…and this is a 
American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science
Category: Creationism • Politics
Posted on: January 11, 2007 10:57 PM, by PZ Myers
Science magazine has just published a graph of data taken from a general social survey of Americans that quantifies what most of us assume: a well-educated liberal who is not a fundamentalist is much more likely to accept evolution than a conservative fundamentalist with only a high school education. You can see the trend fairly clearly: here we see the percent believing in evolution vs. fundamentalism, amount of education, and self-reported political views.
(click for larger image)
The percentage of respondents believing in human evolution is plotted simultaneously against political view (conservative, moderate, liberal), education (high school or less, some college, graduate school), and respondent's religious denomination (fundamentalist or not). Belief in evolution rises along with political liberalism, independently of control variables.
It looks to me like being a fundamentalist means you're about half as likely to believe in evolution as a non-fundamentalist of the same level of education and place on the political spectrum. The majority of fundamentalists of any kind (except the liberal ones with a grad school education; I wonder how many of those there are) reject evolution. To get a majority of conservatives to accept evolution, you have to drag them through grad school and make sure they aren't fundamentalists.
It's not surprising that fundamentalism puts such a strong damper on evolution, but it is surprising that political conservatism would do likewise. That, I suspect, is a consequence of the strong association between the religious right and Republicans in this country, and I have to wonder whether conservatives who reject religion completely are as screwed up as this sample indicates, and if conservatives from other countries would do as poorly.
One problem I have with these data, though, is there is no indication of the sample size in each category. It's taken from a total of 3673 respondents, but I rather suspect that the liberal-fundamentalist category was significantly smaller than the conservative-fundamentalist group in raw numbers, so that, for instance, there are actually many more fundamentalist grad students who disbelieve evolution than believe it.
The chart also shows that a college education has a negligible effect on fundamentalist's belief in evolution, but what we don't have here is any data on what kind of college education we're talking about. The fundamentalists may have mostly attended a bible college that reinforces their ignorance for all we know, and they may have had a very different experience than the non-fundamentalists, who would have been more likely to attend a secular school.
The association of anti-evolutionism with conservatism is not a particularly reassuring trend to me. Despite being liberal myself, I think the acceptance of good science ought to be independent of political affiliation; the data says it isn't. The chart is about belief in evolution, and that's a good word for it—if you are saying you agree that humans evolved from earlier species of animals because your political views say you should, you may not be evaluating the evidence rationally…or perhaps liberals are simply more receptive to education.
Mazur A (2007) Disbelievers in evolution. Science 315(5809):187.
Comments
I've always had the impression that to fundamentalists, given their gross misunderstanding of how science workss, science is another religion, one with a different (and a mostly incorrect theology). This would seem to support that argument, at least tangentially.
Posted by: Keanus | January 11, 2007 11:12 PM
They create their own reality.
Posted by: Coin | January 11, 2007 11:16 PM
..The chart also shows that a college education has a negligible effect on fundamentalist's belief in evolution, but what we don't have here is any data on what kind of college education we're talking about.
I knew a guy in Zaire (now Congo). He was a missionary, very hard right. I have many stories about him and his wife, interacting with me and my colleagues (anthropologists/biologists, etc.) And the other missionaries.
But for now just this:
He went to college. Oral Roberts. "Why was he a missionary in Zaire?" I asked him once. He told me he had been told by god to go to zaire. How did god tell him to go to Zaire, my colleague asked?
He told us he was walking around one day wondering where to go for his mission work, and a car drove by. It had a bumper sticker on it that said "Zaire". There could be no reason for that if it was not god telling him to go to Zaire.
My colleague and I kept a straight face. (well, two straight faces, I suppose). Later we had quite a laugh out of that, because both of us could only think one ting: He had misread the bumper sticker.
There was a store at that time, which has been replaced pretty much everywhere by Wallmart and Target. They had a bumper sticker they used for advertising.
So this guy is out in the rain forest in Zaire, and meanwhile, god is pissed. God has been stood up by him and is waiting for him in his local Zayers. Presumably in the Travel Luggage section..
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 11, 2007 11:20 PM
P.Z. Maybe 'belief' is the word to use in this example as you suggest, but 'belief' is mostly used for questions of faith, etc. For clarity, shouldn't we use 'accept' for evolution as many on the pro-evolution side have stated?
The acceptance of evolution is not a 'belief.' For us to use 'belief' in conjunction with 'evolution' only supports the creationists claim that evolution is a belief, not something supported by scientific evidence.
Posted by: vhutchison | January 11, 2007 11:26 PM
PZ is right about the importance of the sample sizes. We really need confidence bands on the bars to get a ton of info from this. Still, it is amusing that grad school fundies scored comparably to non-fundy high schoolers.
Posted by: MarkP | January 11, 2007 11:50 PM
Posted by: df | January 11, 2007 11:51 PM
No one should be asked whether they "believe" evolution is true. (In my opinion)
The weight of evidence should be a stong indication that it IS true.
