Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The GOP's Fear of Evolution

Posted by Guest Blogger at 6:27 AM on June 12, 2007.


Daniel DiRito: It turns out Mike Huckabee was in sync with the overwhelming majority of Republicans in America when he said he didn't believe in evolution.

This post, written by Daniel DiRito, originally appeared on the All Spin Zone

Typically we view the passage of time to be commensurate with enlightenment and knowledge...and the advances we have seen in science, technology, medicine, and countless other areas over the centuries are a testament to man's capacity for growth. Unfortunately, we can also track the efforts of religion to stymie many of these advancements...especially when they are perceived to conflict with established doctrine and dogma. To be fair, religion has acquiesced on a number of issues over the years...though it has taken far longer than would seem warranted.

A new Gallup poll offers insight into the latest point of contention...one that seems to indicate religious beliefs are moving in a direction opposite to that of science. Gallup News reports that a significant majority of Republicans do not believe in the concept of evolution.

PRINCETON, NJ -- The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.

The theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life has been controversial for centuries, and, in particular, since the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's famous The Origin of Species. Although many scientists accept evolution as the best theoretical explanation for diversity in forms of life on Earth, the issue of its validity has risen again as an important issue in the current 2008 presidential campaign. Two recent Republican debates have included questions to the candidates about evolution. Three candidates -- Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo -- indicated in response to a question during the May 3 debate that they did not believe in the theory of evolution, although they have attempted to clarify their positions in the weeks since.

From The Gallup Poll

gallup poll
(gallup poll)

I understand the need to explain our existence...and I accept that different people have differing views. What troubles me is the degree to which the need to believe in a god and the promise of an afterlife is allowed to skew one's acceptance of science. It seems that the more certainty that science uncovers, the more firmly religious beliefs are embraced by believers.

My own explanation of this phenomenon is that people who use religion to deal with their pending mortality are compelled to increase the degree to which they refute science each time science provides more evidence that is likely to create doubt. It becomes an internal battle within the psyche that requires believers to ratchet up the absolute nature of the doctrines they embrace in order to fend off their own fears and doubts.

In essence, science and religion...in the current dynamic that pits religion against secularism; faith against science...are locked in the throes of an inverse equation. Whether that construct can be disassembled remains to be seen. Clearly, the tenuous nature of the world and our involvement in wars and pending threats of terrorism hinder the likelihood of progress.

In keeping with my inverse equation theory, the following is my tongue-in-cheek depiction of the trend amongst GOP voters to reject evolution. If I didn't know better, I would conclude that the creature at the front of the line is none other than our Commander in Chief...but everyone knows he's not a monkey...he's a lame duck.

Digg!

Tagged as: huckabee, republican party, evolution

Daniel DiRito is the All Spin Zone’s most recent permanent contributor. He’s also the blogmaster at Thought Theater


Hagee's Revenge? Videos Of Controversial Pastor Removed From YouTube
As Christians United for Israel summit approaches, copyright and PR trump evangelism.
Post by Sam Stein. July 8, 2008.
White House Briefing Materials Describe Italian PM as "Amateur", "Hated by Many"
WH apologizes to PM Berlusconi, a close ally of Bush and backer of Iraq war.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 8, 2008.
Rep. Waxman Threatens to Hold Contempt Vote on AG Mukasey
Mukasey must produce FBI interview with Cheney, or face the consequences.
Post by Satyam Khanna. July 8, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"Belief" itself is the very crux of the problem.
Posted by: Xynyx on Jun 12, 2007 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last point is well stated, that the degree to which refutation of the conclusions of science become more vehement is a direct response to the increase in the degree to which those conclusions might increase doubt in superstitions.

The problem with most public discussions of evolution is that people are usually asked whether they "believe" in evolution. Evolution is not something in which to "believe". It is a scientific theory that is currently the best explanation for the diversity of life as we know it. "Believing" in evolution would imply that one holds the perspective that evolution is the best explanation for such diversity DESPITE the overwhelming majority of evidence against such a conclusion - and there is no such majority of evidence against such a conclusion.

"Believing" is what you do when you don't have the facts, you don't understand the facts, or you simply don't like what the facts must compel you to conclude.

I do not "believe" in evolution. I understand that it is the best explanation we have.

The theory of evolution is more firmly rooted in evidence than the theory of gravity is. Republicans need to experience the evolutionary equivalent of falling off a 30-story building.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I don't 'believe'... Posted by: Bbear41
In reading remarks from conservatives (or regressives as I call them)
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jun 12, 2007 8:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
facts mean absolutely nothing to them. They have their "beliefs" based on what their president, their party, and their religion tells them, and that is all they care about. Sure is easy to live without having to think or develop a value systems on your own. Also makes for a very ignorant, fascist populace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is a bogus construct
Posted by: KMan on Jun 12, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As Godel proved that no formal system can be shown to be consistent and complete without stepping outside the system in question into a meta-system, man cannot believe his existence is consistent or complete without stepping into the meta-system in which God is a part.

Religion is a manifestation of the mathematical nature of the universe, and of man's need for consistency and completeness.

So, religious arguments against theories backed by evidence pit the emotional against the empirical, the subjective against the objective.

