The Growing Disbelief in Evolution Among Republicans

[Skwim]

What's going on with these people?

"Significantly fewer Republicans believe in evolution than did so four years ago, setting them apart from Democrats and independents, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. But behind this finding is a puzzle: If the views of the overall public have remained steady, and there has been little change among people of other political affiliations, how does one account for the Republican numbers? Shouldn’t the marked drop in Republican believers cause a decline in the 60% of all adults who say humans have evolved over time?

​

What would explain the change in Republicans’ views on evolution?

The data on this question do not clearly point to any single explanation for the growing partisan gap in beliefs about evolution, and it’s possible that a combination of factors underlies this pattern."
source


​

Yo, you Republicans out there, care to explain?

 

[Alceste]

What's going on with these people?

"Significantly fewer Republicans believe in evolution than did so four years ago, setting them apart from Democrats and independents, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. But behind this finding is a puzzle: If the views of the overall public have remained steady, and there has been little change among people of other political affiliations, how does one account for the Republican numbers? Shouldn’t the marked drop in Republican believers cause a decline in the 60% of all adults who say humans have evolved over time?

​

What would explain the change in Republicans’ views on evolution?

The data on this question do not clearly point to any single explanation for the growing partisan gap in beliefs about evolution, and it’s possible that a combination of factors underlies this pattern."
source


​

Yo, you Republicans out there, care to explain?

I can explain, probably. The only way Republican numbers of denialists can be growing while the overall numbers remain the same is if non-denialists are fleeing the party, either becoming independents or for some other party.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The other aspect is entrenchment...i.e. they are sticking their heads deeper and deeper into the sand, ala Fox News and Limbaugh.
Seriously. If you actually listen to these traitors, you can foresee the end of America, assuming you're smart.
You will think you see the end of America if you get snowed under by them.

 

[metis]

The Republican Party has become an anti-science party. Consider that most of them also do not accept the established fact that there is global warming that is now quite obvious and where the data is substantial. Their main deity, Ronald Reagan, said that most pollution was caused by trees, so what should we expect from such a group?

Nope, their "scientists" are Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and the talking heads at Fox.

 

[Skwim]

The Republican Party has become an anti-science party. Consider that most of them also do not accept the established fact that there is global warming that is now quite obvious and where the data is substantial. Their main deity, Ronald Reagan, said that most pollution was caused by trees, so what should we expect from such a group?

Nope, their "scientists" are Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and the talking heads at Fox.

The Genius of Ronald Reagan: Direct Quotes from the Gipper Himself

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981
source



​

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I see that teaching the controversy is having positive results.

 

[outhouse]

It is not what they really believe.

Its all about what they want their party to believe. Belief in god is a requirement to be a a politician if you want to stay successful.

No other choice in the bible belt.


In Ca you could get away with more, and a few other states. But not all.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I see that teaching the controversy is having positive results.

Sorry Kilgore, I don't follow you turn of phrase. What do you mean?

 

[Moishe3rd]

What's going on with these people?

"Significantly fewer Republicans believe in evolution than did so four years ago, setting them apart from Democrats and independents, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. But behind this finding is a puzzle: If the views of the overall public have remained steady, and there has been little change among people of other political affiliations, how does one account for the Republican numbers? Shouldn’t the marked drop in Republican believers cause a decline in the 60% of all adults who say humans have evolved over time?

​

What would explain the change in Republicans’ views on evolution?

The data on this question do not clearly point to any single explanation for the growing partisan gap in beliefs about evolution, and it’s possible that a combination of factors underlies this pattern."
source


​

Yo, you Republicans out there, care to explain?

I suspect that the answer is going to depend on precisely how the question is asked.
Evolution as derived from Darwinian Theory and, Therefore, now accepted as irrefutable Scientific Fact where anyone who chooses to argue the point (Intelligent Design or any other variation) is considered as having a stone age mentality - is a rather silly premise.

There are gradations of everything in science and in today's world, much "science" is the politicized Flavor of the Day as to what is popular.
There was fierce "scientific" opposition to the Big Bang theory of the universe when it was first proposed as the notion that the Universe had a beginning was considered religious fantasy.