This evidence can be and is, heavily scrutinized and analysed. The evidence either stands up to scrutiny or it doesn't. No need to believe in it.
Posted by: beepbeepitsme | January 11, 2007 11:51 PM
I'm also curious about the sample sizes. What could be done to factor the relative influences of religion, politics and education, normalized for other factors? Otherwise, it looks like the greatest mover towards acceptance of evolution is grad school (not sure how a M.F.A. would do this, but there you are.) If that's the case, science advocates should just pressgang people into advanced degree programs and bam.
Posted by: ddt | January 12, 2007 12:08 AM
What was the exact wording of the poll questions?
Last time somebody did a survey on "belief in evolution," I tracked down the original poll questions and discovered that all they'd really managed to measure was the ignorance of the population about what evolution is. Two of the questions boiled down to exact opposites: one said "humans were created by God and did not evolve," the other said "humans did evolve." It's logically impossible to answer "yes" to both or "no" to both. 62% answered "yes" to the first; 40% answered "yes" to the second. The problem should be obvious.
Posted by: wolfwalker | January 12, 2007 12:08 AM
I think "belief" is the correct term here, as we are talking about people, not evolution it's self. i mean, one could say it would be better to have stated it as "accept the truth of evolution" but that seems to have even more of a religious tone to it than "belief" does.
Besides, I'd still say "X amount of people believe the world to be round".
But then again, I might be nitpicking too.
Posted by: Cat of Many Faces | January 12, 2007 12:19 AM
It was Zayre which is even closer to "Zaire".
Right! Thanks for the correction.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 12, 2007 12:33 AM
With regards to irreligious cons, one still have to account for the deep anti-intellectualism of the American Right. The American Left has gone through its fits of the same, but an ideology that demands tradition take precedence over reason (and this is right out of Edmund Burke bog-standard conservativism) is going to find itself by default fairly anti-intellectual.
Posted by: Samnell | January 12, 2007 12:48 AM
I wonder what the graph would look like for a belief in astrology, or astral projection, or reincarnation. That'd be an interesting study.
Posted by: Marc | January 12, 2007 1:39 AM
Probably good to think about correlation not being causation. I suspect curious people who like to learn and be challenged tend be the ones that believe in evolution and also the ones who go on to higher education. My hypothesis is that the curious-pro-learning attitude is something that's formed at a young age and stays with a person unless it is extinguished by some dimwit in authority.
The folks who make it through grad school with an acceptance of evolution are the ones that were either lucky enough to avoid bad teachers (i.e. dimwit in authority) or tough enough not to be affected by them. In this view it's not that grad school helps, it just where many people with a good attitude toward learning end up.
Posted by: AndyS | January 12, 2007 2:02 AM
Born, bred and living in Denmark, one of the LEAST fundamentalist countries in the world, I'd like to try to answer at least one of your questions.
No, our conservatives, who are currently in charge and still has us involved in Iraq despite any reason,
do not campaign against evolution.
Well, not yet, anyway.
But they -did- win the last election partly by
smearing what they called a "tyranny of experts",
in other words by defaming people smarter than they.
It still goes on, but currently there's a backlash to it as well.
So...
Shake the eight ball, 'cause the answer is hazy.
Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK | January 12, 2007 2:23 AM
but 'belief' is mostly used for questions of faith, etc.
Don't you folks have dictionaries or, um, educations, in logic and language, or even experience in the real world of English language users? Just because faith is belief doesn't mean belief is faith -- that confusion is a classic logical fallacy. Belief is simply assent to a proposition, and most uses of the word are not about faith. Faith is specifically belief without evidence. It should be needless to say that other beliefs, those not merely a matter of faith, are based on evidence.
Posted by: truth machine | January 12, 2007 2:39 AM
Two of the questions boiled down to exact opposites: one said "humans were created by God and did not evolve," the other said "humans did evolve."
These are not exact opposites.
It's logically impossible to answer "yes" to both or "no" to both.
Not only is it logically possible to do so, it is possible to do so without contradiction, as it is logically possible that humans did not evolve and were not created by God.
Moron.
Posted by: truth machine | January 12, 2007 2:45 AM
It's obvious that liberal thinking and education is impeding conservative thinking. We have to do something about that.
Posted by: dodo | January 12, 2007 3:14 AM
The acceptance of evolution is not a 'belief.'
Bzzzt! Wrong! "X accepts P but doesn't believe P" and "X believes P but doesn't accept P" are both logical contradictions.
For us to use 'belief' in conjunction with 'evolution' only supports the creationists claim that evolution is a belief, not something supported by scientific evidence.
Welcome to "False Dichotomy 101". People shouldn't get too self-congratulatory on being educated liberal evolution accepters when they have appallingly deficient skills in conceptual reasoning and language use.
