i-70eb0e86207e5b55b1cd1b6804beaed7-gallup_creationism_question.jpg

Click here for the full post by Gallup.

Far more Democrats believe in evolution than do those pesky Republicans. Interestingly, the configuration for “independents” looks just like the configuration for Democrats, not Republicans.


i-4a853307e879a48106b19f23a409bd39-gallup_dems_reps_ind.jpg

These results are mirrored, as usual, by the differential religiosity of these groups. God created or guided thinking is linked to going to church. and so on.

What is even more interesting is the upcoming/current issueof Skeptical Inquirer, which has a short article by ME in it, on a related issue.


John Lynch
has also commented on this.

Comments

  1. #1 Adrienne
    June 25, 2008

    You wrote:

    Far more Republicans believe in eovltion than democrats.

    To which I say, “Huh”? Assuming I’m looking at the correct graphs, it appears the opposite is true.

  2. #2 thadd
    June 25, 2008

    I think Adrienne is right, the Republicans believe more in a 10,00 yo earth.

  3. #3 Matt Penfold
    June 25, 2008

    This graph really nails the lies put about by the likes of Mooney and Nisbet that Dawkins et al damage the evolution cause. It also shows that the tactics of being nice to moderate theists so as not to alienate them is flawed. If that tactic has not worked since 1982, why should we believe it will now.

    I do not suppose for one minute this will cause Nisbett or Mooney to reflect on their claims.

  4. #4 Stephanie Z
    June 25, 2008

    SI really, really needs to start offering subscriptions to a full electronic version. My subscription is lapsed because, as much as I love the magazine, I do not need more paper in my life.

  5. #5 Adrienne
    June 25, 2008

    Ummm, now it reads,

    Far more Democrats believe in evolution than democrats.

    Almost there, but not quite.

  6. #6 Elizabeth
    June 25, 2008

    Give the guy a break. He has a massive hangover.

  7. #7 BobC
    June 25, 2008

    Of course the only correct answer is “Humans developed over millions of years, God had no part.”

    Only 4% of Republicans got it right, proving beyond any doubt Republicans are uneducated religious morons. The Independents and Democrats aren’t much better. 19% and 17% of those groups accept evolution without invoking magic to guide it. The stupidity of Americans is disgraceful. The only possible solution is the complete eradication of religious beliefs.

  8. #8 Brandon
    June 25, 2008

    This graph really nails the lies put about by the likes of Mooney and Nisbet that Dawkins et al damage the evolution cause. It also shows that the tactics of being nice to moderate theists so as not to alienate them is flawed. If that tactic has not worked since 1982, why should we believe it will now.

    Wha-huh? I will agree with you that atheists probably have not damaged the evolution cause all that much. But please explain your logic. It seems to be:
    *Mooney, Nisbet, and Dawkins have all tried to support the evolution cause.
    *The number of people who accept evolution has not changed in recent history.
    *Therefore, Mooney and Nisbet’s methods are flawed.

    Antitheism has been around for a very long time, much longer than Dawkins has been famous. How does your argument consider the possibility that being nice to moderate theists works, but the efforts of antitheists cancel them out? It sounds more like you looked at the graph and then immediately pointed your finger at the people you don’t like.

  9. #9 Frank
    June 25, 2008

    I know that it’s hip to reject God these days, but you must face the facts. Evolution is a THEORY! Aside from a few sad examples there is no direct evidence that evolution really exists. On the contrary God DOES exist. You can see his works all around you! The smile of a child. The flutter of a butterflies wings.

    As for the statement that Republicans are dumb. Bush went to Yale and Harvard. Where did you go to school? Perhaps you’re not Republican because you’re not smart enough.

    You atheists should wise up because soon you’ll face the consequences of your decisions. Eternity in hell awaits those who don’t repent.

    …One more thing. On a serious note. We’re at war. The title of this blog is incredibly insensitive to those that lost their lives on September 11th–and to the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. You should change it if you consider yourself a patriot. –Just a friendly suggestion.

