Lefty bloggers all over are having fun with a recent Gallup survey purporting to show that a majority of Republicans do not believe in evolution. (The same poll shows that a significant minority of Democrats don't either.) Local political consultant Bill Christofferson crows about the "rejecting the caveman vote" - a phrase with a secondary meaning that left liberals just love. They are so persuaded that they are smarter and more enlightened. Jim Rowen even suggests that this reflects the "essential difference" between Democrats and Republicans. I guess that a good "progressive" just can't have enough mirrors.
My initial reaction is to wonder how many Democrats would flunk a quiz testing one's knowledge of basic economics or endorse some pre-scientific notion like the idea that price controls work or that increases in the minimum wage won't cause unemployment.
But that's another topic. I have no doubt that there are more "young earth creationists" who vote Republican than Democrat although, given that debunking the theory of evolution is not among the planks of the GOP platform or, however they might answer when asked about it, is not a priority of any Republican presidential candidates, I think we are talking correlation and not causation. These people like the GOP's support on other social issues as do many other people who do "believe in" evolution.
But there is, as Gallup notes and Xoff does not, a potential problem with the poll question. The results that he posts (taken from a May 21-24 poll) are apparently in response to the following question:
Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not?
The problem with the question is that, having failed to define evolution, the preface implies that the concept includes a claim that evolutionary science does not and can never support, i.e., that the mechanism of evolution is the sole explanation for the existence of human life. Science can demonstrate change and modification through descent. It can adduce evidence of the common ancestry of species. It might even demonstrate - although I'm not sure that it has or ever could - that, given enough time, an entirely random process could have changed an amoeba into Mozart.
But it can't really demonstrate that the whole thing was an accident without a first cause. That is a question that the scientific method is not capable of answering.
While one could understand the question to make no such claim, the popular association of "evolution" with "Godlessness" (an association promoted by evangelists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett) suggests that many respondents will not. Gallup recognized that, noting:
It is important to note that this question included a specific reference to "thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth . . ." that oriented the respondents toward an explicit consideration of the implication of evolution for man's origin. Results may have been different without this introductory phrase.
There were other questions with results not broken down by political affiliation with results suggesting that lots of Americans are confused about evolution (giving what seem to be inconsistent responses) and many reject the scientific consensus, but the money result is not as clear as our Democrat friends claim.
26 comments:
I have to question the intelligence of anyone who wants to line up with a crowd based on labels, cant, ideology, or really any kind of "agreement," legitimate or otherwise, because politics is not church. It's not "the right" vs. "the wrong."
Is it just an American thing not to grasp this:
"But ["evolution"] can't really demonstrate that the whole thing was an accident without a first cause. That is a question that the scientific method is not capable of answering."
I doubt few people of any political position in this country understand what is meant by "macro" theories of evolution and more mundane, micro-evolutionary processes. Fewer will understand what is meant by "accident" or "first cause" since their induction in a life of "modern" convenience, technology, and education leads them to a point of arrogant presumption that they know more than some ancient greeks or medieval monks. But what about Kant?
http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/evolution_and_kant.html
Also relevant:
The Flourishing of Positivist Mediocrities
http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/flourishing_of_positivist_mediocrities.html
And in more ways than one:
On Fools
http://www.fritzwagner.com/ev/fools.html
Other polls show that 9 out of 10 Americans believe that life was created by a higher power. Most have been taught evolution but have looked at the most obvious evidence that is life and concluded that this could not have happened by chance.
As a young boy I remember thinking how foolish evolution seemed to me (and I still do), but I never considered it to have a political party.
given enough time, an entirely random process could have changed an amoeba into Mozart.
You're right, this would be difficult for science to demonstrate, since it's a classic creationist caricature criticism of evolution.
Illusory would be aghast at the possibility that BACH sprang forth from an ancestral tunafish, however.
By the way, this post from McMahon bears on the "evolution" thrills of Modern Man:
http://www.tommcmahon.net/2004/06/isnt_it_remarka.html
Benchley nailed it...
And, as if by design, yet another classic creationist caricature.
Illusory tenant - I am waiting for more than a simple dismissal of Rick's arguments other than the typical elitist wave of the hand and rolling of the eyes...
the typical elitist wave of the hand ...
Suffice to say that natural selection is not an "entirely random process," and nobody has suggested that either J.S., J.C., C.P.E, or even old Veit Bach was descended from a tunafish.
These, however, are depressingly familiar misunderstandings frequently articulated by creationists.
"But ["evolution"] can't really demonstrate that the whole thing was an accident without a first cause."
First cause? What a silly term. It's turtles all the way down, right?
How many anti-evolutionists ever really have read any of Darwin's work? Ever have seen into the evolution of his thoughts? The difficulties he faced -- not just physically, to make his discoveries of some of the marvels of the planet, but also intellectually to try to figure out how such varied marvels could have happened?
Doing so persuades me not only of the probability of evolution but also, in tracking the evolution of his thoughts, that there must have been a great and good being behind the intelligence of the human mind.