Evolution is not a belief, it is a process. A "belief in evolution" -- that is, a belief that evolution occurs -- is supported by massive empirical evidence, well beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt; even fundies accept it (but blabber about micro- vs. macro- evolution). A (quite different) belief that the scientific theory of evolution, as a whole, best explains how and why evolution occurs is well supported by empirical evidence, the very empirical evidence that led to the formation of the theory. A belief that the theory of evolution is exactly correct, or is "true", is almost certainly mistaken; it certainly isn't warranted.
Posted by: truth machine | January 12, 2007 3:19 AM
Despite being liberal myself, I think the acceptance of good science ought to be independent of political affiliation; the data says it isn't.
Since "good" here surely means that the science is well enough supported to be accepted, it should be accepted independent of anything. What blocks that is a) recognition that good science is in fact good and b) recognition of science as what it is, an effective method for producing empirical explanations and predictions.
The chart is about belief in evolution, and that's a good word for it--if you are saying you agree that humans evolved from earlier species of animals because your political views say you should, you may not be evaluating the evidence rationally...or perhaps liberals are simply more receptive to education.
You're looking at (a) but ignoring (b), and thus getting it bass ackwards, and indulging in a fantasy that we generally accept, or should accept, scientific findings based upon "evaluating the evidence". Liberals are more likely to accept good science because, when they read that scientists think or found or accept some claim, they are more likely to conclude that the claim is true; they are more likely to believe it, even if they weren't educated in the relevant field of science. They do this just like any of us do this; if we read that physicists or astronomers or material scientists or archaeologists discovered such and such, we don't run out and become experts in the subject and repeat the experiments so as to "evaluate the evidence"; nor do we believe the claim "on faith". We believe it because our experience and knowledge of science and scientists tell us that such claims are generally likely to be true. But conservatives are less likely to accept the authority of science and scientists, less likely to accept science as the best source of knowledge about the world, more likely to evaluate scientific findings politically and to judge them true or false according to whether they match their beliefs -- conservatives are much more likely to be "consequentialists", accepting something as valid only if it fits their desires and prior expectations and beliefs. Evolution -- no, it doesn't fit their view of the primacy of man, it doesn't agree with the bible, and it's widely accepted by liberals (which is a strong reason for conservatives to reject anything these days). Global warming -- no, it doesn't fit their view of the benevolence of capitalism, business, and corporations, and it's widely accepted by liberals. Evidence against the effectiveness of the death penalty and the war on drugs, evidence of the consequences of childhood abuse on adult behavior, etc. -- no, it doesn't fit their view of free will, "responsibility", and social darwinism that justifies the status quo. "The Bell Curve" -- yes, it reinforces their biases and the status quo; for them, science is good if it justifies the rich being rich and the poor being poor as part of the natural order. This explains the power of neo-classical economists, pseudo-scientists of a high order, who not only theorize how the world necessarily is but (ironically) prescribe policies to make it that way, based on an utterly absurd and counter-factual model of human behavior.
It ain't just about liberals being receptive to education or believing in science as part of the party line.
Posted by: truth machine | January 12, 2007 4:17 AM
Posted by: John Owens | January 12, 2007 5:04 AM
Oh, also noted: the most likely numbers that come up at the low end producing 36% for fundamentalist liberals who haven't graduated grad school are multiples of 4/11 and 5/14. I wouldn't be quite so sure those would be under 50 (about 1.4% of total respondents), but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
Posted by: John Owens | January 12, 2007 5:10 AM
A question to the "truth machine":
What is true?
Something, like evolution, which rests on mountains of evidence,
or empty blather like "God!" which rests on... eh.. well.. what DOES it rest on? A boly hook, I mean holy book?
Something that merely affirms itself?
Do better.
Don't just spew "truthiness".
Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK | January 12, 2007 5:59 AM
And, Truthie-Spewie, stop conflating trust in Da Lawd with trust in science.
One has caused crusades,
the other has put men on the fucking moon.
Moron.
Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK | January 12, 2007 6:31 AM
Another small wrench I'd like to add...
It is possible to be conservative without being a religious whack-job. There are conservative atheists. It's been my experience that the word "conservative" is being perverted to mean "religious" or more particularly, "religious fundamentalist".
A conservative resists or wants to slow the pace of change. On a Venn diagram, that's a bigger circle than "religious whackjob" although the circle probably contains most of the religious whackjob circle.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | January 12, 2007 6:59 AM
The Evolving Squid
said:
"It is possible to be conservative without being a religious whack-job. There are conservative atheists. It's been my experience that the word "conservative" is being perverted to mean "religious" or more particularly, "religious fundamentalist".
Gee...
I wonder why that is?
Could it be because the Republican Party not only let the whack-jobs in... but ALSO gave 'em the reins to steer the party into their desired dominionist direction?
"A conservative resists or wants to slow the pace of change. On a Venn diagram, that's a bigger circle than "religious whackjob" although the circle probably contains most of the religious whackjob circle."
Heh...
True enough.
But a Goldwaterite is, at least, able to hold up his end of the discussion without foaming at the mouth...
unlike the Dobsonites.
Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK | January 12, 2007 7:15 AM
Well, I think it's pretty clear that *most* laymen don't base their opinions on scientific issues on evidence. It always amuses me that the same left-wing people who commiserate with me about creationists when they learn that I'm a molecular evolutionist can, five minutes later on in the conversation, turn around and start ranting about "Big Pharma", vaccination, and animal research.
To these people, scientific issues aren't really different from any other political opinion -- while they recognize that facts play a role, it is as if they think they are only there for rhetoric -- like in high school debate, where facts could be marshaled to support whatever side of the issue you were assigned to.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | January 12, 2007 7:23 AM
Jonathan Badger, please go ahead being blind.
It serves no-one, in the end, but liberals.
In American politics you either vote for the party of:
"The world is only 6000 years old, evolution is a lie and global warming is a myth!",
or you vote for semi-grown-ups.
Hard choice?
No.
Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK | January 12, 2007 8:03 AM
Truth machine: the problem with the wording "believe in evolution" is that it puts acceptance of evolutionary theory on the same plane as belief in a "revealed truth", which is precisely what it is not. Now you are correct that "I believe evolution occurred" is perfectly fine, but that is not how it is worded. "Believing in something" implies a different order of belief than "I believe something is the best explanation we have for something given the available evidence". I believe the big bang happened, based on the evidence, but I don't "believe in the big bang". I believe that ice comes from water, but I don't believe in ice. If someone comes up with a theory that better explains the data then I'll drop my belief that the big bang happened. Someone who believes in Christ's salvation or Islam or Buddhism or any other faith doesn't do so because of scientific evidence but for personal, subjective reasons.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | January 12, 2007 8:16 AM
What is astral projection?
Not only is it logically possible to do so, it is possible to do so without contradiction, as it is logically possible that humans did not evolve and were not created by God.
It is logically possible to answer "no" to both, as you demonstrate. But it's not possible to answer "yes" to both. A bit more care before you call people morons.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 12, 2007 8:18 AM
Argh! Forgot to close a blockquote tag. "My" third paragraph is by truth machine.
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 12, 2007 8:19 AM
Samnell said:
I agree that anti-intellectualism is rampant amongst modern social conservatives, as it is comprised almost entirely of Religious Right loons, but I'd love to know why it is you think that the ideology of, say, Smith-type fiscal conservatism "demands tradition take precedence over reason"? Whether liberal or conservative in any area, rationality demands that evidence guides ones allegiances.
HairlessMonkey DK said:
A huge sector of the American public voted the whack-jobs in, and picked those candidates who were steered in that direction already. The rise of the Religious Right in the Republican party is well-documented and isn't about the GOP "letting them in" -- it's about voters pouring out millions of dollars and votes to elect theocrats.
Jonathan said:
I think it's likened to a travesty -- "package" politics -- contrasted against "buffet" politics: you either swallow hook, line and sinker [the whole package], or you sample and consider the points of each side, and maybe even have the intellectual courage to take some positions on both sides of the fence [buffet]. Rational people would recognize that there are good points to be made all along the political spectrum, and not presuppose one political party is entirely right on their entire platform.
Many intellectuals (esp in history and economics depts) are fiscal conservatives and strongly advocate open markets. Most are probably not Evangelicals. Go to your local economics department and conduct this same survey, and you'll find a very large set of outliers -- a bunch of fiscal conservatives who respect science and simultaneously believe in restrained government powers + fiscal responsibility.
Posted by: Daniel Morgan | January 12, 2007 8:35 AM
This study (and the conversation surrounding it) only demonstrates that people who identify as either liberals or conservatives, in the United States of America, are usually morons.
Posted by: Caledonian | January 12, 2007 8:45 AM
David Marjanović wrote - "It is logically possible to answer 'no' to both, as you demonstrate. But it's not possible to answer 'yes' to both."
Also, that 62% answered 'yes' to the first question and 40% answered 'yes' to the second question, indicates that a larger number of people answered 'yes' to both than answered 'no' to both'.
Posted by: PhilB | January 12, 2007 9:01 AM
Well, as far as I can see from over here in the UK, the political self-indentification of "conversative" in the US has absolutely no relation to anything resembling tradional fiscal conservatism. The term "conservative" has become simply a marker of social identity, devoid of its original political meaning - much like the term "libertarian".
I mean, a real fiscal conservative would never argue that "deficits don't matter".
At this stage, the divergence between genuine, intellectually respectable conservativism and modern "movement convervatism" is extremely reminiscent of the divergence between the refined, esoteric ideas of the theologians and the frothing lunancy of the fundamentalists.
Posted by: Dunc | January 12, 2007 9:02 AM
Mister Morgan, I respond...
"A huge sector of the American public voted the whack-jobs in, and picked those candidates who were steered in that direction already. The rise of the Religious Right in the Republican party is well-documented and isn't about the GOP "letting them in" -- it's about voters pouring out millions of dollars and votes to elect theocrats."
I agree... to a certain extent.
But the GOP did indeed let them in.
Hell, they threw the gates wide open.