  10. #10 G.D.
    June 25, 2008

    Sarcasm like this should be dropped when discussing issues related to creationism, Frank. Poe’s law is running wild here. I think most readers can recognize the irony of your post, but readers may easily come to think the claims do represent your actual opinions, and you cannot blame them: There are, in fact, enough mindless cranks out there who might actually say stuff like the things you write in your post in all seriousness, and believe in it, Frank. Sadly enough.

  11. #11 Frank
    June 26, 2008

    I tried to be subtle. You’re very perceptive G.D. My last post was a troll. I’m actually an atheist…

    My purpose is to enervate the right wing argument by taking on the guise of a Republican wing nut and stating a number of asinine arguments.

    I honestly didn’t think I was being so obvious.

  12. #12 themadlolscientist
    June 26, 2008

    Frankie, Frankie, Frankie……..

    Evolution is a THEORY!

    Evolution is an observed phenomenon. It is a fact, like gravity. GET OVER IT.

    The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravitation, is the product of an ongoing effort to understand the physical mechanisms that drive the physical universe. The theory has nothing whatsoever to say about the existence or nonexistence of a God or gods, nor about any other supernatural notion.

    No, the theory isn’t perfect – but no theory is, or ever will be. The work continues, as does all science. But if it weren’t worth pursuing, we’d have given up years ago. Science is like that – it continually questions every statement it makes, weeds out the bullshit, and keeps working on the promising stuff.

    Scientists continually challenge each other’s ideas. There’s no room for dogma – that’s a religious idea. Much of the time there is consensus, but even the most overwhelming and entranched consensus may be challenged by new evidence and new theories, or by modifications to existing theories. Sometimes it seems to take forever, but it does happen.

    The fact of evolution is not a source of controversy in the scientific community as a whole. Whatever “controversies” exist are disagreements over differing interpretations of the details. That’s par for the course in any science.

    On the contrary God DOES exist.

    On what scientific credentials do you base that statement? “The Bible says” is not an acceptable scientific answer. Your proposition that “God does exist” can not be proven (or disproven) by scientific means, nor can God be directly observed under controlled experimental conditions.

    If many scientists don’t believe in a supreme being, it’s not because they’re intrinsically evil but because they’ve seen no direct scientific evidence or theoretical basis for such a being’s existence. It’s simply the way their minds work. It’s not for you or me or anyone to jump to conclusions about what any God/god might think of them in return. We’ve got enough of our own shit to deal with.

    (OTOH, there’s no direct scientific evidence or theoretical basis for such a being’s nonexistence. I sometimes wonder if some people trip over the “absence of evidence/evidence of absence” thing, but that’s one woman’s private opinion. YMMV; AWYSB.)

    The smile of a child

    A delightfully charming but necessary survival adaptation. If little kids weren’t adorable, their parents would be sorely tempted to murder them once the little rugrats hit the Terrible Twos. :-)

    But in all seriousness, a child’s cute round face and beautiful smile, and our mooshygooshy response to what we see, developed together and reinforced one another because they help our species to survive. They smile and are cute, we say “Awwwwwwwwwww” and smile back and take care of them, they smile and are cute, etc. etc.

    The flutter of a butterflies [sic] wings.

    Which I’ll agree is a thing of beauty, but ultimately it has nothing to do with what we think of it or what emotions it makes us feel. It’s for the butterfly’s benefit, an adaptation shaped by the environment into a characteristic that enables the butterfly to thrive in that environment.

    It’s called natural selection, and it’s the true meaning of “survival of the fittest.” Not the biggest, the fastest, the meanest, the smartest, or the strongest – but those who “fit in” the best. In the case of rugrats, it’s survival of the cutest. :-) Knowing the evolutionary process doesn’t detract at all from the wonder. If anything, it enhances it.

    (If anything, perhaps we’re overadapted to respond to “teh cute.” Even the biggest and baddest of us humans can go nutsycuckoo over li’l non-hy00mon aminulz too – just look at the wild popularity of Cute Overload.)

    Bush went to Yale and Harvard.

    As a “legacy,” given preferential treatment as the child of an alumnus. His academic career was, shall we say, less than stellar? (As was his so-called military “career.”)

    Perhaps you’re not Republican because you’re not smart enough.

