Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, July 5, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document God not out of the question for most Canadians

by Globe and Mail

Thanks to Adam for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070703.wcreater0703/BNStory/National/

JULIAN BELTRAME
Canadian Press
July 3, 2007 at 10:42 PM EDT

OTTAWA — Canadians may not be as religious as Americans, but a new poll suggests they are not prepared to rule out God's essential role in creation.

The Canadian Press-Decima Research survey suggests that 60 per cent of Canadians believe God had either a direct or indirect role in creating mankind, shattering the myth that Canadians had long ago put their faith strictly behind the scientific explanation for creation.

The poll suggests Canadians divide in essentially three groups on the issue of creation: 34 per cent of those polled said humans developed over millions of years under a process guided by God; 26 per cent said God created humans alone within the last 10,000 years or so; and 29 per cent said they believe evolution occurred with no help from God.

"These results reflect an essential Canadian tendency," said pollster Bruce Anderson. "We are pretty secular, but pretty hesitant to embrace atheism."

The belief that God had a direct or indirect role in creation was widespread among the 1,000 respondents questioned between June 21 and 24. A majority of those polled held this view in every region of the country, in rural and urban areas, and regardless of education.

And there were a few surprises: Conservatives were more likely than Liberals to say that God had no part in the process, and Alberta, regarded as the birthplace of social conservatism, had one of the lowest levels of beliefs for strict creationism at 22 per cent.

But in this controversial area, the devil is in the breakdown of the numbers.

For instance, while Liberal party voters were more likely than Conservatives to credit God with some contribution to creation, Conservative voters were less likely to write God out altogether. Only 22 per cent of Tory respondents said God had no role, as opposed to 31 per cent of Liberals.

Liberal respondents were far more likely to be what could be termed "soft evolutionists" or "soft creationists," with 41 per cent saying God guided the process of human development, as opposed to 34 per cent of Conservatives seeing creation in those terms.

Regionally, Quebec respondents were by far the most likely to say God's role in creation was a delusion, with 40 per cent saying the evolutionary process had no interference from an intelligent designer.

British Columbia respondents were the next sub-group who could be termed strict evolutionists, with 31 per cent saying God was not involved. Least likely to hold this view were respondents in the Prairie provinces — 21 per cent.

The findings suggest the least educated were most likely to be creationists, as were respondents living in rural Canada.

Among respondents without a high-school diploma, 37 per cent said they believed God alone created humans less than 10,000 years ago, whereas only 15 per cent of university-educated respondents were strict creationists.

Rural respondents also had a plurality who believed in strict creationism at 34 per cent, whereas only 22 per cent of urban dwellers said they believed God alone created humans.

Mr. Anderson said the findings suggest Canadians lack consensus on creation, but also don't view the issue as polarizing.

"It's more as though for many, these feelings are unresolved," he said. "We believe in a higher being, we know what we don't know, are comfortable not knowing, and choose not to press our views upon one another."

That is not the case in the United States, where similar polls have suggested Americans are more polarized on the subject. In a recent U.S. poll, 45 per cent said God created humans, and 40 per cent said evolution was God guided. Only 15 per cent said God played no part in creation.

The Canadian Press-Decima Research survey is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

Comments 1 - 34 of 34 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #54168 by PeterK on July 5, 2007 at 8:00 pm

I'd be interested in seeing some poll results of just fundamental biblical knowledge. I would not be surprised in the least that pure evolutionists would score higher than pure creationists.

Other Comments by PeterK

2. Comment #54170 by JamesDB on July 5, 2007 at 8:12 pm

 avatarHuh this is a little irritating being a Canadian. I do like that British Columbia is the second most in this poll becuase thats where i live but this whole thing suggests that Canada is still dealing with that American wave of denial. My Mom is a miracle believing christian and for the life of me I can't get her to see anything scientific in life. The last time i asked her about the bible she seemed to have no idea about anything she believed except for what her mom had taught her, its so discouraging. I know too many christians that seem to just be saying it to keep their families happy. Silly fellow canadians, i know you don't really believe.

Other Comments by JamesDB

3. Comment #54172 by Goldy on July 5, 2007 at 8:18 pm

Having worked in Alberta, I got an impression that God was important, but the heady pleasures of physical life were more so. Mind you, that might have been something to do with working in the oil industry :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

4. Comment #54176 by Kervinator on July 5, 2007 at 9:04 pm

 avatarAs a Canadian, I'm embarrassed about the polls and the fact that in 1980, the government changed one line in the national anthem to "God keep our land" instead of "Oh Canada". But people sing it without really caring about the meaning.