In any event, I suspect that Conservatives and Republicans are simply tired of having the notion of a strictly Accidental; Mechanical; Unfree; Random Universe where Nothing has any Meaning Whatsoever, being shoved down their throats.
As unappealing as it is to those who insist that the Universe is Meaningless and that Man is nothing more than a animal slave to random bacteria and cosmic radiation, the idea of an Ordered, Rational Universe where Man does, indeed, have Free Will seems a far more attractive alternative than the mechanistic Nothingness that is "Evolution."

 

[metis]

I suspect that the answer is going to depend on precisely how the question is asked.
Evolution as derived from Darwinian Theory and, Therefore, now accepted as irrefutable Scientific Fact where anyone who chooses to argue the point (Intelligent Design or any other variation) is considered as having a stone age mentality - is a rather silly premise.

There are gradations of everything in science and in today's world, much "science" is the politicized Flavor of the Day as to what is popular.
There was fierce "scientific" opposition to the Big Bang theory of the universe when it was first proposed as the notion that the Universe had a beginning was considered religious fantasy.

In any event, I suspect that Conservatives and Republicans are simply tired of having the notion of a strictly Accidental; Mechanical; Unfree; Random Universe where Nothing has any Meaning Whatsoever, being shoved down their throats.
As unappealing as it is to those who insist that the Universe is Meaningless and that Man is nothing more than a animal slave to random bacteria and cosmic radiation, the idea of an Ordered, Rational Universe where Man does, indeed, have Free Will seems a far more attractive alternative than the mechanistic Nothingness that is "Evolution."

If one refers to the ToE nowadays, they generally are not referring to Darwin's opinions, but are dealing with the massive data that's been collected on this matter. Nor does the ToE discount the possibility of theistic causation, and Darwin himself was actually an ordained lay minister in the Anglican Church, although he became more agnostic in his older age.

As an anthropologist, one of the things I had to do very early in my course what to explain both what the ToE is and isn't because so many walked into the classes with all sorts of false assumptions.

 

[Moishe3rd]

If one refers to the ToE nowadays, they generally are not referring to Darwin's opinions, but are dealing with the massive data that's been collected on this matter. Nor does the ToE discount the possibility of theistic causation, and Darwin himself was actually an ordained lay minister in the Anglican Church, although he became more agnostic in his older age.

As an anthropologist, one of the things I had to do very early in my course what to explain both what the ToE is and isn't because so many walked into the classes with all sorts of false assumptions.

Of course you are correct about Darwin.
However, I think you overlooked my - "There are gradations of everything in science and in today's world, much "science" is the politicized Flavor of the Day as to what is popular..."
It certainly appears to me that the majority of advocates of Evolution are taking the huge leap that it was Darwin's theories that "Science" has adopted which now "disprove" any "theistic" idea of Creation.
If that were not the case, there would not be such shrill opposition to those that DO posit a First Cause; Intelligent Design; and the like.

 

[metis]

Of course you are correct about Darwin.
However, I think you overlooked my - "There are gradations of everything in science and in today's world, much "science" is the politicized Flavor of the Day as to what is popular..."
It certainly appears to me that the majority of advocates of Evolution are taking the huge leap that it was Darwin's theories that "Science" has adopted which now "disprove" any "theistic" idea of Creation.
If that were not the case, there would not be such shrill opposition to those that DO posit a First Cause; Intelligent Design; and the like.

When you run across such people, these are those who don't have a scientific agenda but an atheistic one (in some cases, possibly agnostic, if they're attempting to give reason why they believe a deity may not have had to exist in order to create all). The ToE in neutral on this matter.

I.D. may be another matter as it is not a scientific theory or hypothesis, so there's obviously a great reluctance to have it taught in a public school setting as science.

 

[Moishe3rd]

When you run across such people, these are those who don't have a scientific agenda but an atheistic one (in some cases, possibly agnostic, if they're attempting to give reason why they believe a deity may not have had to exist in order to create all). The ToE in neutral on this matter.

I.D. may be another matter as it is not a scientific theory or hypothesis, so there's obviously a great reluctance to have it taught in a public school setting as science.

