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: Attitudes of Republicans & Conservatives… « Talk Islam
I find it very interesting that only 60% of Catholic republicans believe that man evolved from animals. The official position of the Catholic Church is theistic evolution.
Is this another case of cafeteria Catholicism or just plain ignorance by a large portion of the laity?
The official position of the Catholic Church is theistic evolution.
this isn’t official doctrine or something though. if you reject this position you aren’t being a bad catholic.
I find it very interesting that only 60% of Catholic republicans believe that man evolved from animals. The official position of the Catholic Church is theistic evolution.
So they’re more true to their religious premises than the Catholic Church.
What is meant by evolution? Because if it means that man as rational animal evolved from irrational animals through a naturalist process, then Catholics are right to reject it. If you mean theistic evolution, it’s not dogma. Individuals can reject it. I’m Catholic, I don’t hold that pure mechanistic evolution is true or even fully ontologically possible.
“Creationist Republican politicians have mass support”
And what exactly is the definition of “creationist”? Those who don’t hold strict evolution? Those who believe material reality was created ex nihilo? I think this term signifies a very small group but is then used far too broadly to cudgel those who merely don’t hold to the necessity of evolution.
Um, do these numbers come from that 2006 AAAS survey, in which two of the questions were:
* Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life (62% answered ‘yes’)
and
* Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals. (40% answered ‘yes’)
If so, then those two numbers demonstrate that all they really succeeded in measuring was the level of ignorance about evolutionary theory.
And what exactly is the definition of “creationist”?
for the purpose of this discussion, let’s just define “creationist” specifically as those who believe that humans were created without any species from which they derived.
@David Hume
In that case, I don’t see “in coming years that that position will become the Republican elite norm as the pro-life position has become.”
Abortion is a very political issue involving life and death. Evolutionary theory is only political insofar as we have publicly run schools. The content of science course curricula is primarily a state and local issue. Thus, since evolution isn’t a national political issue, I don’t see creationism as becoming normalized in national politics like abortion has become.
@David Hume
I’m going to add this blog to my regular reading list.
I don’t see creationism as becoming normalized in national politics like abortion has become.
i think you are correct. but do note that some conservative protestants believe that evolutionary theory is the root of the moral relativism and decline in western civilization. e.g, the young earth creationist duane gish is wont to say “if you tell kids they’re animals, they’ll behave as such.” so the narrowness of the question is not something which there is unanimity on.
Me too.
I mentioned in your post at ScienceBlogs that I think a lot of this is tied to an odd Hobbesian perspective. I honestly don’t quite understand it. I’m not quite up on the history of political thought. Is Hobbes a strong influence in historic conservativism?
“Aristotle” I wonder though if more southern states managed to somehow get Creationism injected into High School if it would become more of a national issue. Honestly, it might. Some of the stories I hear about Texas and Louisiana in this regard infuriate me. As do anecdotes of teachers terrified to teach evolution because of parent reaction such that it is poorly taught if it is taught at all. (Of course schools in much of the south are already pretty bad)
BTW – why do you think “dumb” conservatives are more accepting of evolution than average? That was a surprising result in the above stats. And how to explain this conservative/Republican divide between dumb people. It suggests a lot of dumb people who self-identify as conservative but not Republican. Are these the more dumb libertarians?
Gish’s claim would be more correct if he specified pure mechanistic, atheistic evolution insofar as it would claim morality and ethics is merely a genetic feature and can be explained by needs of natural selection. But I don’t believe that bit is part of high school biology textbooks.
I’m curious. Has there been a recent resurgence in creationism? Or has it only come to people’s attention again due to the new atheist movement?
BTW – why do you think “dumb” conservatives are more accepting of evolution than average? That was a surprising result in the above stats. And how to explain this conservative/Republican divide between dumb people. It suggests a lot of dumb people who self-identify as conservative but not Republican. Are these the more dumb libertarians?
Ha! Note that there is no necessary correspondence between intelligence and accepting evolution. Only 50% of conservatives with graduate degrees answered yes. There are solid reasons not to hold strict mechanistic materialist evolution. When I hear the word “evolution,” I don’t think “theistic evolution,” but “atheistic mechanistic evolution.” If this is how the term evolution is commonly understood, and I think it is, then a large number of people who responded “no” insofar as they thought the question signified an atheistic evolution.