Religion rarely comes up in conversation. It's more of a personal thing around here rather than out in the open like it seems to be in the US.

Other Comments by Kervinator

5. Comment #54182 by BT Murtagh on July 5, 2007 at 9:41 pm

 avatarThat's why American fundies hate Canucks:

Revelation 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

Funny, though, they don't seem to like people who outright oppose them either... doesn't leave a lot of choices, does it?

Other Comments by BT Murtagh

6. Comment #54196 by JanChan on July 6, 2007 at 1:55 am

I guess the Canadian education system needs some work too. Seriously, 15% of graduates believing the Earth was 6000 years old? Anyone taking biology in school shouldn't be saying that.

Other Comments by JanChan

7. Comment #54197 by Convertedchristian on July 6, 2007 at 2:19 am

not that surprising if I do say so. Personaly I think that evolution should be taught later rather than sooner. I know that when I took it in the 9th grande(2003) I didn't understand really anything. No one could put it simply like Mr. Dawkins can. In fact it was only when i heard Richards explination of evolution that I truly understood it. People don't understand evolution and they never go back to look it up. that is one of the main reasons why north america is so religous. Education is the key. we know it and the fundies know it. Let the rat race begin!! Opps I think it began 50 years ago.

Other Comments by Convertedchristian

8. Comment #54203 by Newton30 on July 6, 2007 at 2:41 am

 avatar
British Columbia respondents were the next sub-group who could be termed strict evolutionists, with 31 per cent saying God was not involved.

Only 31 percent say God was not involved? Hardly strict evolutionists.
Call me when it reaches 99%.

Other Comments by Newton30

9. Comment #54207 by bamboospitfire on July 6, 2007 at 2:58 am

 avatarAt least the results suggest a higher degree of rationalism than the US.

I don't know why the analysis looks for correlations between religious beliefs to political views expecting to find them or why surprise is expressed that the results do not match those assumptions. Assuming that Christians are politically conservative is like assuming that atheists are communists. I get the impression that the continuation of this false connection has a lot to do with the US government's apparent reliance on Christianity as a vaccine against communism. Even if it's impossible to be a communist if you hold some other religious belief, that doesn't mean that because you're not a Christian you *must* be a communist. Regrettably, it does seem as though that is the sort of skewed logic is responsible for the way in which many Christians in America view atheists.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

10. Comment #54221 by Skywatcher on July 6, 2007 at 4:22 am

 avatarThe company I work for can be said to be broken down into four areas. Office staff, Maintainence, etc. The area I work in has about 17 people (The number changes periodically) and is the only one I can really say that I know about in regards to the religious beliefs of the workers. Of those 17 one is Catholic and can give no reason what so ever as to why he believes in God other than he just believes and that's that. One of those cases of "My mind's made up so don't confuse me with the facts" Another fellow professes a belief in God and will at least attempt to to give his reasons for doing so but debating God with him is somewhat akin to fencing with a blind man and he generally ends up walking away in frustration. A third man and by far the most eloquent of the three follows the Ojibwa version of religion. He is not afraid to give reason for doing so but in the end will admit that there is no evidence for the existence of God but sticks to his personal beliefs just the same. The rest of us are Atheists. I would be interested to know if anyone else knows how the Atheist/Religious beliefs of their coworkers breaks down. I am in Ontario by the way.

Other Comments by Skywatcher

11. Comment #54232 by Religion Schmeligion on July 6, 2007 at 4:55 am

I think the key thing here is ignorance of the far-reaching explanations that science can offer. Lots of people who 'believe' I would imagine have very little grasp of much of science and therefore plug the gap with belief. Obviously, there are scientists who believe but on the whole, people are religious, and on the whole, people are fairly ignorant.
Religion gets in first too, as Dawkins points out, with indoctrination from birth. So, at the very time when our brains are sponges, they are saturated with belief systems, not science. Teach science early and well and we may see results.

Other Comments by Religion Schmeligion

12. Comment #54233 by Mark R on July 6, 2007 at 4:56 am

 avatarReply to Comment #54176 by Kervinator

I can not for the life of me understand why we added God to the Canadian anthem but like you said i view it as just a word. I wrote a song once and stuck the word god in it though the song was written through the eyes of a third person. I view it all as fictional and it works for me. Just like watching a movie we know it's not real but we enjoy it. The unfortunate part is many watch the fiction view of god as something real that is where all the harm is done. I think i will go back to drowning out the crowd with OH Canada over god keep our land.

