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.
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.
They create their own reality.
..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..
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.
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.
It was Zayre which is even closer to “Zaire”. Funny story. Thanks for sharing it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It was Zayre which is even closer to “Zaire”.
Right! Thanks for the correction.
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.
I wonder what the graph would look like for a belief in astrology, or astral projection, or reincarnation. That’d be an interesting study.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It’s obvious that liberal thinking and education is impeding conservative thinking. We have to do something about that.
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.
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.
Might be worth pointing out that the smallest sample that can get 71% as seen in the graph is five out of seven, and most (if not all-I haven’t been excruciatingly thorough) of the possibilities up to sample size 50 should be simple multiples of 5/7. I suspect that, out of 3673, they didn’t find more than 50 liberal fundamentalist grad school graduates.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is astral projection?
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.
What is astral projection?
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.
Argh! Forgot to close a blockquote tag. “My” third paragraph is by truth machine.
Argh! Forgot to close a blockquote tag. “My” third paragraph is by truth machine.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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?
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.
Truth machine, that was an excellent post.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
These last few comments show exactly -why- one should read all previous comments before oneself begins sploogin’…
Just sayin’.
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…
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.
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”).
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”).
Gerald Harbison:
Grendelkahn didst utter:
“Dangit, HairlessMonkeyDK, that’s a lot of darn reading.”
So?
Stayin’ power is good.
Or so the ladies tell me.
Heehhh…
“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.
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.
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.”
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.
HairlessMonkeyDK:
If I had a mustache, I’d be twirling it about now. If I had a hectocotylus… ;-)
“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.
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.
And for this god invented inclusive fitness???
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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”
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 with an incorrect definition of
Evolution (32% of public)
Eliminate evolution from textbooks 33%
Keep evolution in textbooks 55%
Not sure 12%
Americans who chose the correct definition of Evolution (48% of public)
Eliminate evolution from textbooks 21%
Keep evolution in textbooks 70%
Not sure 9%
A less complete understanding of Evolution leads to supporting its elimination from science classes.
From “People for the American Way” survey
Evolution and Creationism In Public Education:
An In-depth Reading Of Public Opinion
March 2000.
[Blatant Plug, I’m trying to get people to sign my: guys not named Steve Project: http://jason.donev.com/notnamedSteve.htm about evolution vs. creation]
XPM, you are right, Democrats aren’t out pushing Scientology. They don’t push it, ever. The Republicans push Christianity.
On the other hand, if you’re a Scientologist, it seems far more likely you’re not a Republican than that you are. Just like some Baptists are Democrats, but most aren’t.
Point being, there are woo-woos on the left, too. A Different Kind of Woo-Woo.
Unfortunately, it seems like you MUST be a Christian to get elected in this country, even if you’re a Democrat. If Clinton had been an atheist, we’d never have heard of him. He had to “believe” to get elected. I think he was pretending to believe, personally.
Eyes really roll when I say I think Acupuncture is worthless; it’s mostly more liberal people who roll their eyes the most.
I think we have to accept that there are A LOT of woo-woos who happen to be liberals. The distinction is you almost have to be a Christian woo-woo to be a Republican.
Daniel:
“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”?”
I’m not familiar with Smith, but I can respond to fiscal conservativism in general.
I see fiscal conservativism as having virtually identical social structure and power distribution outcomes as that of the theocons. The difference is one of emphasis: fiscals cons prefer to roll back social programs. This would result, and has, in the vast preponderance of power locating itself among the very wealthy and well-connected. This is the traditional capitalist hierarchy. This hierarchy is not established by merit, as most of the hierarchy gets there by inheritance, nor is it sustained by merit as the wealthy get titanic advantages from their fortunate birth.
So it comes down again to a preference for traditional authorities. Where theocons prefer that the religious authorities have paramount import, for fiscal cons it’s the wealthy. They like to dress this up in terms of the market being rational, and it is true that one can construct fully or mostly rational market scenarios, it does not appear that these scenarios describe the actual market very well. Homo economicus, for example, is presumed to be perfectly rational (And I envy him in it, but who is like this in reality?) and in possession of perfect information. This would require an omniscience that we also do not possess. We can craft free-market fables that impose some kind of rational, if ruthless, market discipline upon society. But these fables are just that. The unfettered market does not bring prosperity to all, or even most.
