that humans evolved but God guided the process (45%) than believe in the creationist viewpoint (37%). Creationism is still the view that half of Protestants and other Christians (50%) hold, but it is not dominant, with 39% saying humans essentially evolved with God's guidance.

---

Quote:

---

Bottom Line

Most Americans believe that God had a role in creating human beings, whether in their present form or as part of an evolutionary process over millions of years. But fewer Americans today hold strict creationist views of the origins of humans than at any point in Gallup's trend on the question, and it is no longer the single most popular of the three explanations. Creationism still ties for the leading view, along with the view that evolution was guided by a divine hand. Fewer than one in five Americans hold a secular view of evolution, but that proportion has doubled since the start of this millennium.

---

PacifistAg said:

---

The only point I really wanted to address from your post is this:

Quote:

---

It's not required to understand the arguments for YEC in public schools

---

Doesn't this make sense? As far as I'm aware, there's no scientific support for YEC, so it would make sense that it isn't taught in science courses. It's like saying there's no requirement to understand the arguments for a flat earth.

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

The only point I really wanted to address from your post is this:

Quote:

---

It's not required to understand the arguments for YEC in public schools

---

Doesn't this make sense? As far as I'm aware, there's no scientific support for YEC, so it would make sense that it isn't taught in science courses. It's like saying there's no requirement to understand the arguments for a flat earth.

---

Why isn't it taught in theology courses?

---

Quote:

---

It's not required to understand the arguments for YEC in public schools.

---

Quote:

---

YEC is not a scientific commitment.

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

YEC is not a scientific commitment.

---

Which is why it makes sense to not teach it in non-religious schools.

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

YEC is not a scientific commitment. It is Biblical. The earth appears old. Adam appeared old. Jesus' wine appeared old. A person without the Bible would never think up that everything was created in 6 days.

---

I don't share this view, but I can respect it. I'd certainly find the theological/metaphysical discussion of such a lot more interesting than a Ken Hamm type pseudoscience

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

YEC is not a scientific commitment. It is Biblical. The earth appears old. Adam appeared old. Jesus' wine appeared old. A person without the Bible would never think up that everything was created in 6 days.

---

I don't share this view, but I can respect it. I'd certainly find the theological/metaphysical discussion of such a lot more interesting than a Ken Hamm type pseudoscience

---

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

there's no scientific support for YEC

---

That's simply not correct. Many on here would argue that the scientific evidence against YEC is overwhelming, but scientific support for YEC does exist.

There are several active, credible scientists who are YECs. Just a few that come to mind are John Sanford at Cornell (world renowned geneticist and inventor of the gene gun), Art Chadwick at Southwestern Adventist University (has had the cover article in Geology magazine several times), Kurt Wise (Harvard PhD in paleontology), Paul Nelson (Univ. of Chicago PhD in philosophy of science), Todd Wood (PhD in biochemistry from UVa), and John Baumgardner (PhD in geophysics from UCLA, also developer of the deep earth computer model "Terra" which was, and perhaps is, the go to model for deep earth geophysics).

In addition, these scientists have done original work producing evidence in support of YEC. Most on this board find that evidence unpersuasive, but that's different from "no scientific support".

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

So why would God make a universe that appears older than it is?

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

So why would God make a universe that appears older than it is?

---

PacifistAg said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

So why would God make a universe that appears older than it is?

---

It basically requires one hold the belief in a trickster God.

In that view, did dinosaurs never really exist, but were just placed there by God? If they did exist, did He create every single one to appear older than it is?

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Do you believe dinosaurs actually existed? Or do you believe they existed, but when they died, God altered how "old" they would appear to us?

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I have no idea and think it's a foolish question.

---

You say that God created a universe that appears to be much, much, much older than it actually is and left only evidence of the much older age. It is certainly not foolish to ask why that might be

---

What is evidence? The Bible says he created the world in 6 days.

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I have no idea and think it's a foolish question.

---

You say that God created a universe that appears to be much, much, much older than it actually is and left only evidence of the much older age. It is certainly not foolish to ask why that might be

---

What is evidence? The Bible says he created the world in 6 days.

---

The Bible isn't a textbook. It isn't a science manual. It does record some historical events but often with culturally conditioned embellishments. ANE cultures communicated these things in far different ways than we do today, which is why we see similarities between the Christian creation myth and other ANE creation myths.

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

I have no idea and think it's a foolish question.

---

You say that God created a universe that appears to be much, much, much older than it actually is and left only evidence of the much older age. It is certainly not foolish to ask why that might be

---

What is evidence? The Bible says he created the world in 6 days.

---

The Bible isn't a textbook. It isn't a science manual. It does record some historical events but often with culturally conditioned embellishments. ANE cultures communicated these things in far different ways than we do today, which is why we see similarities between the Christian creation myth and other ANE creation myths.

---

I believe the creation narrative in Genesis is one of those historical events.

---

JJMt said:

---

"Can you provide a link to some of this research? I'm genuinely curious."

I am not aware of a single site that provides all of the research. However, the Journal of Creation has some stuff. You can also Google those individuals' names and find work that they've done scattered across the internet. Some also have their own websites with some of the work they've done there.

---