Other Comments by Mark R

13. Comment #54234 by ThomasB on July 6, 2007 at 5:06 am

 avatarJanChan #54196 correctly faults our system of education and while this is depressing, it's not so shocking. We are the same people who tolerate having a 2x college dropout, young earth creationist (Stockwell Day) serve as Minister of Public Safety. Mr Day oversees Canada's preparedness for emerging diseases, the evolutionary nature of which he rejects as a matter of faith.

Regarding comment #54197 by Convertedchristian, I was taught the basics of descent with modification and natural selection in grade 8 (13 yo), in a private school, by a very good teacher - these ideas were communicated with an appropriate sense of their importance and explanatory power.

I wonder how well evolution is taught in our publicly funded, catholic school system.

Other Comments by ThomasB

14. Comment #54244 by Jonathan Dore on July 6, 2007 at 5:43 am

As a UK-Canadian who's lived in both countries (most recently four years in BC) these results don't surprise me: Canada usually comes out midway between the US and Western Europe in surveys of religiosity. To me, the most politically hopeful aspect of this finding is that, even though Canada has some similarities to the US in its religious makeup, religious issues don't tend to become political issues there. The political fortunes of the right wing illustrate this: the Reform, then Alliance parties had a strong religious element when they were regionally based in the west, but as soon as they merged with the PCs to reunite the right under the reformed Conservative Party, and became truly national, they realized that the national electorate wouldn't stomach such a strong religious tone and have been backpedalling on religious issues ever since -- precisely the opposite dynamic to what's taken place in the US Republican Party over the last three decades, where religious issues have been progressively amplified rather than muted.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

15. Comment #54246 by minstrel on July 6, 2007 at 5:56 am

 avatarThe underlying conclusion one can draw from all of these polls is that good schooling is the CURE for superstitious beliefs.

Other Comments by minstrel

16. Comment #54296 by JoyOfLife on July 6, 2007 at 9:46 am

I am not experienced in surveys, but can anyone tell me if 1000 people is a good sample?

Other Comments by JoyOfLife

17. Comment #54300 by StephenS on July 6, 2007 at 9:58 am

I agree that schooling is essential for religion to be eradicated, but I do not think that religion should be taught to be necessarily wrong, nor do I think that evolution should be taught to be irrevocably correct. Instead, I think that facts should be presented to the students from both angles, and the student should make up his/her mind (most likely choosing evolution because it is based on reason and is actually SUPPORTED by facts...).

If this did not happen and evolution was taught as the only possibility, students will have nothing with which to compare evolution. It would be the same as religion, actually, since a lot of religious fundamentalists believe what they do because they had not been taught anything else at the age when they formulated their opinions. I don't think Professor Dawkins or any other brilliant scientist would want people to blindly follow evolution, for then it would be a difficult theory to improve or possibly revoke if, in the unforseeable future, somebody comes up with a better alternative. If we are so firmly entrenched in evolution like the religious are so firmly entrenched in religion, then we will be almost as blind as them.

Other Comments by StephenS

18. Comment #54312 by ThomasB on July 6, 2007 at 10:46 am

 avatarStephenS,

Which creationist version of origins would you like to see taught beside (evidence-based) evolutionary theory?

I'm partial to the made-up-in-Canada story of Sedna, which explains the (paraphyletic) derivation of fishes, seals, walruses and whales from the severed phalanges of an Inuit girl who defied her father by marrying beneath her (vertebrate) class.

It's a cracking good tale about a somewhat disfunctional family's experiences with bestiality, filicide, rage, vengeance and mutilation - very Old Testament!

[For your moral edification.]

And then we'll let the students consider the controversy and decide for themselves?

Do you propose that this be done in a science class?




Other Comments by ThomasB

19. Comment #54318 by Lauregon on July 6, 2007 at 11:03 am

Instead, I think that facts should be presented to the students from both angles, and the student should make up his/her mind. - StephenS



Maybe flat-earth ideas should be taught alongside the modern scientific view of the world, allowing students to make up their minds about the physical shape of the planet.

Other Comments by Lauregon

20. Comment #54331 by StephenS on July 6, 2007 at 11:51 am

ThomasB,

I like the Sedna story, and thanks for reminding me of it. I've read it before, but I had forgotten about it until your response. I also think that it would be a good story to teach alongside evolutionary theory because it is not very mainstream, and comparing it to, say, an Abrahamic creationist story would be very worthwhile. I say this because it is just as farfetched as the Abrahamic stories, but not nearly as widely-worshipped. I also think that the Abrahamic stories should be told from a purely "factual" (and by that I mean non-factual since they contain no facts) angle because they are well-known. However the origins of the stories should be told as well, including the Council of Nicea, the possible Gospel of Judas, and the Christian Book Burnings. Furthermore, world stories such as the Ramayana should be told so that they can be compared to the Abrahamic ones for the same reason as the Sedna story - namely, to show that we have no more reason to believe Moses than we do to believe the ancient inuits.