Well yes, and we argued that back at Razib’s blog. But while there isn’t necessarily a correlation between intelligence and evolution (as opposed to education and evolution) that was a pretty big difference between the “dumb” and the average. If I’m understanding you, you are suggesting the dumb can’t make the distinction of theistic evolution and atheistic evolution so they just accept it whereas the average do, get the distinction muddled and then disbelieve.
That actually makes sense. I wonder if there is a way to verify it.
As to your question about whether there actually is a resurgence of Creationism. I confess I honestly don’t know. It seems like in politics – especially in the south and midwest – there has been a renewed attempt to inject it into school. Whether that suggests a resurgence of focus on the beliefs I couldn’t say.
Are animal husbandry or bio-engineering part of Creationism or Evolution ?
Both appear to be variations at some level of designing life forms.
there is a distinction between party & ideology:
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/08/socioeconomic_status_ideology.php
there are many wealthy people who don’t identify as conservative who vote republican. and many poor conservative democrats. no idea how that would relate to the findings above.
@Michael in PA
Michael,
I’m afraid it is you who are ignorant of official Church teaching.
A Roman Catholic cannot believe “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.”
A human being is body and soul. While the Church allows for the possibility that the body came “from pre-existing and living matter”, it “obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36)
And it certainly does not REQUIRE the faithful to believe this as a matter of faith. You can be a faithful Catholic and believe in a 6 day Creation.
The problem with the word “Evolution” is that it is a flag word which, by itself, is pretty much meaningless these days (similar, in many respects, to the word “Rascist”).
I’d say that this poll doesn’t measure much of anything, because “Evolution” isn’t defined objectively. Believe me, there are many people who believe in Creationism and Evolution also (Some of the arguments for this position, just from a logical perspective – using deduction, induction, Occam’s Razor and symmetry – are compelling).
The Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution is described in the Bible. Quite frankly, I think scientists should be sued for plagarism.
First,- nothing -than the earth was formed than let there be light(earth entering the orbit of our sun). Then the plants and animals, then a man and woman as we know them then they partake of the tree of knowledge and become self aware, then they go forth and multiple.
The Bible nor the Catholic Church disbelieves the natural world and never have said that they do.
Aethiests make up beliefs of others or cling to beliefs that can not just be described as being held by Churches.
They insist that because the Church did not believe in evolution back before the theory of evolution was thought of and NO ONE believed in evolution, they are somehow responsible for dragging humanity thru studidity or trying to keep it there.
Why is this important? Why are secularists obsessed with evolution? I don’t care whether or not you believe in evolution. Isn’t the impulse to force conformity of values and lifestyle supposed to be a liberal thing?
@Lisa E
So, who’s forcing you to read this blog?
Lisa, it is important because a large portion of our party are stunningly ignorant of basic scientific facts.
Would you be concerned if 50% of conservatives denied gravity?
I’m somewhat sympathetic to what Lisa says. I mean most people are just as ignorant of quantum mechanics or general relativity as they are evolution, but no one cares.
I think the big difference isn’t just that they are ignorant but that they refuse to acknowledge any ignorance. That is they adopt a stance where they know when they don’t. Further I think that fundamental stance infects a lot of their thinking in other areas. So the comments about evolution are a symptom of a much deeper problem. What I like to call a naive appeal to common sense done badly. There is at this time in the Republican party especially a sense in which you don’t need to do investigation and find out answers. That is common sense and personal gut feelings are all you need.
Of course this is manifest in the Democratic party as well. It’s just that right now I think it is really becoming a serious issue for conservatives as that group applies the same sort of hermeneutic they use to read their sacred texts towards reality in general. And that’s dangerous, quite independent of the issue of evolution.
Isn’t the impulse to force conformity of values and lifestyle supposed to be a liberal thing?
no. actually it’s more of a conservative thing. not that there’s anything wrong with that (really, common values and lifestyles are important).
Kudos to Lisa for asking the right question. I asked the exact same question here a while ago and didn’t get a satisfactory answer. I also noted that of all the problems with public education from a secular right point of view, evolution is awfully far down on the list.
