New Gallup Poll: Majority of Republicans Are Young Earth Creationists

Charles Johnson

WingnutsDecember 2010 • Views: 21,630

This new Gallup poll explains a lot about the GOP.

(Hat tip: freetoken.)

Jump to bottom

119 comments

jamesfirecat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:16:37pm

Wow, even more damming there's no statistically valid fluctuation between Democrats and Independence on this issue...

Obdicut Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:16:47pm

The numbers are overall depressing. But the GOP part is really, really depressing.

Even if AGW wasn't about to occur, even if we didn't need public support for scientific endeavor to counter that, we would not be able to remain competitive in the world economy with one party embracing a rejection of science.

We need science. Oh boy do we need it.

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:17:00pm

This is an absolute disgrace and a national scandal.

Charles Johnson Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:17:05pm

Independents and Democrats are at 34%, which is also pretty freaking bad.

Charleston Chew Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:19:01pm

This is a good reminder of just how irrational the electorate is.

jamesfirecat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:19:09pm

re: #4 Charles

Independents and Democrats are at 34%, which is also pretty freaking bad.

At the risk of playing right into the hands of some well known memes, would we happen to have a break down by state, or by sections of the country?

engineer cat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:19:51pm

i'm wouldn't be comfortable living on an earth that's too young to get a driver's license

or worse, too young to drink

Daniel Ballard Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:20:54pm

I fall in the column they do not have. God built the stage evolution plays out on.

Four More Beers Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:21:01pm

Pretty consistent in the first column, which is where my vote would be. The last column should read all zeros, and that is pretty freaky that at least 1/3 of all political identities believe that wacko shit. Maybe that freak From The Last Thread That capitalized Every Word Like This hacked it.

Four More Beers Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:22:19pm

re: #6 jamesfirecat

Dude, I live in the heart of Red State America, The Woodlands. We have a mega-church on every block if that gives you any idea.

jc717 Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:22:50pm

I'm more shocked by the fact that over 1/3rd of Dems and Indies are YECs as well.
I just can't wrap my mind around it.

I would love to see this poll done based on age. I wonder if things are getting better or worse.
It would also be nice to see the results by geographic region.

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:23:01pm

I really think that me and my spouse may end up looking for work in a another country at some point. W already know what some GOP pols think about geologists (and volcanos) or biolobists (and genetic research/fruit flies).

We are imploding educationally in this country.

Damn.

BTW...

Devastating sudy out of Maryland finding Fox News viewers are monumentally misinformed concerning actual verifiable facts...

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:23:34pm

I personally know clergy who reject young Earth creationism but are afraid to speak out for fear of financial loss. Where is all that final judgment stuff in this equation?

Daniel Ballard Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:23:37pm

Add up the first and third columns. We see the vast majority of us do believe in God's existence.

Surabaya Stew Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:23:48pm

re: #4 Charles

Independents and Democrats are at 34%, which is also pretty freaking bad.

For the Dems, 34% is not totally shocking to me, as that population may include lots of older, more traditional "Reagan Democrats". For independents such as myself, 34% is shocking.

jc717 Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:24:35pm

Also, 22% of post grads are YECs? WTF?

Jdorfma4 Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:24:47pm

I really don't like these questions. We talk about "dog whistle" politics a lot and I think that to a lot of people this question is a "dog whistle." They hear "do you belive in god?" when this question is asked. I don't really feel the numbers are that bad, they are just trained to answer thay way as a form of "testimony" to their faith.

In a small way, the question is heard as "do you believe in god or are you godless?"

this is coming from a left wing commie pinko Jew so who knows if I'm right or not...

bratwurst Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:24:55pm

My initial reaction on freetoken's page was to point out that we are destined to have a GOP presidential candidate who is a YEC (possibly as soon as 15 months from now)...but the idea that more than a third of Democrats and independents could reject science like this is even more depressing.

jamesfirecat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:25:12pm

re: #12 celticdragon

I really think that me and my spouse may end up looking for work in a another country at some point. W already know what some GOP pols think about geologists (and volcanos) or biolobists (and genetic research/fruit flies).