One of the more obvious examples
is how the Party of Lincoln became
the home of the Dixiecrats.
Free the slaves...
then turn around with whip in hand!
The... well... whateverness of it
is truly staggering. (Choose your own nasty word).
"I think it's likened to a travesty -- "package" politics -- contrasted against "buffet" politics: you either swallow hook, line and sinker [the whole package], or you sample and consider the points of each side, and maybe even have the intellectual courage to take some positions on both sides of the fence [buffet]."
Then go live in, or create, a country where that is even possible.
Here in Denmark, we have more than 5 political parties.
Is it heaven on earth? ...nahh, not by a medium-shot.
BUT:
We have more to choose from than to vote Repub or Dem.
But it is telling, isn't it, that here in the DK we
call -Right-wingers liberals?
Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK | January 12, 2007 9:10 AM
I have always said that it is not about believing in evolution, but rather it's do I understand the evidence for evolution, or am I educated enough about the subject to view it as real. Belief is a word too associated with faith, and so I shy away from it.
Posted by: TheBowerbird | January 12, 2007 9:20 AM
Truth machine, that was an excellent post.
Posted by: Ric | January 12, 2007 9:59 AM
One wonders about methodology here. My stock answer if some one asks me whether I 'believe' in evolution is to remark that I don't have to believe it, I KNOW that it occurs, evolution's a fact, etc.
What leads to be especially curious is that 14 percent of liberals with a graduate school education saying they don't 'believe' in evolution. Doesn't that make you wonder? I'll guess I'll have to wait for my copy of Science to learn more....SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield | January 12, 2007 10:07 AM
The association of anti-evolutionism with conservatism is not a particularly reassuring trend to me.
Then why your tendentious title? The data says that political conservatism is correlated with a rejection of evolution. It does not say that conservatism impedes acceptance of evolution.
Speaking as a conservative who discusses these things with other conservatives, I'd say you're looking partly at a correlation between conservatism and religiosity that the 'fundamentalist' category only partly factors out. More importantly, though, conservatives without much science education tend to be influenced by the prevalence of anti-evolution opinion among other conservatives; they don't really have a dog in the hunt, but see their political soulmates, if you like, adopting antievolution positions, so they take a few sound bites ('no transitional fossils' ;irreduucible complexity') and make it their position.
It's sad, but even 'educated' people seldom have the time or inclination to make themselves experts on every matter of importance. So they tend to 'import' opinions.
Posted by: Gerard Harbison | January 12, 2007 10:18 AM
Bah. I'd be far more interested in seeing how political orientation correlates with understanding of science, not just acceptance. Questions like, "true or false: the theory of evolution states that organisms will evolve toward more complex, higher forms over time". While it's nice that plenty of folks put their trust in biologists, I fear that all it is is a throwing-about of loyalties, rather than an understanding of the facts. The liberals in that graph might be just as ignorant of science as the conservatives, but be more inclined to believe various science authorities than to believe their pastors. I'm not saying it is so, but the root problem is a lack of critical thinking and understanding of how science works. Believing what science authorities say covers up the problem, but does not fix it.
Posted by: grendelkhan | January 12, 2007 10:36 AM
I would like to make two points. First, I commend PZ for saying "American political conservatism" as opposed to Republicans or just straight up conservatives. The "conservatism" that is responsible for a lot of this anti-evolution sentiment is more akin to popularism, as anecdoted by the comment from Denmark about the "tyranny of experts". What we are seeing in the fundamentalist political movement is not conservatism but a brand of theocratic socialism.
Which brings me to my second point: this title should be "... understanding of evolution", not "...understanding of science". All too often these debates, when they get politicized, blame conservatives for anti-science attitudes, when left-wing, liberal citizens can be just as anti-science. Think: astrology, diet supplements and homeopathic medicine, not to mention that a large contingent on the left is anti-technology (again, think GMOs, vaccines causing autism, etc.)
The larger over-arching common variable is education; it is simply that evolution in particular is rejected by the more 'conservative' religious people because of its implications for faith. But there are a host of people who aren't (traditionally) religious that have any number of wacky, anti-science opinions for similar reasons that 'conservatives' reject evolution. It's not that liberals tend to gravitate towards education; it's that the more educated you are the more likely you are to accept the scientific fact that your political ideology might predispose you to reject.
Posted by: Michael | January 12, 2007 10:41 AM
Dr. Badger makes a point that I think is worth additional examination. Most people don't base their opinions on evidence. Dr. Badger limits this to "laymen" and science questions; I'd broaden it. (If you'd like a hedge, perhaps "some people don't base their opinions on evidence some of the time.") "Facts" are often seen and used as advocacy tools. Facts that support a position we want are emphasized; contrary or problematic facts are ignored or "cross-examined" and explained away.
Of course, some people are less susceptible to this than others, and some people are amenable to fact- and evidence-driven decisionmaking on more subjects than others. But I think all of us avoid facts when they are inconvenient and inconsistent with what we want to believe, at least some of the time. And I think all of us hold some opinions and beliefs the underlying facts of which we've not examined.