Of course.

My main point was, and is, that this PEW survey is probably a Response to those in the vocal majority who wish to denigrate or "disprove" religion by shoving "evolution" into people's faces.
I'm pretty sure that there are far more "evolutionists" hostile to the idea of religion than there are religious people (or Republicans) hostile to the idea of evolution.

 

[Alceste]

Of course.

My main point was, and is, that this PEW survey is probably a Response to those in the vocal majority who wish to denigrate or "disprove" religion by shoving "evolution" into people's faces.
I'm pretty sure that there are far more "evolutionists" hostile to the idea of religion than there are religious people (or Republicans) hostile to the idea of evolution.

How do you account for the statistic showing that overall, the numbers haven't changed? IOW, the same proportion of Americans overall believe in creationism as ever. Only the number of Republicans who believe in it is climbing.

I can't see any other way to account for that except that those who accept science are leaving the party, or those who reject it are joining.

Nobody is changing their minds, in other words. At least not as far as these statistics show.

 

[metis]

I'm pretty sure that there are far more "evolutionists" hostile to the idea of religion than there are religious people (or Republicans) hostile to the idea of evolution.

I'm not certain of this. How many times have I been told I'm going to hell by many "religious" because I don't believe as they do? And how many people have we seen go through here on various threads telling science-oriented people here that we really don't know science because we don't parrot a literalistic interpretation of the creation accounts? I've seen a great deal of hostility towards science from so many on both the political and religious right, and evolution is not the only area.

 

[Skwim]

Of course.

My main point was, and is, that this PEW survey is probably a Response to those in the vocal majority who wish to denigrate or "disprove" religion by shoving "evolution" into people's faces.

In as much as 84% of the world's population has religious faith*, just what "majority" are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure that there are far more "evolutionists" hostile to the idea of religion than there are religious people (or Republicans) hostile to the idea of evolution.

I highly doubt any poll has asked evolutionists if they're "hostile" to the idea of religion, although some polls have asked religious people about their stance, not hostility, toward evolution

​

So, considering the above poll, which shows 60% of adults believing in evolution and that many Christians---which help make up the 84% of religious people in the world---believe in evolution, I strongly suspect that there are NOT " far more "evolutionists" hostile to the idea of religion than there are religious people hostile to the idea of evolution

* source

 

[viole]

What's going on with these people?

"Significantly fewer Republicans believe in evolution than did so four years ago, setting them apart from Democrats and independents, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. But behind this finding is a puzzle: If the views of the overall public have remained steady, and there has been little change among people of other political affiliations, how does one account for the Republican numbers? Shouldn’t the marked drop in Republican believers cause a decline in the 60% of all adults who say humans have evolved over time?

​

What would explain the change in Republicans’ views on evolution?

The data on this question do not clearly point to any single explanation for the growing partisan gap in beliefs about evolution, and it’s possible that a combination of factors underlies this pattern."
source


​

Yo, you Republicans out there, care to explain?

Well, they are not really republicans if they believe that Kingdoms are a better way of organizing things.

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

I don't see how evolution can even be on the table as a live option to reject.I think evolutionary scientists should up their game in presenting the basic evidence in a simple way, a compelling way, in a systematic and directed way. This is disturbing and bizarre.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sorry Kilgore, I don't follow you turn of phrase. What do you mean?

Teach the Controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course.

My main point was, and is, that this PEW survey is probably a Response to those in the vocal majority who wish to denigrate or "disprove" religion by shoving "evolution" into people's faces.
I'm pretty sure that there are far more "evolutionists" hostile to the idea of religion than there are religious people (or Republicans) hostile to the idea of evolution.

I think it's more of a vocal minority of evolutionists doing that.

Someone recently said that there are different kinds of anthropology. Cultural and Biological anthropology. Cultural is about our development and "evolution" of thought, belief, religion, society etc. While biological is about, well, our physical appearance. Those two are two different sub-sciences to anthropology. There's no need to have them in conflict. They both suggest two different lines of development of the human species. Religion isn't in conflict with biology, unless a person thinks it is.