We are imploding educationally in this country.

Damn.

BTW...

Devastating sudy out of Maryland finding Fox News viewers are monumentally misinformed concerning actual verifiable facts...

Yeah go Maryland!

Go Black & Gold!

Also for reference, our state sport is way cooler than yours!

Daniel Ballard Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:25:22pm

re: #6 jamesfirecat

I bet that goes in part by density-rural=religious & urban, not so much. I'd bet a nice lunch.

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:25:32pm

re: #2 Obdicut

The numbers are overall depressing. But the GOP part is really, really depressing.

Even if AGW wasn't about to occur, even if we didn't need public support for scientific endeavor to counter that, we would not be able to remain competitive in the world economy with one party embracing a rejection of science.

We need science. Oh boy do we need it.

A big chunk of the country actually thinks most science is Satanically delusional.

We are falling into a pre-Enlightenment social/political model...and I thinnk that is nothing short of terrifying.

engineer cat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:25:49pm

re: #8 Rightwingconspirator

I fall in the column they do not have. God built the stage evolution plays out on.

the episcopalian sisters who ran the high school i went to were modern people (they all had graduate degrees!) even though they had dedicated themselves to service to g-d. when the subject of reconciliation of science and religion came up, they would invariably refer us to teilhard de chardin, the jesuit paleontologist with the coolest name in the known universe

Charles Johnson Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:26:08pm

re: #18 bratwurst

My initial reaction on freetoken's page was to point out that we are destined to have a GOP presidential candidate who is a YEC (possibly as soon as 15 months from now)...but the idea that more than a third of Democrats and independents could reject science like this is even more depressing.

Almost certainly the next GOP nominee will be a young earth creationist. They all are, except Mitt Romney, and he'll never be the nominee.

jamesfirecat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:26:19pm

re: #15 Surabaya Stew

For the Dems, 34% is not totally shocking to me, as that population may include lots of older, more traditional "Reagan Democrats". For independents such as myself, 34% is shocking.

I bet some of that 34% of "independents" is Republicans who feel their parties brand is too toxic to touch if that makes you feel any better...

Surabaya Stew Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:27:06pm

re: #14 Rightwingconspirator

Add up the first and third columns. We see the vast majority of us do believe in God's existence.

Nothing wrong with that. But how does belief in God (which I share), mean that one also beleives that man was created 10,000 years ago? The 2 beliefs have nothing to do with each other.

Sigh....

Alexzander Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:27:32pm

re: #23 Charles

I hadn't really thought about this and its seriously upsetting me right now.

Mark Winter Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:29:56pm

So that's 4 in 10 Americans...
OMG

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:30:39pm

re: #26 Alexzander

I hadn't really thought about this and its seriously upsetting me right now.

It should.

BTW...Huckabee is smarter than Palin and still shares almost all of her most objectionable views.

I love the bit where he was quoted saying marriage laws should be brought into line with the Bible.

Does that mean that rapists can be forced to marry their vicitims and pay the bride price to the father?

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:31:50pm

re: #28 celticdragon

Which part of the Bible? Do the rich guys get concubines?

Four More Beers Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:33:04pm

re: #23 Charles

You don't really think Palin will be the nominee do you? Even some of the rednecks around here that like her have told me they won't go as far as voting for her for president. And even if she did get the nomination, she can not win a single state that McCain lost, and she would have to win them all. Think about it: Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida (all states that McCain lost and which Palin must win) will NOT vote for her over Obama. Period.

Batman Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:33:24pm

I've seen figures every year for a while now that put the total amount of young-earthers in America at around 50%, so this isn't that surprising. In fact I'm surprised it's not even higher among Republicans and Independents.

Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:33:52pm

re: #25 Surabaya Stew

Nothing wrong with that. But how does belief in God (which I share), mean that one also beleives that man was created 10,000 years ago? The 2 beliefs have nothing to do with each other.

You only think that because you were educated in commie, librul, atheist public schools.
/

webevintage Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:34:48pm

re: #12 celticdragon

Devastating sudy out of Maryland finding Fox News viewers are monumentally misinformed concerning actual verifiable facts...