Lauregon, I don't think that we should teach flat-earth ideas because frankly that would be a waste of time. The difference between flat-earth ideas and religion/evolution is that the flat-earth ideas have been unequivocally disproven, whilst neither religion or evolution is proven to be correct. While we think that evolution is much more likely to be true than anything else, it is still the "Theory of Evolution" and not the "Law of Evolution". Creationist stories are like any fairy tale, but that does not make them impossible or disproven. Assuming they are incorrect would be assuming a 'guilty until proven innocent' perspective, which is a very dangerous one to have, and which is also the one that is shared by religious people.

Other Comments by StephenS

21. Comment #54365 by justin willemse on July 6, 2007 at 2:26 pm

New to this and I must say it is a pleasure reading many of these comments!
I am a Canadian as well and found this almost NOT surprising.

The idea that God created the universe and humans sickens me! However, I have notice a recent trend that is not related to education as the article is saying. Considering that we are going through a war fighting along with the Americans in the Middle East, I have notice an increased re-birthing of religious expression. Especially with extremist Islamic groups bombing up people all around the world! People are scared! Many don't know the Islamic culture and as result run to the old time familiar church for guidance and spiritual help. Churches are soaking this up, that what gets me!!!

Other Comments by justin willemse

22. Comment #54375 by ThomasB on July 6, 2007 at 4:11 pm

 avatarStephenS

Maybe we're being a little too subtle. You and I aren't on the same page - I don't really believe that supernatural tales have any place in a science classroom. There is no controversy to teach.

There may well be debate among scientists concerning tempo and modes of speciation, units of selection, etc., but these are all being discussed within a very robust and successful evolutionary paradigm.

Who's "entrenched"?


If we are so firmly entrenched in evolution like the religious are so firmly entrenched in religion, then we will be almost as blind as them.


Other Comments by ThomasB

23. Comment #54382 by atheist_peace on July 6, 2007 at 5:21 pm

 avatar"As a Canadian, I'm embarrassed about the polls and the fact that in 1980, the government changed one line in the national anthem to "God keep our land" instead of "Oh Canada"."

Could you cite a source for this?

I never knew they did this until just now. :(

Other Comments by atheist_peace

24. Comment #54383 by ThomasB on July 6, 2007 at 5:31 pm

 avatarNo less irksome is the Preamble to the Constitution Act (1982):

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...."

Other Comments by ThomasB

25. Comment #54384 by atheist_peace on July 6, 2007 at 5:35 pm

 avatar"Among respondents without a high-school diploma, 37 per cent said they believed God alone created humans less than 10,000 years ago, whereas only 15 per cent of university-educated respondents were strict creationists."

This sums up the debate perfectly.

Other Comments by atheist_peace

26. Comment #54401 by StephenS on July 6, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Thomas B,

I think I was not clear if I meant that we are entrenched in evolutionary thinking. On the other hand, I think that, as far as we know, it is a perfectly workable theory. However, what I meant to say was that we should not become so entrenched in evolutionary theory that we rule out the possibility of anything else (by this I do not mean religion, but maybe another theory that could come later), and that religious people are often individuals who do just this - rule out the possibilty of anything else because of the stubbornness of their faith.

And when you say, "There is no controversy to teach," I disagree with you. Even though the controversy is fallacious, absurd, and frankly insulting to the human race, it is still a controversy because people make it so. I think that if people (and by this I mean specifically the children who are being educated) learn about creation in a purely secular way, they will eventually come to see how silly it is, and then discard it. I can tell you that the only reason I am an atheist is that I've studied evolution and religion, and found evolution to be much more reasonable. It was J.S. Mill who said that if we simply have a view without criticism, it is worth nothing, because there are no alternatives. However, if the view is criticized but the criticism is rejected, then it strengthens the original view. If our children are educated in only evolution, they will not have anything with which to compare it, just like people who are educated in religion. However, if they study both in a secular way, they will almost indubitably decide for themselves that evolution makes more sense, which would give more credibility to the theory.

Other Comments by StephenS

27. Comment #54443 by NJS on July 7, 2007 at 6:06 am

I think Prof Dawkins has said that it was evolution for him that "disproved" religion. This wasn't quite the case for me but I have come to the conclusion that it is the magic bullet.

If there are broadly 3 schoold of thought as described in the poll - "pure" YEC creationism, God as a guide, and "godless" evolution then I think of the two former positions its actually the second one I have more of a problem with.