All of this is very obvious beneath the smear of Randriod libertarianism, but it’s common to starve-the-beast conservatives in general. It’s difficult to take the conservatives at their word that they have in mind a rational remodeling of society when the obvious outcomes of their policies are rather to further ossify the social and power structures.
(I disagree strongly with the inclusion of angels in this list, but no matter.)
I have not seen any open endorsement of such nonsense by the Democratic party or its advocates. Indeed I have not seen it appear in a political context at all outside of the clownish antics of the Natural Law party. Creationism and its stalking horse “Intelligent Design” on the other hand have become part of mainstream right-wing thought in the United States to the point that figures such as Coulter openly slander respectable (and heretofore apolitical) scientific research with seeming impunity.
I have not seen any open endorsement of such nonsense by the Democratic party or its advocates.
My point was to rebut the claim, advanced by truth machine and echoed by you, that liberal Americans are clearly more receptive to science and reason than conservative Americans. I see no clear evidence to support that claim.
The claim that the institutionalized conservative movement in America, and in particular the Republican Party, is more likely to reject science than its liberal counterpart is a somewhat different claim. You may be right about that, but I think the difference isn’t nearly as large as you’re suggesting. For example, according to Arianna Huffington, Hillary Clinton, who is certainly considered a leader in the Democratic Party, sponsored a bill requiring that “alternative theories” of creation be discussed in all government buildings.
For example, according to Arianna Huffington, Hillary Clinton, who is certainly considered a leader in the Democratic Party, sponsored a bill requiring that “alternative theories” of creation be discussed in all government buildings.
I’m not questioning you on this statement, but I’d love to get the link or citation for that. Thanks in advance.
Well, creationism certainly impinges on my research more, but in terms of damage done and loss of human life, I’m not so sure which is worse.
There’s really very little difference between the arguments against fetal stem cell research and animal testing in my experience except for the political orientation of most of the arguers. They both tend to argue that science could get along just fine without the methods they object to and fail to see that the fact that the methods *are* being used is good evidence to the contrary. Scientists in general don’t like hurting animals (particularly fuzzy mammals), nor do most want to get involved in the whole issue of when “human life begins” — but the fact is animal models and fetal cells are needed for a lot of research.
Generally there’s no way to separate those cases — that’s why “Natural Cures They Don’t Want You to Know About” has sold so many copies — “they” means “Big Pharma” and their supposed lackeys — scientists and physicians. “Of course” scientists argue against herbal remedies and for vaccination — we’ve been bribed by “Big Pharma” to do so.
Greg Laden,
Never mind. She was joking.
I have not, in my own observation of Scientology noted any evident preponderance of Democrats among its adherents. In any case, despite the religion’s high public profile, Scientology is miniscule compared to the Southern Baptist Church, which is the United States’ largest single denomination. I would also like to point out that Sonny Bono, the only Scientologist to be elected Senator (and originator of the eponymous and odious Copyright Term Extension Act) was a Republican.
It isn’t so much the case that only Christians can be elected (many recent counterexamples come to mind) as that atheists are uniquely excluded.
I see no reason to suspect that Clinton’s Christianity was anything less than genuine (He certainly attended services with greater regularity than the typical American citizen, or indeed the current President.)
So it isn’t exclusively “liberals”? (How do you personally define “liberal”? American conservatives seem to simply use it to lump together all dissent from their position, to better serve as a unified target for calumny.)
Again, I must take issue with the blase use of “liberal”. In any case, if you were referring to Democratic supporters, does this mean that there are proportionally as many, or merely “some”? I have not ever seen the sort of anti-science agitation from the mainstream American left that I might have expected were this the case.