We should have "faith" in what we can observe, not what we desire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eligion is a bogus construct Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
40% democrats??
Posted by: g on Jun 12, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is still a lot. Folks, this is not so much a commentary on how stupid Republicans are, but on the tragic status of scientific education in America. Yes the Republicans are pretty good at taking advantage of it, as we can see from their use of pseudoscientific statements in the global warming debate, the abortion-breast cancer debate, and much that is being said about homosexual behavior. Mooney's "The Republican's war on science" is a good summary. But more generally something needs to be done about scientific literacy, and I won't be holding my breath for either party to step up and do it. Depressing. I am so glad I don't have kids to bring up in this country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder how many people believe in UFOs?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 12, 2007 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's an interesting take on this issue:

RELIGION viewpoint
PROVING GOD/GODS/SPIRITS/SPIRITUAL WORLD - While a lot of religious documentation and history exists to demonstrate the existence of deities, most religious people would agree that belief in miracles on both a personal and non-personal level would be the best indication of proof. A good example is when the virgin Mary was alleged to have appeared before approx. 70,000 people in Fatima, Portugal in 1917. About half the people there claimed to have seen a miracle and the other half didn't. Physical facts are not necessary to prove the spiritual world. Faith is. This faith is the way that religious people use to "prove" that God/gods exist. The idea that the God/gods in question don't show up in an unambiguous way is not important because faith is the most important issue.

SCIENCE viewpoint
PROVING GOD/GODS/SPIRITS/SPIRITUAL WORLD - In science, it is very simple to prove if God/gods exist. God or gods simply have to show up and demonstrate their abilities as a deity or deities. The ability to manipulate physical things in unusual ways is necessary to prove that God/gods exist. God or gods can then demonstrate their abilities as laid out in many religious documents as a deity or deities.

UFOISM viewpoint
PROVING ALIENS & UFOs For the average UFO enthusiast aliens don't have to show up to exist. Merely accepting the multitude of press reports and literature generated by the UFO community is enough proof that UFOs exist. The fact that the aliens in question don't show up, is because of a government conspiracy. This is the central tenant in the UFO enthusiast argument... (as well as in the 9/11 truth movement)
.

As an earlier comment stated, the real problem is lack of scientific literacy and education in the USA. It's not just the lack of education, either - as was the case in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, scientific education itself has become increasingly dogmatic and authoritarian - asking questions is not encouraged, as it threatens the authority of the teacher/institution/corporation/state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I would take exception.... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I would take exception.... Posted by: particle
10sman
Posted by: 10sman on Jun 12, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find the truly sad thing is that almost all of the people who dispute evolution do so because they have been told that it denies the existence of God. The facts are: evolution explains how all species change in response to changes in their environment. It does not explain, prove or disprove how we humans got here in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 10sman Posted by: Plantsmith
gorged
Posted by: particle on Jun 12, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...a significant majority of Republicans do not believe in the concept of evolution..."

In contrast with their obsessive fascination with devolution (esp. Gingrich).

"...the current dynamic that pits...faith against science..."

For some reason Europe doesn't seem to be experiencing quite this degree of insanity, which suggests that there's something amiss here.

While it's expression may be most vicious in the religious right these days, there is plenty of anti-science flavored portent infesting other circles (Depok Chopra on PBS, The Secret on Oprah, and so on).

It's as if America hit its peak and then just ran out of imagination, gorging instead on instant, prepackaged wisdom-like substances.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What is missing here is... Posted by: outsideagitator
FEAR for Control
Posted by: RosieRivetor on Jun 12, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious people are so afraid of making their own decisions, or of FREEDOM itself, that the more you question them the more they cling to their patriarchial leadership. Whatever the minister/"Daddy" says about the boogie man in the sky is 100% truth - that's faith, right?? No, that is absense of intellect and the inability to form cognitive thought. You can believe in a higher power and still believe in Evolution, these two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Faith does not mean absent of reality or truth. But to control the masses, it must be black and white - there is no gray matter.

The insidious nature of the Religious Right is that they are not content to maintain their own belief and faith, but are called to push it on everyone else. The US is a joke in the world lead by these Fascist idiot. We lag behind some third world nations in education and healthcare. Both of which are abundantly evident in the idiots this artilce highlights.

The really sad part is that the leaders are just snake oil salesmen who will do and say anything to keep their power. And the foot soldiers supporting the cause are blindly willing to destroy their own lives for the advancement of others. Sad, maybe it is appropriate that these individuals don't believe in evolution in that they are so completely UNEVOLVED.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FEAR for Control Posted by: outsideagitator
» RE: FEAR for Control Posted by: Xynyx
Evolution of Education
Posted by: pathways on Jun 12, 2007 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Evolution is not always toward a higher life form, just to a more adaptave one - often it takes a trip down the easier route than up the harder one. Education is hard. It requires learning how to see, to comprehend, measure, wonder and extrapolate. It won't put food on anybody's table, create more heirs or win wars. Perhaps it is not for everyone to catch its fever and follow its dream. Maybe most people are really intended to remain on isolated islands while a few inspiried souls occasionally come by to examine them. Well, as long as education is modified to make more money for its students then it is not education but training. Nowdays most savants are not idiots.
John

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A COPOUT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 12, 2007 2:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some people "don't believe" in this, that or the other thing because it avoids being dragged into a discussion. That's when others find out that they just don't know anything about the subject. Typically, they aren't "bookish" types. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]