The response from FOX?
To point out that the University of Maryland is in the top 20 of "party schools" according to the Princeton Review.
That's it.

lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalalalala

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:34:57pm

re: #29 calochortus

Which part of the Bible? Do the rich guys get concubines?

He didn't specify...but it went beyond just being a dog whistle. He was clearly stating that US laws should be based explicitely on Christian (and some Jewish) scriptures.

Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:35:31pm

re: #29 calochortus

This lady has all the answers for you.

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:35:59pm

re: #32 Slumbering Behemoth

Yep, once we question any part of the scriptures and cast doubt on it, civilization as we know it will fall apart (and we'll all go to Hell literally, too) Its only the fact that the bible is the inerrant word of God that keeps us from murdering our next door neighbors.

Shiplord Kirel Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:36:07pm

.....this all started when they banned prayer and kicked God out of the public schools....

Oh, wait a minute.

wrenchwench Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:36:53pm

The Stalking Twitter Twits are all tweeting about the inaccuracy of this post. "No! That's not what the poll says!"

Another bull's-eye.

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:37:07pm

re: #30 Kid A

You don't really think Palin will be the nominee do you? Even some of the rednecks around here that like her have told me they won't go as far as voting for her for president. And even if she did get the nomination, she can not win a single state that McCain lost, and she would have to win them all. Think about it: Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida (all states that McCain lost and which Palin must win) will NOT vote for her over Obama. Period.

The problem is that her base is pretty frakking strong in some of the early GOP primary/caucus states, and that could be enough to put her over the top for the nomination.

Her weaknesses in the general electorate are exactly what makes her a hit with her supporters.

Daniel Ballard Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:37:18pm

re: #25 Surabaya Stew

Nothing wrong with that. But how does belief in God (which I share), mean that one also beleives that man was created 10,000 years ago? The 2 beliefs have nothing to do with each other.

Sigh...

True, many of us who have faith in God have less in the literal meaning of ancient texts handled & copied by men.

Consider this, one can believe in the immortal soul as a byproduct of our nature, rather than the explicit creation of God. An uncommon but interesting belief. One would ordinarily associate God and immortality. But not necessarily.

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:37:40pm

re: #35 Slumbering Behemoth

This lady has all the answers for you.

Ah yes, I'll be sure to base my personal life on her advise.

engineer cat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:37:44pm

re: #29 calochortus

Which part of the Bible? Do the rich guys get concubines?

they only use the authorized version which has the dinosaurs living with adam and eve and jesus casting out the elites eating quiche in the temple

abbyadams Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:38:37pm

re: #12 celticdragon

Consider this article and the data above. Correlation does not equal causation, but sometimes...

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:38:42pm

re: #36 calochortus

Yep, once we question any part of the scriptures and cast doubt on it, civilization as we know it will fall apart (and we'll all go to Hell literally, too) Its only the fact that the bible is the inerrant word of God that keeps us from murdering our next door neighbors.

Ross Douthat at the NYT seems to hit that drum real hard.

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:39:19pm

re: #42 engineer dog

I thought the Conservative Bible Project had pretty much ground to a halt?

reine.de.tout Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:39:28pm

re: #25 Surabaya Stew

Nothing wrong with that. But how does belief in God (which I share), mean that one also beleives that man was created 10,000 years ago? The 2 beliefs have nothing to do with each other.

Sigh...

Absolutely - the two things have nothing to do with each other.
And the two things are not inconsistent with each other.

I've made the point before and I'll make it again - those who believe in God and yet reject the spectacular wonder and complexity of the universe He created, are also rejecting the intelligence He gave man to figure out and understand these things, and that's a huge insult to Him.

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:39:45pm

re: #43 abbyadams

Consider this article and the data above. Correlation does not equal causation, but sometimes...

I had that in mind.

Four More Beers Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:40:25pm

re: #39 celticdragon

Celtic, I don't deny that at all. But do you think her fifteen minutes are almost up? Do you think she can carry this shtick for another two years? Just askin'...

jamesfirecat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:41:03pm

re: #45 calochortus

I thought the Conservative Bible Project had pretty much ground to a halt?