Steve Reuland: Do you have a link for the poll in which 26% of the people held mutually exclusive beliefs? I would like to see the specific wording and sample size.
cdf: If one option indeed said “Darwin’s theory” instead of just “evolution” then they are indeed mutually exclusive, since Darwin’s theory of the mechanism of evolutionary change is natural selection, which strongly contradicts a theistic “theory” for the mechanism of evolutionary change. “Theistic evolutionists” accept the fact of evolutionary change (what Darwin called “decent with modification”) but not the scientific theory for the mechanism of evolutionary change, insisting instead on a supernatural (and anti-scientific) reason for such change.
I have not, in my own observation of Scientology noted any evident preponderance of Democrats among its adherents. In any case, despite the religion’s high public profile, Scientology is miniscule compared to the Southern Baptist Church, which is the United States’ largest single denomination. I would also like to point out that Sonny Bono, the only Scientologist to be elected Senator (and originator of the eponymous and odious Copyright Term Extension Act) was a Republican.
Here is Wikipedia’s list of noted scientologists. If you can find a conservative on that list, let me know.
I expect there are more Republicans/conservatives in the SBC than there are Democrats/liberals, but that’s just one denomination of one religion. Within organized religion as a whole, the numbers are probably more even, and if you consider adherents of informal religions and religion-like belief systems (e.g., New Age beliefs) as well, then I doubt there is much difference.
cdf,
“humans were created by God and did not evolve,”
vs.
“humans did evolve.”
If these are the exact statements used in the poll, then:
Notice the “and” in the first statement. If you answer “yes”, you are accepting both parts (that’s what “and” means)
“humans did not evolve” and “humans did evolve” are mutually exclusive.
The only by misunderstanding the statements, or by inability to think logically could someone answer “yes” to both.
Margaret:
You can see poll listed on this page about 1/3rd of the way down. Here is how the question was worded:
“Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on Earth: the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists, the biblical account of creation as told in the Bible, or are both true?”
To me those are mutually exclusive options. I suppose one could take “as told in the Bible” to mean taking the Bible figuratively, but that’s certainly not how the question is framed. The fact that the pollster solicited a “both” option however probably led a lot of people think that “both” is a legitimate, non-schizophrenic choice. Still, I contend that few people who know anything about the evo/cre debate would pick option 3. Most people who picked that were probably thinking that they don’t want to be against God and the Bible, because those are Good Things, but they don’t quite realize that the Bible stories, if taken literally, are not reconcilable with evolution (or anything else in modern science).
Scott Hatfield:
Fine arts majors :-)
Sample size, sample size, how are the questions worded, sample size. Without that, the graph means little to nothing.
XPM:
the Southern Baptist Church, which is the United States’ largest single denomination
um, No. That’s the second time I’ve heard someone say that in the last couple of weeks: seriously, where are you getting that idea from? Because I thought everybody knew that Roman Catholicism is by far the largest denomination in the US, and has been since the mid-19th century.
Hey! I have a BFA. I can assure you it’s not the fine arts majors.
“‘Theistic evolutionists’ accept the fact of evolutionary change (what Darwin called “decent with modification”) but not the scientific theory for the mechanism of evolutionary change, insisting instead on a supernatural (and anti-scientific) reason for such change.”
I consider myself a theistic evolutionist, and I disagree. The disagreement may be in our definition, however, and so I don’t wish to debate about it. My only point was that the two (evolution and religious faith) are not mutually exclusive. One can fully accept evolution, even by means of natural selection and “random” mutations, while still believing in a deity (even a personal God).
Steve Reuland:
Yes, the statements you quote are mutually exclusive. No sane person who has the slightest idea what the scientific theory of evolution is, and also has any clue what the bible says, can agree with both statements. However they are not exhaustive. Someone who believes in the bizarrely inconsistent & unscientific theory of “theistic evolution” (which is the official position of the Catholic Church), would not agree with either statement. If there wasn’t a clear “neither” option, they they might have been trying to say that they partially agreed with both statements. That is, 1. God did it (but not the way the bible says) and 2. evolution (“decent with modification,” in Darwin’s phrase) occurred, but it did not take place the way the scientific theory says (through natural selection).
Of course, anyone who has the faintest clue about the evidence for “decent with modification” would have to conclude that any god(s) who controlled/guided the process couldn’t possibly be all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing, but that’s another topic.
cdf:
Yes, it is a matter of definitions. To the best of my understanding, you are a theist and a scientific evolutionist, not a theistic evolutionist. In the phrase “theistic evolution,” “theistic” modifies “evolution,” indicating that the process of evolution is controlled/guided by a god (or other supernatural force).