    I think I speak for just about everyone here when I say I’m not a Republican because I’m too smart to fall for their willfully ignorant, fall-in-line bullshit. I’ll make up my own mind based on what I see in the real world, thank you very much.

    You atheists should wise up

    I for one am no atheist. I’m a person of faith, a Baptist minister’s daughter who grew up on a seminary campus. Now in my mid-50s, I no longer consider myself “conventionally religious” in the sense of adherence to a particular doctrine, and I’m not currently active in a church, but my faith is in no way threatened by looking at the physical world and seeking to understand the physical processes by which it got this way. I’m also a scientist by training, and my fascination with science is in no way threatened by my spiritual side.

    OTOH, I’m deeply shocked and sad over how many people today scurry fearfully behind the shelter of what they’ve been told “the Bible says” instead of having the God-given courage to read the amazing God-given “Book of the Universe” as well.

    Personally, I don’t want to have to answer to something like “How come you kept your nose buried in the book instead of checking out everything else I was trying to show you? Yes, the book is about me, but it was written so that people who didn’t have a lot of technical understanding could get their minds around it. I gave you the means to go beyond the oversimplification. Why didn’t you use it? And why did you waste so much energy running around trying to convince other people not to use it? FAIL! x 666!” :-)

    We’re at war.

    We’re involved in what could be called a war that’s now become a stalemate (Afghanistan) and an unjustified occupation of a foreign country (Iraq) under false pretenses based on Bush’s displaced frustration compounded by a personal vendetta.

    The title of this blog is incredibly insensitive to those that lost their lives on September 11th

    Ummmmmm……..why is naming a blog after yourself insensitive?

    and to the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Again I think I speak for everyone here when I say I have nothing but respect for those who have been put in harm’s way by the actions of the Idiot-in-Chief and continue to honor their commitment in the face of everyday violence. OTOH, I have nothing but contempt for that Idiot-in-Chief for putting a quarter-million of them there for no real demonstrable reason.

    ‘Nuff for now. I apologize to everyone for writing a book here, but intentional gross stupidity “in God’s name” gives all people of faith, and even the concept of faith itself, a very bad name. It pisses me off in thermonuclear Technicolor. It’s because of that pile of bullshit that I much prefer hanging out with atheists and agnostics any day. I may get razzed sometimes, but at least I don’t have to check my brain at the door or hang out with a bunch of people who checked theirs at the door and forgot to reclaim them on the way out.

    YMMV, AWYSB, etc. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it. :-)

  13. #13 themadlolscientist
    June 26, 2008

    OH NOOOOOOOES!!!!!11!!!eleventyhundredeleven!!! YOU GOT ME!!!!!!!!!!!! Frank, you evil fucking FIEND!!!!!!!!!!! Your admission of Poe-ness came through while I was typing away in blissfully unaware rage. I outed myself for nothing. I am so fucking EMBARRASSED!!!!!!!!!

    But it’s still my story, and I’m still sticking to it. :-) Just in case some real creotard comes along………

  14. #14 Frank
    June 26, 2008

    You fell into my trap!

    The sad thing is that the crap I wrote does represent the world view of the average red state American–as evinced by Gallup.

    We live in a screwed up time.

  15. #15 Dread Polack
    June 26, 2008

    Haha! I actually skimmed past themadlolscientist’s long reply, knowing what was coming next. I’m not familiar enough with this blog’s posters to have known any better. I’ve only been spared themadlolscientist’s embarrassment by my dislike of writing long posts. Poe’s law, indeed.

  16. #16 themadembarrassedasallhelllolscientist
    June 26, 2008

    The sad thing is that the crap I wrote does represent the world view of the average red state American

    Maybe part of the reason I’m so hypersensitive to that stupidity is that one of my brothers is a Fundy Mental Case and believes all that bullshit. I don’t know what aliens anal-probed him to make him that way – no one else in the family has that disease.

    He also knows I’m so far in the opposite direction as to cross the line into agnostic territory at least half the time. So he and I don’t talk much, we just sort of eye each other warily.

    @ Dread Polack: Please consider yourself seriously hugged for not reading my tirade. I’m embarrassed enough as it is. =8-O and :-) simultaneously