There is a literature about how people form beliefs and make decisions, and the role of facts and evidence in these tasks. This latter is typically less important than we'd like, or say we'd like, especially when we don't like the belief espoused. Other people's stupid beliefs and opinions are not based on facts or evidence. We do not perceive our own stupid beliefs and opinions in that way. A popular examination of this is in Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things," and especially in the chapter in the revised edition about why "smart people" believe weird things. (This chapter is readily available online. Also readily available online is William Clifford's essay called "The Ethics of Belief," which is the "classic" and "standard" defense of the position that it is "always" wrong to hold opinions which are not based on sufficient evidence.)
It's troubling, especially to those who think truth matters. It also raises a couple of underlying questions about where truth fits on the hierarchy of values: Just how important "is" truth, and how important "should" truth be? There are lots of instances in which truth is held less important than other values. (Little white lies are obvious, but also consider various "exclusionary rules" in law, and "harmless" children's beliefs in tooth fairies and the like).
Posted by: Jeff Chamberlain | January 12, 2007 10:42 AM
These last few comments show exactly -why- one should read all previous comments before oneself begins sploogin'...
Just sayin'.
Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK | January 12, 2007 10:54 AM
Dangit, HairlessMonkeyDK, that's a lot of darn reading.
Of course, if I'd bothered to read the last paragraph of PZ's original post, I'd have noticed he was saying what I was saying anyway. Feh...
Posted by: grendelkhan | January 12, 2007 11:04 AM
Think: astrology, diet supplements and homeopathic medicine, not to mention that a large contingent on the left is anti-technology (again, think GMOs, vaccines causing autism, etc.)
Three's at least as much woo on the right and I suspect more. Water woo and gadget woo, "supplements", alien conspiracies, UFOlogy, etc etc are specialties of the right. Many anti-vaxxers are conservatives, too. I think that goes back to flouridation and "precious bodily fluids".
An admittedly small sample, but in my office the only full blown conservative is also the only one that is involved in woo.
Posted by: Graculus | January 12, 2007 11:18 AM
Thus spake I:
I guess there are three kinds of people, those that can count and those that can't... as you have figured out, it's "my" second paragraph that is truth machine's.
In the USA that word is used to smear those who are liberal on social issues (as in: government snoops out of my bedroom). In Europe (and Canada, at least) it's used by those who are liberal on economic issues (as in: government regulations out of my bank account) to proudly refer to themselves. The extremists of those latter people are called "libertarian" in the US, and their moderates "Clintonites" or "moderates" or suchlike. In Europe, Clintonites would be considered conservative, more or less. Certainly Kerry would be (he's for gay marriage as long as it's not called "marriage").
Posted by: David Marjanović | January 12, 2007 11:21 AM
Gerald Harbison:
Hmmmmm... An educated person can't be an expert on all topics, or even most topics. But must have some expertise in evaluating the rhetoric by which opinions are expressed, argued, and propagated. Even knowing nothing about evolution, and only a little about science, it should be clear to an educated person that creationists and IDers are religious ideologues masquerading a concern about science. The problem isn't merely that they get their facts wrong. It's more that their rhetoric shows a blithe lack of concern about facts, whether it is field data or what biologists actually say. The problem isn't merely that their arguments are full of holes, but that their arguments are pretense, that their beliefs are not dependent on the arguments they put forth, that their continual reference to science is mere masquerade, and that when you ferret their writings and explanations just a little, it becomes clear that what actually motivates their belief is quite different. In other words, education should help a person identify bogosity. And it doesn't take much to recognize the bogosity in creationism and ID. The reason Judge Jones's ruling in Kitzmiller so upsets that crowd is precisely that it was aimed at their bogosity. Jones didn't pretend to be and didn't need to be a biologist. He only needed to be decent at identifying bogosity.
Michael writes:
Absolutely. The important difference is that none of those anti-science views is central to liberal politics. Those are all fringe groups. No one has to make peace with the astrology crowd to run as a liberal politician. A conservative politician today has to make an accommodation with the religious right. The GOP has become the party of the religious right. It doesn't much matter whether that was because the old-time conservatives invited in the religious right, or because the religious right executed a good grassroots campaign to gain power. The deed is done. Maybe it can be undone. But it's important to understand how things stand now.
Posted by: Russell | January 12, 2007 11:23 AM
Grendelkahn didst utter:
"Dangit, HairlessMonkeyDK, that's a lot of darn reading."
So?
Stayin' power is good.
Or so the ladies tell me.
Heehhh...
Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK | January 12, 2007 11:26 AM
"The important difference is that none of those anti-science views is central to liberal politics. Those are all fringe groups. No one has to make peace with the astrology crowd to run as a liberal politician. A conservative politician today has to make an accommodation with the religious right. The GOP has become the party of the religious right."
Thankee, Russell, you ladies man, you!, for hammerin' home my point.
Exactomundo.