I am not a theist myself, but I see no conflict between being a deist or theist (with a suitably non-interfering definition of god), and accepting what science has to say about the real world. To the contrary, I think the conflict would be between a belief that evolution was controlled by a god, and the belief that the god was all-good/knowing/powerful. You can believe in an all-good/knowing/powerful god (even a personal god) who keeps a hands-off policy towards the (physical) world. But once you start to think that there is a god that tinkers with evolution, you would have to deduce that he/she/it is incompetent and/or evil.
Steve_C
Ah, but we are talking about the 14% of the non-fundie, liberal, GRAD students who don’t believe in evolution! Clearly you didn’t get the memo that says to be such a grad student in the fine arts, you need to show you’ll create new works that challenge the status quo. Since belief in evolution in this category IS the status quo, you would not qualify. Sorry, your advanced education will have to be in science or the humanities.
My other hypothesis is that the 14% comes from education majors getting their masters degrees in order to beef up their salaries. (with apologies to Scott who I think is a great and quite competent guy) One of the taboo subjects in education is the quality of a PhD in Education. I know one of them quite well, with a PhD from a well-respected U and he would be the first to admit that his PhD in Ed is, well, at best suspect. (Not to say they are all like that. Just that some are a bit like ensuring the great left tackle makes it through the semester.)
test
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.
This may be the most stupid comment ever directed my way on this blog. Did this cretin actually take me to be a theist, or a justifier of theism?
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”
That’s like saying that wanting to blow your nose puts the desire to blow your nose on the same plane as wanting to blow up the world.
Try to pay attention to the context here, which is a label on a chart, not direct access to mental states. The person who created the chart apparently considers “believes in evolution” to be equivalent to “believes that evolution occurs” — go argue with him/her. The point is that the distinction, valid or not, simply isn’t relevant here; people (PZ in particular) are reading way too much into the label.
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.
Look, moron, it is possible to give all sorts of answers, right or wrong, to all sorts of questions; like wolfwalker, you seem incapable of grasping the difference between it being logically impossible to make a statement, and making a statement that is a logical contradiction, even after I point out the difference.
Beyond that, I didn’t say that one answer “yes” to both without contradiction, did I, moron? But, that one can answer “no” to both without contradiction is sufficient to refute wolfwalker’s claim (taking into account the above mentioned confusion) that it’s logically impossible to answer “yes” to both or “no” to both, moron.
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’.
That’s just swell, and wolfwalker would have done fine if s/he had said that one couldn’t answer “yes” to both without contradiction. But that’s not what s/he said; s/he said that one couldn’t answer “yes” to both or “no” to both, because the two questions are “exact opposites”. But that claim is false, and my point is that a lot of people are oh so smug about being educated, and accepting evolution on the evidence, when they are unable to do the simplest logical operations.
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.
And they would be right to do so. As I noted, it’s a fantasy to suppose that we evaluate scientific claims based upon the evidence. We only do that in fields where we already have sufficient background and interest; in most cases we accept the predominate view of scientists, without much if any further examination, because we understand that science is a self-correcting discipline and so this is an excellent heuristic — it usually, but not always, leads to correct belief. But people who don’t understand science see the (scientific) pronouncements of scientists to be just like the pronouncements of pastors or politicians or the guy next door and, lacking this excellent heuristic, they end up with fewer correct beliefs.
My point was to rebut the claim, advanced by truth machine and echoed by you, that liberal Americans are clearly more receptive to science and reason than conservative Americans. I see no clear evidence to support that claim.
