River Jordan,
I note your statement, ‘As you can see, evolution is accepted by the majority of the developed world. Couple that with survey data showing that atheists comprise between 2-8% of the population, and the conclusion is obvious...most people who accept the reality of evolution are theists’.
You have committed the appeal to popularity logical fallacy. See
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html.
I’ve read through this article from which you provided this graphic. Here it is stated:
The language is loaded. Take the first sentence, ‘The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to biblical literalists and causes concern even among some holders of less conservative religious views’. Why is it not stated this way? ‘The concept of the evolution of humans from earlier forms of life is unacceptable to those who read the Bible as they would the local newspaper, accepting the plain language of the text. There are religious people who do not accept the plain reading of the text so they oppose those who do. What are the implications of this?’
Imagine what would happen in this article if the writers got rid of the loaded language of ‘biblical literalists’, ‘less conservative religious views’ and ‘these nonliteralist Christians’?
I find it hypocritical that scientific writers are here presenting evidence against ‘biblical literalists’ and in favour of ‘these nonliteralist Christians’ when to even understand the article I have to accept the plain reading of the text. To use their language, I have to become a scientific ‘literalist’ to even understand what they are writing.
Then the authors get into the ‘should be taught’ mode:
The article cited research where ‘individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God and who pray frequently were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views’. Why not write it this way? ‘Individuals who accept the plain reading of the Bible and so have committed their lives to the personal Almighty God revealed through a plain reading of Scripture and pray to him, are less likely to accept a plain reading of the text that includes evolution than readers who reject a plain reading of the text and hold religious views that reject the personal God and regular praying’.
Now that is not going to happen, but these writers should be challenged on their inflammatory use of language in describing Christians of various persuasions and the kind of reading of any text one should use.
Imagine what would happen if you did not engage in a plain reading of my text. By 'plain reading' I mean to read a text according to the ordinary understanding of word meaning, grammar, sentence and paragraph structure.
Oz