Ignorance is nonpartisan
Phil over at the Bad Astronomy Blog notes an interesting Gallup poll that asked participants whether they believed:
- that God created humans exactly as they are now sometime in the last ten centuries,
- or that humans developed over millions of years but with guidance from God,
- or that humans developed over millions of years and God had no part.
As you might expect, more Republicans said they believed in the first option than did Indepedents or Democrats. About 60% of Republicans answered that they believed in the first option, while only about 40% each of Independents and Democrats thought this way. To be sure, that’s a significant difference but I’m not cheered by the fact that only two out of every five of my party mates is a Creationist versus three out of every five Republicans.
It gets worse though. Another way of looking at the poll choices is:
- Creationism
- Intelligent Design
- Evolution
If we then add the Creationist and Intelligent Design responses together we get a very bleak picture. Some 92% (greater than nine out of ten) of Republicans and about 77% each (almost eight out of ten) of Democrats and Indpendents believe in either Creationism or Intelligent Design.
Have I depressed you yet? Well, there is something of a silver lining to this cloud, or at least there is if you choose to look at it this way. You see, Gallup has been asking this three-part question of Americans for a long time; since 1982 to be exact. Just as one expects to find more Republicans than Democrats who believe in Creationism, one might expect that after nearly thirty years of the country veering hard right that the numbers are actually much worse than they were in the early 1980s. That we’ve become more ignorant as a country.
That’s not the case though. The truth is these numbers have been fairly steady over the past twenty six years with no sharp fluctuations either way. As Phil says, you can’t blame Newt Gingrich and you can’t blame Bush. As a nation, we haven’t gotten any more ignorant, but then we haven’t gotten any more knowledgable either. Yeah, this silver lining isn’t a very shiny one.
What does it all mean? Phil speculates that party allegiance is very strong so people stick with their parties even when the stated goals and policies of those parties radically change over time. Similarly, religious views are also very strong and thus stay the same from year to year. That seems like a good enough explanation to me.
I think there’s something else to take away from this Gallup poll though. Religious belief is thoroughly entrenched in American society. It is weaved throughout our social fabric in a way that we can never hope to prize apart the threads of our cultural history that value rational thought and Enlightenment principles and those that value tradition and religious faith. While more strongly religious social conservatives might prefer the Republican Party of the past thirty or forty years, it hasn’t always been this way. Remember that at one time it was the Republicans that were the social progressives and the Democrats the social conservatives.
To phrase it as I did in the title to this post, ignorance is nonpartisan. It’s also highly impervious to change. When ignorance is coupled to religious belief, ignorance tends to get carved in stone. Can we wear down that stone?
Yeah, I think so. And I think there’s evidence that, at least on the science front, this is happening even today. One need look no further than that institution most impervious to change — the Catholic Church. Fifty years ago Pope Pius II implied that evolution “isn’t inimical to Christianity” and in 1992, Pope John Paul II said both that evolution was compatible with faith and that the Church was wrong to condemn Galileo. Later on, in 2005 Vatican Cardinal Paul Poupard said that Catholics should listen to what modern science has to offer.
That’s the God of the Gaps at work. As science provides us with greater and greater understanding of our world and our selves, the concept of god shrinks until it can only fill in the gaps left unexplained by science. That might be small comfort to those of us who’ve watched in horror as fundamentalists and the Republican Party wedded themselves together over the course of the past thirty years culminating in the Presidency of George W. Bush, but religiosity waxes and wanes at various points in our history and I have no reason to suspect that the sort of fervent religiosity we’ve seen in the past couple of decades isn’t already on its way out.
Where does that leave us? Well, obviously with the need to continue to promote and defend secular government because if theocracy comes to this land then surely it’s game over. Beyond that though there’s no easy answers. It’s all education, organizing, fundraising, and community involvement. If that sounds remarkably like politics, well, it is. That’s the same formula success used by politicians for as long as the U.S. has been around. That and a healthy dose of propaganda, but we’re the ones trying to encourage critical thinking so maybe we should skip that. Although it never hurts to relate science on an emotional level. Carl Sagan was a master of that.
With all that being said though, I’m with Phil. We’ve got a long, long way to go.









Well, Number 2 has a variation, “that humans developed over millions of years but with God’s foreknowledge that man would arise.” I suspect that some variation of #2 (foreknowledge or guidance) is what most liberal Christians believe and it doesn’t require that anything like creationism be taught in a Science class.
But yeah, the degree of support for Creationism (Young Earth Creationism especially) is disturbing….
Actually I think your variation as falling into the #3 category, unless I’m misunderstanding your statement. It’s essentially a Deistic position isn’t it? A God the Creator but also a hands-off sort of God? “…with guidance from God” means to me that God was involved in the process of evolution, which seems to be synonymous with what Intelligent Designers believe.
I saw number 3 as not acknowledging the existence of God and so saw my suggestion as being between 2 and 3. It places a heavier emphasis on foreknowledge than on hands-on guidance. (If I do this, then in X billion years we’ll get mankind. Cool!) I agree my suggestion is Deistic. However, from what I’ve seen of the ID crowd they tend to be between number 1 and 2. Basically they are creationists, but think God took a long time to finish. (Mankind being like one of those home improvement projects that seem to take forever.).
To put it somewhat kiddingly, the YEC think God had everything he needed and got it done immediately and the IRs think he kept having to make trips to the cosmic Home Depot to get ‘just one more thing’ to finish. (grin). The more modern Christian position would be that God hired subcontractors and they took their own sweet time to finally finish.
I’ve taught about ID for a while in my Senior Seminar in Sociology class, and you can make an argument for either, but it falls more with option one. Most ID folks are young earth creationists, although a handful (such as Behe) have an heir of scientific authority. Behe seems to stay away from the timeline by stressing the “irreducibility” of biological phenomena such as flagella in bacteria, but also states outright a Christian perspective. That said, ID normally requires belief in such mush as Flood Geology, a “theory” that claims that the earth was inundated by a global flood and all the world’s great features (exhibit A: Grand Canyon) were carved in a few days. Another certainty to ID afficionados: that all life was created according to their “forms” and that evolution cannot lead to speciation, which of course would preclude number two above. I’ve got to think that a number of deists and agnostics would pick number two on the basis of, “well, maybe.”
That said, the story that never gets told is how a sizable but still minority segment of the protestant population has now been christened int he media as the true “Christians” and get their views presented as the “Christian” message. Not that the Catholic Church is the poster child for progressive, er, anything, but like many mainline protestant groups the Church does not find a problem with evolution, although I think they would favor the devine guided version - whatever that means.
PS - the mechanism for the “great flood:” a bursting of the portals of the sky, i.e., the Mediterranean firmament, and the fountains of the deep, or guysers. The ancient belief, going all the way back to the earliest writing from Uruk in the late 4th Millenium BC, was that the earth is surrounded by waters “above” the firmament - a thin dome to which the stars are attached - and waters “below, i.e. the abyss” from which guysers originate. This is the view in the Bible, and there is a great Jewish Midrash from the early Common Era that describes the firmament as only a “few fingers” thick.
That’s interesting how we have two different interpretations of the third option. I guess I see nothing about #3 that automatically excludes belief in God, although I can see how the first two options don’t perfectly represent the full range of theistic belief on the subject of human development.