You’re not looking. A wide swath of “conservatives” reject the sort of science I referred to — evolution, global warming, death penalty and war on drugs statistics, the naturalistic basis for crime, etc. — because these are at odds with their political prejudices, which are toward the rich, the powerful, the poor, the incarcerated, all being in their proper place according to natural law and just rewards. OTOH, aromatherapy not only doesn’t have any great significance, but is only indulged in by a tiny fraction of the population that is most likely apolitical or idly rich; it’s not a big thing in, say, the labor movement. And in any case, it isn’t the sort of thing that gets a lot of scientific research and frequent citations that contradict widespread beliefs — that’s a distinguishing feature between the anti-science views of conservatives and the sort of woo woo you mention, much of which (e.g., astrology, UFOs, anti-flouridation and vaccination, Scientology — which takes lots of money) is as likely to be embraced by conservatives as liberals.
Here is Wikipedia’s list of noted scientologists.
It doesn’t say “noted”, it says “celebrity“. Sheesh. That’s a tiny fraction of all scientologists. And many of the listed people “practice” at the CoS “Celebrity Center” in Hollywood, where they are waited on hand and foot by members of the “Sea Org”, attractive young people who have signed billion (sic) year contracts of service. The Celebrity Center and its membership is an element of CoS’s PR, to which they devote a lot of resources. Those members are not at all typical of CoS membership. Nor do they really have anything to do with the subject being discussed, as they get a “celebrity” version of Scientology that (aside from its anti-psychiatry component) omits a lot of the wackiness.
AndyS: You made me laugh.
truth machine: SEVEN consecutive posts? Is that a personal best? Is blogging an exhibition sport in the next Olympics and, if so, are you trying to qualify?
You get my vote.
The graph you’re discussing is part of a much more elaborated analysis: Allan Mazur (2005), “Believers and Disbelievers in Evolution”, Politics and the Life Sciences 23(2), 55-61. The PDF is freely available at http://tinyurl.com/yanw99
Some of the comments are a bit misleading, see the article for a more in-depth multivariate evaluation. Just two remarks:
– The original question didn’t mention “belief”. Respondents were asked about their opinion how true some statements are. The analysis is not about abstract “understanding of science”, it’s about the acceptance of evolution as the appropriate explanation.
– When it comes to the acceptance of evolution, educational attainment has a moderate influcence and scientific knowledge isn’t related. That’s really not surprising because most lay people don’t know much about biology. Why should they? Nethertheless, they know that scientists are of the opinion that evolution is the adequate explanation and they accept their scientific expert judgement.
truth machine,
A wide swath of “conservatives” reject the sort of science I referred to — evolution, global warming, death penalty and war on drugs statistics, the naturalistic basis for crime, etc. —
A wide swath of liberals (sorry, “liberals”) reject other sorts of science, the sorts science that conflict with their New Age belief systems, for example. Your statements about global warming, the death penalty, the war on drugs etc. aren’t very meaningful without more specifics. There are certainly grounds for disagreement on various aspects of those issues that does not involve anyone “rejecting science.” For example, there is no scientific consensus on the vast majority of empirical questions relating to global warming, and no consensus amoung policymakers on the proper response. It is a serious mistake to confuse political judgments with claims of scientific knowledge, and a serious mistake to confuse skepticism about scientifically controversial claims with “rejection” of science.
So I’m still waiting for your evidence that “Liberals are more likely to accept good science.”
When I first graduated from high school, I would have classified myself as a conservative, much to the consternation of my civil rights & Vietnam war protest marching mother. I wasn’t religious, despite the best efforts of my grandmother, and I agreed at that time, though with limited knowledge, that evolution seemed to explain the way the world worked. In a nutshell I was a conservative, non-fundie, high school graduate who “believed” in evolution. I also agreed that the Big Bang theory and plate tectonics theory seemed to respectively explain the origins of the universe (or at least the increasingly obvious incredible age of the universe), and how the Earth worked geologically.
As I “evolved” as a person, and became more aware of how the GOP functioned, etc., I gradually became more liberal to the point where I today consider myself more of a progressive or a socialist.
So, my personal version of that graph would be:
Conservative/high school grad/non-fundie: believe in ev.
Moderate/College grad/non-fundie: believe in ev.
Liberal/Grad School/non-fundie: believe in ev.