What?

I was looking forward to when Stephen Colbert the Baptist washed the feet of Stephen Colbert son of Stephen Colbert...

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:41:12pm

Actually, I think we are all in a Matrix universe that came into being about 18 minutes ago. All our memories were artificially implanted.

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:42:32pm

re: #44 celticdragon

Ross Douthat at the NYT seems to hit that drum real hard.

I'm not familiar with him.

Daniel Ballard Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:43:23pm

Now a President or candidate who explicitly separates his personal religious beliefs from his job, his policies, deserves the respect and room to do so. Baptists should not be discriminated against any more than the Jews or (fill in here)

But the religious fanatic will not vote for that. They want theocratic influence. *shudder*

Alexzander Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:43:39pm

re: #50 celticdragon

Fan of Betrand Russell?

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:44:56pm

re: #48 Kid A

Celtic, I don't deny that at all. But do you think her fifteen minutes are almost up? Do you think she can carry this shtick for another two years? Just askin'...

Yes, I do. Her true believers are pushing for this, and the media just can't seem to ignore her tweets and Facebook BS.

She will run, and one of the male candidates will have to kamaikaze to try and take her out since we have seen what happens (the O'Donnel candidacy) when a male GOP pol goes after a woman. It is suicidal.

You noticed that Barbara Bush was tappeed to say what the male members of the Bush family could not say?

webevintage Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:46:41pm

re: #44 celticdragon

Ross Douthat at the NYT seems to hit that drum real hard.

any time I see his name it reads Douchehat in my brain...which well is kinda what I think he is.....

Daniel Ballard Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:47:24pm

re: #46 reine.de.tout
And again, very well said.

- those who believe in God and yet reject the spectacular wonder and complexity of the universe He created, are also rejecting the intelligence He gave man to figure out and understand these things, and that's a huge insult to Him.

Ever heard the Christian rescue joke? There is a flood, and the faithful man puts God ahead of the boat, the helicopter and dies. He's pissed off at heavens gate-God says "Hey I sent a boat and a helicopter"....

Creationist at Heavens Gate-"Hey I left all that evidence around in the ground for ya to figure out... Evolution was my best work since the suns!"

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:47:49pm

re: #51 calochortus

I'm not familiar with him.

He is a conservative Catholic columnist at the NYT who spends a lot of time on conservative Catholic philosphy and explaining how we all screwed up by not doing the same...

He is nicknamed "Chunky Bobo" in some quarters since he is a bit chunky and presumably writes a bit like David Brooks.

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:48:24pm

re: #53 Alexzander

Fan of Betrand Russell?

Not really. Should I be?

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:49:11pm

re: #57 celticdragon

I guess I'll just go on in my happy ignorance then.

Surabaya Stew Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:49:26pm

re: #29 calochortus

Which part of the Bible? Do the rich guys get concubines?

Rich guys (and girls) ALWAYS get concubines if they choose.
:-D

Four More Beers Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:50:33pm

re: #54 celticdragon

Yes, I do. Her true believers are pushing for this, and the media just can't seem to ignore her tweets and Facebook BS.

She will run, and one of the male candidates will have to kamaikaze to try and take her out since we have seen what happens (the O'Donnel candidacy) when a male GOP pol goes after a woman. It is suicidal.

You noticed that Barbara Bush was tappeed to say what the male members of the Bush family could not say?

But it's Obama's wet dream if she does get it, you would agree? He may top 400 electoral votes, me thinks.

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:50:39pm

re: #60 Surabaya Stew

Of course they do-but is it sanctioned by their religion?

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:50:46pm

re: #59 calochortus

I guess I'll just go on in my happy ignorance then.

You aren't missing much. I think he is a pretentious & sanctimonious buffoon.

Tigger2005 Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:51:20pm

Arlington Springs Woman, discovered on one of the Channel Islands off Southern California in 1959, is 13,000 years old. Just one of a zillion pieces of evidence showing that human beings have been around for well over 10,000 years.