A couple centuries ago nobody believed in Darwinism, and the country didn’t seem to suffer too much on that account. What’s changed so much in that time to make a popular belief in evolution so important? Aside from a few specialists – biologists, paleontologists, etc. – what’s so bad about people in general not believing in evolution?
Re the responses so far: I would not be bothered if 50% of the population disbelieved in the “correct” theory of gravity; presumably they’d have some other theory which would work well enough in their everyday lives. And if disbelieving evolution is just a symptom of some underlying intellectual dysfunction (I don’t think it is, but assuming so), then why waste so much time and energy fighting over a symptom of the real problem? Banning the teaching of creationism or whatever isn’t going to solve anything except that one symptom.
Aaron, while I obviously disagree over whether it’s a deeper problem I completely agree that the way many approach the issue is misguided. Telling people they are stupid won’t change their minds — especially if they are stupid. What we need to communicate the problem solving skills and what we loosely call the scientific method. If folks applied the scientific method in their daily lives I think I could handle odd beliefs about evolution, global warming and the like.
Telling people they are stupid won’t change their minds — especially if they are stupid
this is a very good, and depressing point 🙁
Just my personal observation, but I think that the secular right’s “obsession” (if it is that) with evolution is a pushback reaction to the fundamentalists’ genuine obsession with creationism. Religious fundamentalists now claim that you can’t be a conservative without believing in creationism. If you believe in evolution, they say, you espouse Marxism, because the theory of evolution is in fact a Marxist doctrine. Yeah, yeah, I know, but that’s what they believe.
It seems to me to be all of a piece with fundamentalists’ anti-intellectualism and dislike/distrust of high culture in general. If you prefer Bach to Billy Ray Cyrus, you’re a Commie.
Just my personal observation, but I think that the secular right’s “obsession” (if it is that) with evolution is a pushback reaction to the fundamentalists’ genuine obsession with creationism.
right. i really don’t care what people believe. but creationists regularly promulgate fake facts (e.g., “the scientific consensus is against evolution”). mostly because they’re not too smart and they’re being misled by self-interested polemicists. if you explained the outcomes of the double-slit experiment to most people i think the initial reaction would be “no f**king way.” but it doesn’t matter, no one is going to force you teach physics any differently, because it’s just an opinion, not an organized anti-quantum movement (though there a small subset of creationists who have an alternative non-quantum understanding of the universe).
Susan, when I hear that I always mention how the Soviets were so anti-evolution and that Creationists are really Stalinists in disguise. (grin)
Clark, I think creationists do have some very Stalinist qualities: “my way or the highway” is what their attitude boils down to.
DH, with respect to the promulgation of fake facts: militant ignorance armed with certainty is very disturbing.
One should note that the vast majority of Creationists aren’t quite so dogmatic.
But given how absolutist creationism is, how could its believers NOT be dogmatic?
i agree with clark. creationism is a widespread belief, but it is not very deep. only a small militant minority who do believe that evolutionary theory is the root of all decline in the west are moving the public discussion.
Yes, but the fact that it’s the militant true believers who are moving the discussion gives me pause. Rush Limbaugh appears to be a creationist. I know of one of his devotees who’s become a creationist. How widespread is such influence? Or is Limbaugh preaching mostly to the converted?
susan, interesting questions.
What do you guys mean by “creationist”? Does this only refer to YECer’s, or are you taking in ID’ers and (really) theistic evolutionists?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but by “creationist” I mean people who believe that Genesis is literally true and that they are descended from two actual people named Adam and Eve. Theistic evolutionists and (as far as I know) IDers make at least some attempt to reconcile their beliefs with science. Which is why I tend to separate them out from creationists, whom I regard as absolutists in their conviction that the earth (and the rest of the universe) were formed in six days as we understand days.
Does this only refer to YECer’s, or are you taking in ID’ers and (really) theistic evolutionists?
i generally lump IDers & YECers together. i exclude theistic evolutionists. IDers are a very diverse and frankly evasive bunch, but many of their core thinkers have expressed sympathy if not agreement with YEC (dembski), and of course some IDers such as paul nelson are YECers. theistic evolutionists are a diverse bunch too, but the difference between them and someone like michael behe (who accepts common descent) is that at the end of the day they do not reject the spirit of science.