To some degree I think creationists recognise that their position doesn't make sense but are willing to be be stubborn with their "God did it" ethos. I think its wrong but there is a bloody-minded honesty that I admire to some extent.

However the middle ground position that recognises the age of the universe and earth and evolution with common descent but tries to impose this guiding hand I find the most frustratingly objectionable of the lot. It tries to be "sensible" but raises more questions than the simplistic YEC one. If he's so powerful why gradual change that looks "accidental"? Why the mass extinctions? etc etc. As I said it makes less sense than "let there be light".

I was argunging with someone a while ago who reckoned that God had "guided" human morality through the ages with little nudges here and there to let us see what he meant. The result of this was modern christianity. Now leaving aside the other religions I asked the obvious questions like what form did these nudges take? Did he kill the Mongol emperor and thus save Europe for christianity? His response was that he hadn't really thought of that he just "felt it" - exactly I said.

Other Comments by NJS

28. Comment #54800 by Lobut on July 9, 2007 at 2:07 am

In highschool, Toronto, Canada. I've had teachers openly mock Creation Science and Christianity. I think mock is too harsh a word.

However, my teacher claimed that Creation Science was completely ad-hoc. Another claimed that Christianity was just a while to go before it goes the way of all other mythology. (just to give you a feel)

I personally think that there is no problem with some sort of deism. The biggest opponent of intelligent design in the Dover trial, Kenneth Miller is one. I know he's a Roman Catholic but if I'm using Dawkins definitions of each characteristic, I think Miller falls under Deist. It's okay if most think this way. However, I just think that most Canadians have simply just not thought it through. Neither would I if it was not for Dawkins.

Other Comments by Lobut

29. Comment #54962 by fallenone on July 9, 2007 at 1:23 pm

 avatarWhile I've managed to get through the Canadian public school system without being exposed to ID ideology, I understand that the story might be somewhat different for those attending the publically-funded Catholic school board. To see how the good fight on the issue of dual schoolboard system in Ontario is evolving, you can check out: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/toronto

Other Comments by fallenone

30. Comment #63939 by Eric Blair on August 16, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Came in on this one late but as a Canadian couldn't resist.

I never took biology in high school (early '70s) but somehow came to understand evolution. On the other hand lots of religious people I know don't see any contradiction between evolution and more literal Christianity -- or they just don't think about it.

That's one problem with a poll like this -- there are no follow up questions, like "So if the world is only 10,000 years old I guess you think carbon-dating that goes back millions of years is nonsense?"

Part of the explanation is that Canadians, being nothing if not polite, never question each others' religion or lack of it, so don't discuss such things.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

31. Comment #77729 by jonathan_canuck on October 10, 2007 at 10:23 am

atheist_peace, you really don't need a citation on the addition of "God" to "Oh Canada", but if you insist, you can take a look at the Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Canada

There was another change made as well in 1980, but it's not a big deal.

God or not, as a Canadian I've always hated "Oh Canada". It's a dreadful, ponderous piece of crap that sounds like it was composed by a third-grade class. If you've gotta have a national anthem (and that's another debate altogether), you really should have something with some balls. The Internationale comes to mind.

Other Comments by jonathan_canuck

32. Comment #77744 by Vendetta on October 10, 2007 at 11:28 am

 avatarOh my God! Jesus Christ!

The idea that God guided evolution is... is...I don't even think there are words to describe how stupid I think that idea is. Evolution is an elegant explanation, but it is not beautiful. How do they reconcile scripture with God "guiding" the creation, mutation, and extinction of species to eventually arrive at "MAN?" What kind of mental gymnastics must these people do in order to hang onto their religious beliefs?

I've met people that don't believe in dinosaurs. Up until that point, I didn't even know it was something that needed to be "believed" in. Really? So these fossils were planted by Satan to tempt us into believing that the Earth might be a little older than 6,000 years old? Do they not "believe" in carbon dating? Really?

So the astronomers are measuring light that has been travelling for billions of years from across the universe, they are mistaken? So they don't "believe" in redshifting? Really?

Or do they hide behind that tired excuse: 1 day for God can be billions of our years. Complete garbage.

Sometimes I feel like my head is going to explode from the ignorance I'm confronted with. I'm going to go stick my head in an oven and pull a Plath.

Other Comments by Vendetta

33. Comment #174203 by a_ht on May 1, 2008 at 9:14 pm

And once again Quebec leaves english Canada in the dust on yet another foundamental issue. One must wonder why we are still associated with these evolved apes...

Other Comments by a_ht

34. Comment #185804 by dom1234 on May 28, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Quebec FTW! One of the many resons I won't leave this place.

Other Comments by dom1234
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: