Update: Welcome Hot Air readers! This post reports data from the The General Social Survey, it is *not* a post to debate the presumed merits of the Creationist controversy! I used the EVOLVED variable, which asked:
Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.
TRUE or FALSE. That was all.
Rather self-explanatory. I simply used the EVOLVED variable, which records a question asked in 2006 & 2008. Nothing too surprising, but Creationist Republican politicians have mass support, so it may be that in coming years that that position will become the Republican elite norm as the pro-life position has become. The only caution, and hope, is that historically Creationists are generally beaten back by anti-Creationist elite Republicans and conservatives when they manage to force their ideas into the classroom on the local level.
Pingback: Fauxnews asks where have all the christi… « Talk Islam
In 2008, I think all the presidential candidates (save Huckabee) would have been happy not to talk about evolution at all. The hostile moderators, however, had a healthy interest in promoting a GOP wedge issue.
That’s true. And, as I’ve said, conservatives/Republicans have a choice when confronted by a hostile moderator: they can either politely disavow creationism or they can offer some sort of feeble quasi-endorsement of it so as not to alienate the fundies, whom they perceive as necessary to win elections. Rock and a hard place.
Those aren’t the only options Susan. The “religious right” is a relatively recent political development. The republican party was once the party of Robert Ingersoll.
It’s time secular Republican showed some courage and leadership. As this blog has shown, secular Republicans in the Northeast don’t have a party to represent them. That’s why there isn’t a single republican member of the House or Representatives from New England.
@Michael in PA
Sorry about the typo
House of Representatives
I don’t think anyone is arguing against the right to call stupid people stupid. I think the issue is whether it is helpful. I’ve never heard anyone saying it is PC or not. Of course politicians have extra incentives to be careful with their words since it is rather easy to alienate voter blocks. So why do it if you don’t need to? I think that was why “David Hume” pointed out Romney was rather courageous with his comments. He was potentially alienating a big group that already didn’t like him. And arguably it was Huckabee’s surge that allowed McCain to trump Romney so who knows. Maybe that was enough of an issue to put Huckabee up in places so that Romney lost. (Although given the Obama wagon at the time I’m not at all convinced 2008 was the time for a Romney candidate – not that I think he’ll do much better in 2012 but he’ll have at least a moderately easier time)