There is so much overwhelming and readily available evidence for this it's not even funny. Believing we've only been around 10,000 years is no less stupid and ignorant than believing the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of green cheese.

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:51:40pm

re: #61 Kid A

But it's Obama's wet dream if she does get it, you would agree? He may top 400 electoral votes, me thinks.

Yep. That is not a concern of the teabaggers though. They want purity and Palin is Joan of Arc for them.

Surabaya Stew Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:51:44pm

re: #32 Slumbering Behemoth

You only think that because you were educated in commie, librul, atheist public schools.
/

Damn Quakers for high school, actually. But yeah, all librulZ to the max!

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:52:06pm

re: #61 Kid A

I saw a poll recently where Obama was close to tied with a generic Republican candidate, but when they started putting actual Republicans in, Obama did much better. Palin would hand him a second term faster than anyone else.

celticdragon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:52:46pm

Catch you lizards later...

Surabaya Stew Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:54:15pm

re: #40 Rightwingconspirator

True, many of us who have faith in God have less in the literal meaning of ancient texts handled & copied by men.

Consider this, one can believe in the immortal soul as a byproduct of our nature, rather than the explicit creation of God. An uncommon but interesting belief. One would ordinarily associate God and immortality. But not necessarily.

Absolutly! Example: I know/feel/understand that God exists. The existance of an immortal soul? Not the same level of confidence, I'm afriad.

Surabaya Stew Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:56:31pm

re: #46 reine.de.tout

Absolutely - the two things have nothing to do with each other.
And the two things are not inconsistent with each other.

I've made the point before and I'll make it again - those who believe in God and yet reject the spectacular wonder and complexity of the universe He created, are also rejecting the intelligence He gave man to figure out and understand these things, and that's a huge insult to Him.

God must have a mighty thick skin to put up with all of our eagerness to be stupid and ignorant. Maybe that will change in 2012.
/ (only half kidding)

Renaissance_Man Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:57:07pm

re: #15 Surabaya Stew

For the Dems, 34% is not totally shocking to me, as that population may include lots of older, more traditional "Reagan Democrats". For independents such as myself, 34% is shocking.

Remember that Independents no longer means centrists and moderates, if indeed it ever did. Many 'independents' nowadays are those who do not identify as Republican because they think Republicans are too liberal and just as bad as those socialist Nazis in the Democrats. This is partly why the meme that 'Independents swung away from Democrats' in the last election is complete rubbish.

Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:58:09pm

re: #67 calochortus

I saw a poll recently where Obama was close to tied with a generic Republican candidate, but when they started putting actual Republicans in, Obama did much better. Palin would hand him a second term faster than anyone else.

I'd certainly cross the aisle if that was the ticket. But then again, I'm a dirty RINO.

wiffersnapper Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:59:17pm

Glad I'm in the minority

Surabaya Stew Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:04:20pm

re: #71 Renaissance_Man

Remember that Independents no longer means centrists and moderates, if indeed it ever did. Many 'independents' nowadays are those who do not identify as Republican because they think Republicans are too liberal and just as bad as those socialist Nazis in the Democrats. This is partly why the meme that 'Independents swung away from Democrats' in the last election is complete rubbish.

That could be the case about the Indys. Perhaps being in the big apple, makes me sheltered to large-scale examples of this thinking. I'm still shocked at the high numbers overall beleiving in this nonsense.

BTW-You're on the mark about the BS of the Indys swinging GOP this past election.

Spocomptonite Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:05:52pm

The GOP numbers don't really surprise me... but the numbers of democrat and independent young earth creationists are very surprising. It would be like finding out 34% of the GOP are practicing homosexuals and/or are PhD-level scientists. HuWHAAA???

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:08:11pm

re: #72 Slumbering Behemoth

There is just a certain segment of the country that adores Sarah and is unable to see that they are in the minority. There was a thread on FR (don't ask why I was over there...) discussing her lack of popularity inside the Beltway. 11% favorable ratings inside the Beltway as opposed to a 20-something approval rating overall. The entire discussion centered on the low ratings among her fellow politicians and how the "real " Americans would show them! There was no mention at all of the fact she would be lucky to have the support of 1 in 3 voters.