Posted by: HairlessMonkeyDK | January 12, 2007 11:30 AM
truth machine,
Liberals are more likely to accept good science because, when they read that scientists think or found or accept some claim, they are more likely to conclude that the claim is true
I'd love to see your evidence for this claim. As others have pointed out, there's plenty of antipathy to science and rationality amoung liberals too. In addition to the specific issues already mentioned, the New Age movement, which encompasses all manner of superstitious nonsense, seems to be populated largely by political and social liberals. I doubt you'll find many conservatives amoung the followers of DeepCrap Chopra or Marianne Williamson.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 12:28 PM
The suggestion that we need to be careful in using 'belief' when talking about evolution is supported by many leaders and thoughtful persons in the anti-creationism efforts where the appropriate FRAMING of messages is understood as being importent in getting a proper message across to the target audiences.
If one goes to the NCSE web site (http://www.ncseweb.org/) and seaches for the terms 'belief' and 'accept,' many citations on the topic will be displayed. Here is just one by Genie Scott from a post entitled "12 Tips for Testifying at School Board Meetings":
"6. Watch your words. Be careful using the words belief, theory, and fact. Belief is frequently associated with faith, so do not say that you believe in evolution, say instead that you accept evolution-as the best scientific explanation for the facts of astronomy, biology, geology, and other areas of science. Explain that in science theories are not guesses or hunches but explanations: evolution is the theory that explains the facts, including the fossil record, the geological strata, and the genealogical relationships among the species. Fact frequently connotes certainty and dogmatism, so do not say that evolution is a fact without explaining that you mean only that it is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence."
Posted by: vhutchison | January 12, 2007 12:31 PM
A 'traditional Scotsman' conservative's ideological lust for the Invisible Handjob or the Laugher Curve is no less irrational than Rapture Ready's Magic Beam-out or the NRA's faith in the automatic rifle's ability to solve all problems everywhere at once.
Even here, I see a lot of pining for the True Scotsman conservatism, which isn't wrong, you see, it was just perverted by those conservatives over there, who aren't like us truly true true conservative thinktanks right here who hold the true secret to conservatism.
Splitters.
Posted by: stogoe | January 12, 2007 12:35 PM
HairlessMonkeyDK:
If I had a mustache, I'd be twirling it about now. If I had a hectocotylus... ;-)
Posted by: Russell | January 12, 2007 12:35 PM
"The chart is about belief in evolution, and that's a good word for it--if you are saying you agree that humans evolved from earlier species of animals because your political views say you should, you may not be evaluating the evidence rationally..."
Exactly. Most Finns believe in evolution (about 1/3 of the population doesn't) but when you ask them about the mechanics behind evolution they really don't know much about the subject. It's the usual "humans evolved from monkeys" and "survival of the fittest" kind of thing.
Posted by: Mikko Sandt | January 12, 2007 12:47 PM
It's not that liberals tend to gravitate towards education; it's that the more educated you are the more likely you are to accept the scientific fact that your political ideology might predispose you to reject.
Even though I appreciate AndyS's point about correlation and causation, I also think that this point ... education having a direct effect ... is important. The reason I think that is because the popularist/conservative/whatever view on evolution is inherently utterly stupid, internally inconsistent, factually and logically wrong, that in order to espouse it you have to fall into one of three categories:
1) Basically ignorant
2) Willfully ignorant
3) Not ignorant but not educated enough yet.
I want to see data that breaks this down, because knowing the fine details of this model (or whatever model like it is most correct, but I'm wagering on this one for now) is critical for activists.
"In Theory" there is the group that is too pious or faith-driven that they can't believe anything else no matter how moronic it is. I believe that these are the creationists that are most likely to strap a bomb on themselves if and when it comes to that. But I don't think that makes up the majority. I think left on their own, those who can conceive of the broader picture, who encounter and learn about science and reason, have to force their faith related issues to come to terms with the world around them. There is plenty of room for that in various churches, etc.
In other words, I'm saying that the anti-evolution movement does not have many people who have these characteristics all together:
1) Intelligence;
2) Good education; and
3) A strong sense of honesty
I pray to god and knock on wood, and touch my lucky piece of dead skin I found in the woods. that I am not wrong on this.
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 12, 2007 12:51 PM
And for this god invented inclusive fitness???
Posted by: Michael Johnson | January 12, 2007 1:21 PM
I was looking at polling data for a recent post I did and found something curious. There was a poll that gave people two options, the first was "humans evolved according to Darwin's theory" (or something like that), and the second was "humans were created by God as described in the Bible" (also not a direct quote, but close enough). The numbers broke down in the usual way, with the God/Bible choice getting the majority. Then a separate poll was put out with the same two choices, but this time respondents were allowed to say both. You would think that almost no one would choose both, given that these are mutually exclusive options, but 26% said both!
It is not uncommon in polls for around 5% percent of people to make a logically impossible response, saying that they agree with two things that can't both be true, or that they disagree with something that is identical to what they also agree with. That's just an inherent weakness of polls -- the wording of the questions have a major effect on how people answer, sometimes even leading them to make a nonsensical choice. Either that, or some people are just stupid.