I usually don’t consider most IDers to be Creationists since they accept most of the history and science of evolution but just reject part of the mechanism. But they accept the evolution of creatures through transitory forms and so forth. They just have some odd views about probability and information theory (IMO).
The biggest problem I have with ID though is that Creationists proper have latched onto the term even though it doesn’t fit their beliefs in the least. So you have people who are essentialists about species and deny the fossil record yet talk about the silly artificial divide between macro and micro evolution as if that really explained of justified their beliefs at all. What drives me nuts is that the biggest things these folks have to explain is the fossil record. ID claims about something called macroevolution should be the least of their worries. But because ID is against evolution and is able to make quasi-scientific sounding arguments they think it justifies Creationism.
I suspect it’s that tie between Creationism and ID which is why so many biologiists and other scientists get upset at ID. It really is a kind of trojan horse for the Creationist movement.
Susan, is Limbaugh a Creationist? I confess I’ve not really listened to him much since the early Bush years. Limbaugh never struck me as terribly religious so I’m surprised he’d latch onto Creationism. However even back before he became a caricature of himself Limbaugh had a pretty strong anti-science streak that seemed to only grow worse. (I think that as much as his perchance for creating strawmen that kept me from listening to him anymore) I halfway wonder that if he has latched onto Creationism it is for more cynical reasons of hooking into his audience. Say what you will but he’s no dummy.
You are right though that it is the small minority group who are pushing the movement. I’ve found that most Creationists are pretty tolerant and some are even willing to admit that the evidence is all on science’s side and recognize they can’t explain the evidence. That minority group though tends to be over represented in the ranks of Republican activists though. Which really worries me. Although heaven knows the Democrats have their fringe too.
Clark, Limbaugh once said that “evolution cannot explain creation,” and has made other comments indicating considerable disagreement with evolutionary theory. So I assume from that that he’s allied himself with the creationists, even if he hasn’t explicitly declared himself to be one of them.
Limbaugh also claims to believe in God. Like you, I wonder if his belief in God and his belief in creation are less sincere than a sop to his audience, and a cynical ploy to draw in more listeners.
As I mentioned in a previous post, I do know someone who was apparently converted to a belief in creationism by listening to Limbaugh. (This guy never listened to anyone BUT Limbaugh, so that must have been the source.)This disturbs me.
See, this is the problem. If the proponents of creationism–and anti-science in general–are people with the clout of Limbaugh, then….
Susan, I really wish there was someone in the Republican party with clout who was pro-science to counteract some of the people who are antagonistic or at best ambivalent to science. Imagine if Limbaugh was a big proponent of science and used his position as a bully pulpit. For all his flaws I was very happy when Romney came down against Creationism in the Republican Presidential debate. It’s just too bad Romney seems incapable as coming off as anything but an opportunistic flip flopper.
It’s just too bad Romney seems incapable as coming off as anything but an opportunistic flip flopper.
to be fair, his strong stance against creationism took courage as he was and is already viewed suspiciously by the christian right who he was trying to neutralize. it would have been prudent of him just to waffle or be vague.
Certainly, certainly, but what has to be defended is the right to tell stupids that they are stupid and not to have to abide by whatever is the political correctness of the day!
The failure of prominent Republicans to promote science could be cowardice. Or it could be pragmatic. I think what they fear is the party, or the conservative movement, breaking in two, with the fundamentalists going their way (the Constitution Party?) and the secular and non-fundamentalist going theirs. Which of course spells electoral doom for Republicans/conservatives. So the less religious/secular element of the party is catering to the most religious element in order to keep it in the tent. Think of it as bribing your obstreperous little kid to behave in the library so you can select your books.
The small government party generally isn’t as enthusiastic over any sort of campaign as its opposition. When we say “promote” science in a political arena, that means new government programs or more funding, which will tend to get, at best, a cool reception among any conservative, who would prefer to let the private sector handle almost all this sort of stuff. So there’s really no incentive for a GOP candidate to promote science. It’s not really supposed to be his job.
Perhaps the word “promote” was ill-chosen. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that the small government party advocate set up some gazillion dollar boondoggle. Perhaps I should have said that conservatives would do well to eschew anti-intellectualism of all sorts. But then again, as I pointed out earlier, that wouldn’t make the fundies happy, and the fundies need to be placated.