I don't think you'll have to worry about a Palin nomination.

calochortus Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:13:56pm

Having killed the discussion, its time to move on to destroying other things.
(Waves)

Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:14:04pm

re: #76 calochortus

I don't think you'll have to worry about a Palin nomination.

I don't think so either, but then again, I didn't think I'd see a person of color* elected POTUS in my life time.

*not that I object, mind you. indeed, I am pleasantly surprised.

engineer cat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:14:35pm

re: #76 calochortus

There is just a certain segment of the country that adores Sarah and is unable to see that they are in the minority. There was a thread on FR (don't ask why I was over there...) discussing her lack of popularity inside the Beltway. 11% favorable ratings inside the Beltway as opposed to a 20-something approval rating overall. The entire discussion centered on the low ratings among her fellow politicians and how the "real " Americans would show them! There was no mention at all of the fact she would be lucky to have the support of 1 in 3 voters.

I don't think you'll have to worry about a Palin nomination.

my regular wingnut correspondants are currently strutting around like nazis, trumpeting how the last election signaled the beginning of the thousand year republican reich, and airily pontificating on which republican office holders "don't get it", and will soon feel the Wrath of Teabag

b_snark (Fact-Checker Extraordinaire) Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:20:56pm

re: #8 Rightwingconspirator

I fall in the column they do not have. God built the stage evolution plays out on.

The wife would join you in that.

Daniel Ballard Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:24:46pm

re: #80 b_sharp

I got more faith in God than I do in what all these men say about him.

b_snark (Fact-Checker Extraordinaire) Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:28:52pm

re: #81 Rightwingconspirator

I got more faith in God than I do in what all these men say about him.

You know what I think, but the wife can be described as a IDist who believes the Big Guy started the ball rolling at the Big Bang knowing how it would unfold.

Daniel Ballard Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:30:19pm

re: #82 b_sharp

We each carry our own "golden thread" as my teacher would say. Off to the commute home. Be well all!

imherefromtheinternet Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:31:47pm

/facepalm

And the Dems aren't even much better. Apparently vast numbers of Americans couldn't reason their way out of a paper bag.

10,000 years, my ass. With that figure, there is barely a scientific field in existence that isn't being refuted. Everything from astronomy to physics to geology to chemistry has to be wrong for the earth to be that young. Hell, even archaeology gets in on the action.

(I suppose that the study only references humans, but this is part and parcel of the bad craziness. So whatever.)

/headdesk

b_snark (Fact-Checker Extraordinaire) Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:32:43pm

re: #83 Rightwingconspirator

We each carry our own "golden thread" as my teacher would say. Off to the commute home. Be well all!

Have a safe trip, wear a condom.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:32:55pm

re: #82 b_sharp

You know what I think, but the wife can be described as a IDist who believes the Big Guy started the ball rolling at the Big Bang knowing how it would unfold.

Which, IMHO, is far more complimentary of God. The YEC viewpoint belittles God by assuming that He needed to interfere repeatedly in order to get the world to appear as it does today. Talk about self-beclowning...

palomino Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:38:44pm

Like Obama said, proud to be ignorant.

The YEC stance isn't scientific. Nor is it totally theological. It's partly an anti-intellectual cultural statement made by know-nothing populist reactionaries.

mr.fusion Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:39:11pm

re: #76 calochortus

I don't think you'll have to worry about a Palin nomination.

If she runs, she'll get it.

There isn't a Republican out there with the marbles to take her on....she's clearly the front-runner in Iowa and South Carolina, and depending on who turns out I'd give her the edge in NH. Christ, the GOP primary voters nominated Angle, O'Donnell, et al.....

The biggest advantage is she can't be criticized by anyone who runs against her for fear that she'll blast them in 140 characters or less. Seriously, can you imagine the GOP debate? They just announced a CNN/Tea Party Express debate down here in Tampa before the primaries. I can't imagine a scenario where an opponent takes her BS on head first...instead they'll just capitulate knowing they'll need her endorsement if they were to win.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:41:42pm

re: #88 mr.fusion

We need Condi. Badly. I heart her.

palomino Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:51:26pm

re: #88 mr.fusion

If she runs, she'll get it.