Personal note, I can’t stand the phrase “believe in evolution.” I think it somewhat aids ID-ists, creationists, etc., in their efforts to discredit evolution (and their general assault on the word “theory”). Perhaps something along the lines of “I accept that the evidence strongly supports the theory of evolution.” Or “my personal observations have confirmed evolutionary theory…”
This survey is trite and is nothing more than a witch hunt or in the least, a bashing orgy of stone throwing at Bible believing scholars and scientists.
It has no place in legitimate science; for it merely makes the point: that some scientist reduce evolution to mere belief. For if they really regarded it as fact, they’d not even be trashing Christians in the vein of this survey and this blog. Read on…
You speak of facts, yet you are missing one very important fact: speciation has never been observed, let alone repeated in a lab that could substanciate the actual living species as to origins. Hence, my only conclusion is that none of you that embrace macroevolution do not do so because of proven repeatability and empirical methods that prove some natural law; but merely, because it suits your philosophy and nothing more – that is the reason you treat it as dogma.
You really want to be a true scientists? Then stop treating this particular science as a religion. Indeed, your greatest tool is skepticism; for in the end, it will either confirm or deny what you currently treat as myth and fiction.
What a sad, sad, and pathetic commentary on the narrow mindedness of some scientists; I really do feel sorry for so many of you so caught up in a storm of political corruption in this issue; you have long abandoned your moral equivalent to the hippocratic oath, so to speak.
~ Tim Mallow
Hence, my only conclusion is that none of you that embrace macroevolution do not do so because of proven repeatability and empirical methods that prove some natural law; but merely, because it suits your philosophy and nothing more – that is the reason you treat it as dogma.
One question I have never seen one person taking your viewpoint explain.
Why do theistic evolutionists exist then? They are often Christian, and so don’t have to believe in evolution for dogmatic reasons. Yet they accept it, and often write extensive defences of it from an evidence based standpoint. Why would they do this? Why would someone who doesn’t buy into atheistic dogma support something that has, as you believe, no evidence?
I’ll turn the question in this way: Why are the educated fundamantalists who do not ‘believe’ in evolution retaining a skepticism on the question of speciation? Is it due to lack of sufficient evidence or blind faith in a religious doctrine that is perceived contrary to the theory posed by evolution?
That would be the more interesting survey; for it would detail that most of them, like me, hold the view, not due to some theological doctrine, but because it is akin to not fulfilling the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ criteria in a court of law.
Again, I maintain the skepticism due to insufficient evidence. So in effect, I am being honest as a scientist – without letting my personal Christian beliefs dictating any conclusion in this matter.
As to your question, the theistic apostles of macroevolution are maintaining an open ended view without really solidifying it in the same sense that Newton’s laws are easily demonstrated at will in a lab.
~Tim
“Questions like, “true or false: the theory of evolution states that organisms will evolve toward more complex, higher forms over time”. ”
so the answer is….
FALSE.
the TOE says nothing about complexity and nothing about smoking pot or getting high.
Tim Mallow,
You speak of facts, yet you are missing one very important fact: speciation has never been observed, let alone repeated in a lab that could substanciate the actual living species as to origins … I’ll turn the question in this way: Why are the educated fundamantalists who do not ‘believe’ in evolution retaining a skepticism on the question of speciation? Is it due to lack of sufficient evidence or blind faith in a religious doctrine that is perceived contrary to the theory posed by evolution?
Observed Instances of Speciation. That link took me about 30 seconds to find with Google. The article ends with an extensive list of references to the primary literature. The problem seems to be not a lack of sufficient evidence, but the fact that you’ve never bothered to look for it.
Really, the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, and the fact of evolution, obviously including speciation, is so overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, that I see no plausible reason for your “skepticism” other than your “personal Christian beliefs.”
Samnell,
I appreciate your effort to respond. I do want to point something out — I think everyone who calls themselves “liberal” or “conservative” has a sort of “priority list” wherein their own values influence how they rank issues like environmentalism, unemployment, deficits, social/civil liberties…etc. Therefore, I call myself a fiscal conservative, but I voted straight “D” in the midterm election. Why?
i)The GOP has completely abandoned fiscal conservatism
ii) ALL of their other policies — from foreign policy to anti-science to the theocratic agendas, are so FUBAR’d that I could never in good conscience vote for them.