In this case however it's especially bad. I conclude that a large fraction of people don't really know what the Bible's literal story of creation is and/or they don't know that the story as described is not compatible with any form of evolution. They just see the God/Bible choice and they say, "Yes, I'm for that!" I wonder just how badly this has skewed polls on the subject of evolution.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | January 12, 2007 1:30 PM
Jonathan Badger wrote:
I must say though that none of these quite reaches Creationism's plane of denial.
Animal testing would seem to be more an issue of ethics than of science per se. (Stem-cell research might be a more appropriate comparison.) The mention of "Big Pharma" is rather ambiguous—are the persons in question attacking scientific medicine (advocacting for homeopathy or naturopathy of some stripe) or are they concerned about the influence of an industry lobby on the political process?
The MMR vaccination flap is much closer to the mark, however it still does not involve the wholesale dismissal of entire fields of scientific research.
Posted by: XPM | January 12, 2007 1:58 PM
It just seems to me that aromatherapy, alternative cancer treatments (apricot pits, anyone?), reflexology, Scientology, and astrology are all things more closely associated with the left than with the right. Christianity is the more "mainstream" of woo-woo ideologies, but I consider them all pretty much woo-woo.
That's just me thinking.
But this is just an aside to a question I've had for a week or two now: What announced Republican presidential candidate would the typical Pharyngula reader/poster even consider at this point? At one point several years ago, I could have found McCain palatable, depending on the Democratic opponent, but McCain would, I think, end up being the logical successor to Bush, which would be a completely illogical thing for American voters to endorse.
I don't foresee any circumstances whatsoever that would convince me to vote for McCain now.
So who does that leave?
What Republican would you consider? I'm coming up blanks, personally. I'd vote for Edwards, Obama, Clinton, or pretty much any of the Democratic "leaders" at this point. One exception: Dennis Kucinich. I wouldn't vote for him. But he's not a leader, and never will be. Always just a couple votes ahead of "Others."
What Republican would you vote for in 2008?
Posted by: MikeM | January 12, 2007 1:58 PM
Mike, Giuliani still seems to me the least objectionable of the GOP candidates. I reserve the right to change my mind, of course. Also, I think it's a mistake to view Scientologists as Democrats. They lept on Bush's support faith-based programs, and I believe they have a prison program not much different from Chuck Colson's.
Posted by: Russell | January 12, 2007 2:10 PM
Are any of these openly advocated by the politicians of the Democratic Party, however?
In precisely what sense is Scientology left-wing? It is vindictive and authoritarian in the extreme, but has little in the way of a coherent political ideology. Rather, it tends to attribute problems in human affairs to the re-enactment of traumatic "memory engrams" accumulated by "thetans" (souls) in previous lives.
Nancy Reagan?
There is a great gulf between a vague (and not necessarily accurate) "association" and brazen advocacy on the part of a movement's political and intellectual leadership.
Posted by: XPM | January 12, 2007 2:22 PM
Steve Reuland:
Why are those mutually exclusive options, given one takes the Biblical account as figurative? I'd say most of those who consider themselves "theistic evolutionists" WOULD answer "both."
Posted by: cdf | January 12, 2007 2:27 PM
XPM,
It seems to me that belief in occultism, reincarnation, channelling, crystal healing, quantum healing, homeopathy, astrology, angels, numerology, mysticism, auras, harmonic convergence, psi energy, telepathy, clairvoyance, astral projection, palmistry, psychokinesis, soul travel, past life regression and the numerous other idiocies that characterize the New Age movement and that seem to be associated much more with liberals than conservatives involve as much rejection of science and reason as creationism.
Posted by: Jason | January 12, 2007 2:34 PM
In this case however it's especially bad. I conclude that a large fraction of people don't really know what the Bible's literal story of creation is
I was an alter boy. I took religious training as a kid in which we studied the bible intensively. Went to Catholic school (for a while). All of my blood relatives that I ever knew on my mother's side were Franciscans, and many on my father's side (including one archbishop). I've read the NT multiple times and the OT once through and certain parts more than once. Most of this was a long time ago, but I have re-read selected favorite parts of the OT more recently.
(Oh, and I both READ the DaVinci code AND saw the movie!)
My favorite parts of the OT are about the spoils system god told Moses et.al. to use in warfare, about the role of physicians in performing abortions, stuff like that. Oh and of course dietary restrictions and behavioral prohibitions and punishments.
But I'm digressing. My point is, you are so right. Most people willing to go to the mat against a PhD toting evolutionary biologist about the science can't actually spend one round in the ring with someone who knows the bible even moderately well.
I love the bible. It so disproves the existence of god. And there is some great drama and ethnography in there. Needs editing, though.
"An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes"
Posted by: Greg Laden | January 12, 2007 2:36 PM
There was also a study done that showed that the people who used a more accurate definition of evolution were more likely to believe in it:
Americans