June 1, 2012 | David F. Coppedge

Darwinian Indoctrination Still Not Working for Most Americans

Almost half the American public still believes God created man recently, despite decades of indoctrination by education and the media.  Another third believe God guided human evolution.

Gallup issued its latest poll in a series begun in 1982, asking the question, “How do you believe people came into existence?”  The choices are, (1) Humans evolved over millions of years without God; (2) God created humans sometime in the last 10,000 years, and (3), Humans evolved, but God guided the process.

The report from Gallup said,

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God’s guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

Live Science tried to emphasize that the less educated, the church-going, and Republicans were more likely to accept the creationist account, but did admit that “this belief was also the most prevalent among Independents and Democrats compared with other beliefs held by the two groups.”  It should be noted that “theistic evolution” is not Darwinian.  Believing that “God guided the process” strikes at the heart of the contingent, unguided process Darwin had in mind.

The Gallup report itself, under “Implications,” said, “Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans’ views of the origin of the human species since 1982.”  In conclusion, it stated, “Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

Live Science later provided an infographic on the poll.  The article revealed its pro-evolution bias by beginning with artwork of alleged pre-human ancestors, then ending with a  statement that portrayed skepticism over Darwinism as a cultural “belief” standing in opposition to scientific evidence and the scientific consensus.  “Most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years and did not begin in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution,” it said.  “This makes almost half of Americans who continue to hold to an antievolutionary belief about the origin of humans at odds with the preponderance of the scientific research and information.

Polls need to be interpreted.  Despite attempts to use random samples, 1,012 adults cannot speak for tens of millions of people.  The wording of the questions (decided 30 years ago) is also unfortunate; it only asks about the origin of humans.  What about the rest of the plants and animals, the Earth, and the universe?  The word “evolved” is also equivocal.  A respondent might be confused, believing in creation but denying fixity of species; i.e., allowing for variation within limits but deny the creative power of natural selection.

There is enough wiggle room in the questions and answers to distort the implications various ways.  For instance, what is meant by church-going?  What churches are we talking about?  There are churches that teach evolution and churches that teach creation.  One must also disentangle correlations and distinguish causes from effects.  The 25% of evolution-espousing non-church-attenders, for instance, might not attend church precisely because they believe in evolution.

The higher numbers of educated people who espouse evolution should be understood to have sat longer under teachers and professors who are denied permission to teach alternatives to evolution, either by law or peer pressure.  Look what happens to Darwin-doubting professors; they get expelled.  The implications might be opposite of what the media try to insinuate: i.e., those escaping or avoiding the indoctrination of higher education are less likely to be influenced by it.  Conversely, those exposed to alternative explanations for the origin of man via church are more likely to find that explanation reasonable.

Another point of confusion is Gallup’s statement that creationist belief “is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.” Readers of CEH recognize the self-fulfilling prophecy here; scientific literature is evolutionary because alternatives to evolution are systematically expelled.  Advanced readers will also wish to clarify what is meant by “scientific.”  As shown here often, evolution is usually assumed, not demonstrated.  When falsifying evidence arises, evolutionists use a variety of auxiliary hypotheses to rescue Darwin from the multiple disasters that would unravel his belief system.

In short, it is not surprising that those sitting longer under the influence of leftist, liberal, materialist profs fall prey more often to the evolution cult.  What is surprising is that three decades of indoctrination and intimidation by TV, newspapers, cartoons, museums, and all the other Darwin-only influences in the culture have failed to convince the majority of Americans that God had no role in their origin.  Some things are intuitively obvious to those who can avoid long-term brainwashing.  Holding your own baby in your arms can reveal more about reality than abstruse lectures in highfalutin words by self-proclaimed experts pontificating about things they don’t know.


(Visited 52 times, 1 visits today)


  • MartyK says:

    Gallup says “almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question WORDING, that is at odds with the preponderance of the SCIENTIFIC literature.”

    I think Gallup does need to work on its wording. Instead of “scientific literature”, better to say ‘literature from the science community’. Not everything coming from a scientist’s mouth should be considered “scientific.”

Leave a Reply