Politics | 12/10/2008 8:25 am

Virgin Birth More Believable Than Darwin's Theory, Say Americans

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Virgin Mary holding Baby Jesus © Shutterstock

God may be loving some recent religion-related poll results. A Harris Interactive survey released today shows that more Americans believe in an Almighty presence than in Darwin’s theory of evolution and that the majority of the public believes that the Virgin Mary gave birth to baby Jesus.

The findings, compiled from 2,126 U.S. adults, included:

— 80% of adult Americans believe in God

— 75% believe in miracles

— 73% believe in heaven

— 71% believe in angels

— 71% believe that Jesus is God or the Son of God

— 70% believe in the resurrection of Jesus

— 62% believe in hell

— 61% believe in virgin birth (Jesus born to Virgin Mary)

— 47% believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution

— 36% believe in UFOs

Did they ask the participants if they believe in Santa Clause?

Click here for more of the poll’s findings.

American’s aren’t the only ones to believe in virgin birth. Another poll out today from theology think-tank group Theos has found that more than a third of Britons believe that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ really happened. In the poll carried out by ComRes on behalf of Theos, 34% of people agreed that the statement "Jesus was born to a virgin called Mary" was historically accurate, while only 32% said they believed it was fictional.

What’s also interesting is women — who experience the agonizing pains of birthing — were more likely to believe in the virgin birth (39%), compared to 29% of men, who just stand in the hospital room sweating.

109 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

sounds good Rocky :-) I read about this ages ago maybe 25 years +/-

By f p on 12/10/2008 3:08 pm

e-mail alert

Hey, Frank. I’ve really got to leave now. But spent about 10 minutes on the web. Seems like there has been a debate about the findings you refer to since the late 1800s. And well into the latter half of the 20th century. What it’s called, it seems (only from ten minutes of looking) is “industrial melanism,” which some say is based on observations of the Midlands speckled moth at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Some also seem to say that the “evidence” has not been reproducible and that in fact the speckled moth had both light and dark in population and that “original” observations placed moths on tree trunk bark when in the wild they do not light there … etc etc. The original experiment/observations seemed to have been (if not still) key to the argument for Darwin’s theories. Yet to find a universally respected website for this discussion. So onward … Another unfamiliar concept — seems related — that caught my eye: micro- vs macro evolution. This will take some study. Places where I’d like to go — like Britannica — require paid membership, which I don’t have. I’ll continue though and report back … if you’re interested, that is.

By rocky rocky on 12/10/2008 3:30 pm

e-mail alert

Super research Rocky—my science buddies tell if you want to see evolution in action look in the microscope at bacteria and viruses—they change like crazy. Now where’s that electron scope when you need it lololol

By f p on 12/10/2008 3:51 pm

e-mail alert

sounds like a bunch of dirty moths to me

By diane mcwalters on 12/11/2008 4:56 pm

e-mail alert

Not quite.

By f p on 12/11/2008 7:20 pm

e-mail alert

The word “morph” might mean nearly instant, as you say, but it has nothing to do with the concept of evolution. By rocky rocky on 12/10/2008 2:43 pm Hi Rocky, I never stated that to morph was concominant with evolution. There are scientists who theorize that there may have been relatively “instant” leaps of change, perhaps caused by catastrophes that wiped out most diversity in the genetics of a population — or by sudden mutations (birth anomalies) that gave that particular gene set an advantage over other gene sets — giving rise to a particular group dominating (succeeding better than) remaining groups. But as I understand it, even these types of changes occurred over long stretches of time. By rocky rocky on 12/10/2008 2:43 pm Rocky, If you believe that we evolved, say from apes to man and you also believe any of your aforementioned scientists theories of mutational changes ect…. then you must certainly be able or have the references that substantiate those facts as otherwise they remain just man’s theories and one must also profoundly explain the sudden demise of evolution in the upright position of man, lol. That last sentence was meant for humorous content. Rocky, I don’t believe for one instant, we as a human species has evolved from anything other than ourselves. In other words, we did not start out some other form of life and evolve in to the human that we have been since the begining of time. The scientific findings of mummies and other historical artifacts, completely constitutes the fact that what we are, we have always been. The word evolution means to evolve and my laundry evolutes from that that is dirty to that that is clean and all with out a constitutional change of matter. Therefore it is not sacreligious if you will, for lack of a better definition, to apply the use of the word evolution for many purposes. however, it is grossly misrepresented in relation to explaining away changes to the human structure and anatomy, that are not, nor ever held validity.

By HA BIBI on 12/10/2008 3:01 pm

e-mail alert

Hi, Elaine. Okay. We won’t find much to agree on this subject I see, but we do agree that Darwin’s theory is a theory. I respect your beliefs, though they are not my own. I see the theory as a wonder of logic, with lots of fossil evidence to support it. The word itself — yes, it is used for many purposes, many times incorrectly. As an editor, I find I often have to suggest replacing it with words more in tune with an author’s meaning. People seem to want to use it whenever they talk about change or transformation of any kind. Best to you, Elaine.

By rocky rocky on 12/10/2008 4:01 pm

e-mail alert

Hi Rocky, although, we may not agree on this topic, I really enjoyed your level headed approach to the discussing of it. Best to you as well. :)

By HA BIBI on 12/10/2008 4:20 pm

e-mail alert

Actually, we did not “evolve from apes.” We evolved from tiny microorganisms in the sea, which is where ALL life began. The common ancestor of apes and humans showed up on the family tree multi-millions of years ago, then beings branched off from that common ancestor and one branch eventually became apes and one humans. We know of our close relationship on the evolutionary pathway because our DNA is over 99% the same as chimps and other great apes!

By MaryPage Drake on 12/10/2008 4:35 pm

e-mail alert

Hi MaryPage. Do you pay attention to the research into the kinds of “understanding” animals other than primates? That topic often catches my eye. Such as observations of problem solving by ravens and squirrels, for instance. And which animals realize they are looking at themselves in a mirror. Awareness. I read not too long ago about plants showing signs of awareness of approaching danger as well, but can’t recall now what when how. Life. Fascinating, huh?

By rocky rocky on 12/11/2008 4:02 pm

e-mail alert

God is: NOT Hindu, NOT Jew, NOT Christian, NOT Muslim, NOT Buddhist, etc. God is: NOT Jesus, NOT Allah, NOT Jehovah, NOT Vishnu, Not Buddha, etc. God’s word is: NOT The Torah, NOT the Koran, NOT the Bible, NOT The Shruti, etc. Nor is God: White, Black, or Asian. GOD IS LIFE, GOD IS LOVE, GOD IS ALL THERE EVER IS, EVER WAS, OR EVER WILL BE …. AMEN!!!!

By Maizie James on 12/10/2008 8:24 pm

e-mail alert

Yours is the best comment I’ve read in this discussion. Sad it got ignored.

By Kryssi K on 12/12/2008 5:18 pm

e-mail alert

T’Dah! Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kuanza, Happy New Year… anybody know Darwin’s birthday?

By Ms. Dee on 12/10/2008 10:25 pm

e-mail alert

Santa Clause? Is that a Subordinate Clause? Or a Contractual Clause? I have a feeling it’s really Santa Claus!

By Emma Pathey on 12/10/2008 11:41 pm

e-mail alert

What is really odd is the many so called religious folks who believe in the Bible’s Creation account and yet still believe in Darwin’s evolution? How weird is that? That’s like believing that God created homosexuality! How odd is that?

By Lori F. on 12/11/2008 12:38 am