Majority of Republicans Disbelieve Evolution

By Anthony | June 12th, 2007 | 11:16 pm

There are some who attempt to wave away the fact that there is a correlation between being Republican and disbelieving the theory of evolution. However, a recent Gallup poll supports that correlation:

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.

The poll also touched on respondents reasons for not believing in evolution. Most of the reasons given were religious in nature, with 19 percent giving, “I believe in Jesus Christ” as their reason for rejecting evolution, 16 percent responding, “I believe in the almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth” and another 16 percent saying their rejection of evolution was “Due to my religion and faith”.

It’s strange that “Jesus Christ” and “Evolution” have become an either/or dichotomy for some folks – sort of like saying “I don’t believe in the germ theory of disease because I believe in Jesus Christ”.

(Via Pharyngula)

11 Responses to “Majority of Republicans Disbelieve Evolution”

  1. The CA Says:

    It’s still a fair question to ask both parties.

  2. PotatoStew Says:

    Fair for both parties? I agree. Relevant to both parties? Not so much.

  3. The CA Says:

    Perhaps I would agree with “relevant to neither party”.

  4. Ged Says:

    Sorry CA, but when government gets involved with subverting science to tell “both sides” of the story, ala the Kansas school board, then it is wholly relevant.

  5. PotatoStew Says:

    Exactly. I suppose it’s irrelevant if you don’t care about the issue, but as I pointed out on Sam’s site, there are instances of conservative legislators/school board members actually trying to make policy based on Creationist beliefs. If you believe there should be certain standards for science education, and that watering down evolution would make us fall short of those standards, then it’s a perfectly relevant and valid question.

  6. James Collins Says:

    In the many arguments I read concerning the theory of evolution, I find most people equating rejection of evolution to a lack of education, which is false.

    I also read that the ‘intellectuals’ are the conservatives are the Republicans. And that the dummies are the socialists, are the Democrats. Unquestionably both these assumptions are totally FALSE. Heated debates flowing over with hatred for the ‘other side’ are filling the Internet.

    This recent trend is bringing the country to an irreparable divide. Many people decide their vote the same way I do, If the person that is running for president is honest, and will do what the people want done, and will not show favoritism to ANY industry, then he/she MIGHT be good for the country. I say might, because only God knows what is inside that carefully guarded interior person.

    Others decide their vote simply by party. This last type are the ones who are is bringing this country to the brink of destruction. Party politics, if it continues much longer will be the TOTAL ruination of America.

    Public opinion places the Political right into the intellectual group, but many blogers claim that people who do not believe in evolution are poorly educated, and definitely not intellectual. How is it then that the polls show that most of the ‘intellectuals’ do not believe in evolution.

    Here’s why. The very best way to determine if evolution is a science it to put on the hat that is rarely worn. Put on the thinking cap and be logical. It is totally illogical to believe that live created itself without any instructions or any other help.

    If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a self replicating ’simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ’simple’ cell.

    After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ’simple’ cell.

    If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

    Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.

    Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

    Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

    Those who believe in evolution simply haven’t done enough independent research on the subject, OR, they have been mesmerized by their biology teacher/professor, as I was. OR, they hate God!

  7. The CA Says:

    If it is important that some conservatives believe in creationism and not evolution, then it is equally important that some liberals believe in evolution and not creationism.

    You will not get that double standard past me. If voters need to know what people believe, they need to know it about everyone.

  8. Ged Says:

    James,

    We’re not talking about how life started on earth here (although I do indeed believe it is possible that it started spontaneously on Earth), we’re talking about the process of evolution. The change from a simple form of life, to those that are more complex.

    This process is a *known fact*. It is undeniable except to those who refuse to accept the evidence all around them either because of religious belief or ignorance. Don’t believe me? Look around you. Almost all breeds of dogs, farm animals and vegetables are the results of selective breeding, a form of artificial evolution. Man has shaped his pets and his harvests in just a few thousand years to suit his needs immensely. If humans can define living things so profoundly in just this short time, just imagine what *millions of years* of natural selection can do.

    The noted scientist Carl Sagan said it best. I suggest you go watch this clip from his award winning series Cosmos. It pretty much explains it all.

  9. PotatoStew Says:

    “You will not get that double standard past me. If voters need to know what people believe, they need to know it about everyone.”

    There’s no double standard here – as I said before, I have absolutely no problem with the question being asked of Democrats as well.

    James:

    Thanks for your comment. Ged brought up some good counterpoints though. Abiogenesis is what you’re talking about – where and how the first self-replicating material came from. It’s related to evolution in the sense that it provided material for evolutionary forces to work upon, but it’s not the same thing. For example, God could indeed have created ex nihilo some self-repplicating cells AND the theory of evolution could be entirely true. You’re conflating two distinct concepts.

    Secondly, life certainly did not start with a fully-formed cell made “from scratch”. There were simpler self-replicating protiens and molecules well before that. So the idea of a scientific experiment to “build a cell” is off the mark.

  10. Brenda Bowers Says:

    The Creator gave life. Life gave form. It amazes me that man, supposedly the highest of life’s forms, creates a problem where none exists. BB

  11. PotatoStew Says:

    Man is definitely good at creating problems – I’ll certainly agree with you there.