Don't knock it 'til you've read it. Then, a biography of Darwin is another good read. As to what he read, you might be surprised. . . .
Anon 6:23 - you should keep reading about Darwin because you will find that he himself later in life didn't believe in evolution.
Nope, that's misreading -- but too little space here (and time now) to explain the error in your belief.
Personally, I just stick with the (pre-technology) PhotoShopped pictures in the Darwin texts.
You know--the in utero ones which demonstrate the artist's excellent Disney-imaginative skills.
I see this thread is turning into one-stop shopping for creationist dissembling.
Lady Hope Myth
Haeckel's embryos
Anon 8:24 and Illusory -
Evolution is for people that are aethiest and Creation is for people that believe in a higher power.
Your hero Darwin, that allegedly saved you from never being able to explain your position of the exitence of life (and I believe that you still can't), denied evolution and accepted God late in his life.
So there is still hope for you both.
And of course the coup de grâce: intimations of eternal damnation.
Illusory - did you fear the aethiest movements (also known as communism) that killed over 100 million (Russia-67 million, China 40+million) of there own people?
The problem is that once someone declares disbelief in science and reliance on sheer faith, by definition, there nothing left to discuss.
The bigger problem is when science leaves the realm of observation and reality and enters the realm of make believe and then expects that people disregard the most obvious observation that is life itself.
The real question is wheather we should have faith in fictious science or a higher power regarding our origin. The imgination must leap far beyond reality to think we came by chance.
This is interesting. My original post did not endorse "creationism" in the sense of repudiating observed evolution or even common descent. I did call into question the idea that random mutation and natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the existence of human beings and expressed some skepticism that this could ever be scientifically proven. And, to return to my example, even if it could be shown that, given enough time, an amoeba will become Albert Einstein, the origin of the amoeba or. if you prefer, the stuff that the amoeba is made of remains unexplained. Scientific materialism must start with the materials.
a claim that evolutionary science does not and can never support, i.e., that the mechanism of evolution is the sole explanation for the existence of human life. - Esenberg 6/15
I did call into question the idea that random mutation and natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the existence of human beings and expressed some skepticism that this could ever be scientifically proven. - Esenberg 6/16
Glad to see you're coming around.
And I hope you read the Jerry Coyne piece, where you will find, inter alia, that the "random" in "random mutation" does not mean what you might think it means.
The Roman Catholic Church's position is neither "evolutionist" nor really "design-ist."
They maintain that man was created by the infusion of the soul--thus, the "image of God" language.
The Church is not concerned about what was before that event, and is properly ambivalent about "micro-evolution."
However, "evolution" has morphed into a philosophical/theological belief-system which includes the concept of overall human "progress" as an inevitability. deChardin taught that, (in general terms) and was slapped upside the head, theologically, for making that claim.
The RC does not believe that 'inevitable progress' is grounded in reality, insofar as the term USUALLY includes moral progression towards 'the good'. In contrast, the Church accepts that there IS such a thing as "material progress," which is the case, at least in the West.
The fundamental difference is exposed in Genesis' account of "Original Sin," which all Christians accept. If one accepts that sin is antithetical to genuine 'progress,' all the rest falls into place easily.
Since sin (both Original and non-Original)is inherited individually it can only be overcome by individuals, there is no "societal progress" towards the Good--which claim is made by evolutionary philosophy.
That's what transmogrifies the 'philosophy' into 'theology,' and what makes it deficient in BOTH disciplines.
By the way, the RC claim of Original Sin is denied by Orthodox (and non-orthodox) Judaism.
Dad, there is at least one mainline Protestant denomination that doesn't hold to that reading of the doctrine of original sin. See terms such as the reformed doctrine of predestination.
Thanks for your expositions on Catholicism, although I'm still trying to figure out how that came from a discussion of creationism (where above did anyone bring up Catholicism?). But best stick to what you know.
IT
You have no idea what I mean by random. If you mean Coyne's piece in the New Republic a while back, I read it and recall thinking that it was not all that helpful on the metaphysical claims that some infer from evolution. It seems highly unlikely that one could ever "prove" that random or, if you prefer, "indifferent" (and accidental) mutation plus selection explains everything. Michael Behe, who accepts common descent and evolution, argues that, in fact, quite the opposite can be proven. Quite frankly, I am not qualifed to say whether he is right but he's not arguing for a literal interpretation of Genesis.
He is saying that something is going on that we do not understand.
You have no idea what I mean by random.
I never suggested that I did. I simply offered Coyne's article to be helpful, depending on what you "might" think, and because Prof. Coyne is an extraordinarily fine writer on the subject.
In this debate, it seems we're left with two less-than stellar choices. On the one hand is a complex theory that will probably never answer the question, "why?"; and on the other is the idea that only a certain group from a certain time period in a certain part of the world has license to the truth about "how" and "why", with no evidence other than their firm belief in a single tradition.
I'm unconvinced that either option is 100% correct.
Post a Comment