That said, I think there are points to be made on both sides of the aisle on nearly any issue. And, although I hold myself as a fiscal conservative and Jeffersonian with respect to civil liberties, I am not a laissez-faire capitalist, nor a Randroid.
“Dress up” is a game. Rational arguments are not.
I think the question is fairly simple along many lines of economics:
1) Is it completely “either/or”? Can the government regulate “free markets” without completely destroying their freedom? How much freedom is necessary for the competitive elements to remain successful and function?
2) Does Smith-type competition answer why government cannot run any business better than private companies? If not, what does?
3) Is it more rational, given (1) and (2), to support free markets [with regulation] or to support the government’s desire to subsume industries, commerce and services?
First, I won’t argue for laissez-faire capitalism. Second, you’re right. Capitalism doesn’t bring prosperity to all. The question is — what system does bring prosperity to most?
Some of them — yes. But, some of them have, as you admitted in the first, rational arguments and no ulterior motives. We are far past the days [and therefore the issue] of “unfettered markets” in 99.9% of markets. We have labor unions and government regulations on working conditions and hours and ages…etc. And so really, what we have to do is sit down with economists and business leaders and ask them:
“Why should we privatize X?” “Why should we socialize Y?”
This is especially important in terms of healthcare.
I wonder about the liberal fundamentalists. My wife self-identified as a fundamentalist, but she was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun, despised people like Robertson and Falwell, and certainly didn’t have a problem with evolution. I have to wonder how many of those educated liberal fundamentalists are like my wife was.
I have to admit that I didn’t have time to read the comments, so don’t know if others have covered this better than 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.”
Why is there such a know-it-all attitude at this blog. I have found that most folks who know a lot, don’t need to take this tack.
I am a graduate in psych UCLA and Law UCLA. I was raised a scientist and a Christian. I chose Darwin after grad school. I kept reading and re-reading, comparing, analyzing, debating, and alas, I can’t buy Darwin anymore. However, like the great atheist C.S. Lewis, (though half his intellect) I have done that same analysis of the Bible, and it is the winner.
Having said that, there is huge amounts of science that has evolved out of Darwin that is fantastic. I am glad that the Christians opened up all those universities and science curricula to make it possible to have explored God’s creation without impediment.
Randy: Save your breath. You are mistaken in thinking that “reason” has anything to do with what happens here.
truth machine: SEVEN consecutive posts? Is that a personal best? Is blogging an exhibition sport in the next Olympics and, if so, are you trying to qualify?
You get my vote.
Well, you get my vote as a projecting ad hominem dimwit. I read through posts and respond to those about which I have something I want to say, as I encounter them; I’m not trying to exhibit anything beyond the content, which you have not addressed.
A wide swath of liberals (sorry, “liberals”) reject other sorts of science, the sorts science that conflict with their New Age belief systems, for example
I’ve already responded to this BS. “New Age belief systems” are subscribed to by only a tiny fraction of the population; they are not common among liberals, even if most people who hold such beliefs are liberals, which is as debatable — as has repeatedly been noted, astrology is at least as common among conservatives as liberals.
Randy: your intellectual/spiritual development sounds quite interesting – and atypical. ‘Raised a scientist’? ‘Chose Darwin’? Please elaborate.
And where are those ‘opened-up’ universities you mention?
Which impediments did they remove?
Jeff Chamberlain: The problem with repeating Clifford’s excellent idea is that it is incomplete – I suspect that a lot of people do think they have sufficient evidence for their pet delusions (religions, pseudoscience, political ideologies, etc.). I have been wanting to have some research done on how people come to use evidence, but …
XPM: But homeopathy is probably even more extreme, and it is very popular here. I just thought of a confound on my source for that, though. It occurs to me that those huge racks of homeopathic “remedies” in Quebec pharmacies may only be catering to a small group – after all, they, being water, no doubt have a rather large shelf life.
MikeM: I’m Canadian, so (as is typical of my fellows) am left of the US spectrum, so my answer is – none. I would never vote for a Republican if I were a US citizen as matters stand now. I would vote for one over an actual Nazi or Stalinist, but that’s about it. (Even there I would consider leaving the area at almost any cost.)