There isn't a Republican out there with the marbles to take her on...she's clearly the front-runner in Iowa and South Carolina, and depending on who turns out I'd give her the edge in NH. Christ, the GOP primary voters nominated Angle, O'Donnell, et al...

The biggest advantage is she can't be criticized by anyone who runs against her for fear that she'll blast them in 140 characters or less. Seriously, can you imagine the GOP debate? They just announced a CNN/Tea Party Express debate down here in Tampa before the primaries. I can't imagine a scenario where an opponent takes her BS on head first...instead they'll just capitulate knowing they'll need her endorsement if they were to win.

I agree with much of this. Sister Sarah, as the mascot/head cheerleader of the GOP, has become an iconic figure unlike anyone else in the party. None of the likely candidates seem to feel comfortable criticizing her. Romney recently said to Leno on the Tonight Show, "If you're trying to get me to say something critical of Gov. Palin, it's not going to happen." Mitt, in particular, knows that his conservative bona fides are in doubt with the base. Taking on Palin would only hurt him in this respect.

This may all change when Republican candidates realize she stands between them and the nomination. But any harsh criticism will be seen by the base as mimicking the "lamestream" media's alleged unfairness to Palin, so everybody will have to be careful, especially loudmouth firebrands like Newt.

I still think she's gonna run. People like the Bushes and some pundits are basically daring her to. Also she doesn't want to miss out on the action, publicity seeker that she is. And if she flubs answers in the debate, so what? It's not her intellect or policy skills that causes such adoration among the base, so she'll easily be forgiven.

The Republicans who feel comfortable criticizing her are either out of politics now (the whole Bush family, for example) or they are just writers with a more establishment GOP bent.

elizajane Fri, Dec 17, 2010 4:56:24pm

re: #88 mr.fusion

If she runs, she'll get it.

There isn't a Republican out there with the marbles to take her on...she's clearly the front-runner in Iowa and South Carolina, and depending on who turns out I'd give her the edge in NH. Christ, the GOP primary voters nominated Angle, O'Donnell, et al...

It's possible that the GOP leadership, such as it is, is reading the tea leaves and thinking that Obama will almost certainly win unless the economy tanks further. Then it would be advantageous for Sarah to be the nominee. It would give them an excuse for losing, and since she would be slaughtered, it would get her out of the way.

Kronocide Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:09:41pm

re: #2 Obdicut

The numbers are overall depressing. But the GOP part is really, really depressing.

Even if AGW wasn't about to occur, even if we didn't need public support for scientific endeavor to counter that, we would not be able to remain competitive in the world economy with one party embracing a rejection of science.

We need science. Oh boy do we need it.

AGW denial is heavily influenced by YEC and fundamentalist apocalypse visions.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:11:10pm

re: #92 BigPapa

AGW denial is heavily influenced by YEC and fundamentalist apocalypse visions.

Yup. "we're all going to die" isn't a terribly helpful rallying cry...

Kronocide Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:15:01pm

re: #93 Aceofwhat?

Who's saying that?

FreedomMoon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:16:25pm

Even though it's probably the older democrats, I still find it odd how many Dems and Independents believe in full fledged young earth creationism. Quick question, does anyone know the last president that was part of the "young earth" club?

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:16:35pm

re: #94 BigPapa

Who's saying that?

apocalyptic types, right?

imherefromtheinternet Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:16:54pm

Whenever this sort of anti-reality thinking comes up comes up, I have to bash the Dems a little bit with this article: [Link: www.nytimes.com...]

It's a little counterintuitive, but Democrats are more likely than Republicans to think that Jesus will come back and the world will end by 2050. If these ideas were ever internalized to the extent that policy was made with them in mind... well that wouldn't be good.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:17:07pm

re: #95 tacuba14

Even though it's probably the older democrats, I still find it odd how many Dems and Independents believe in full fledged young earth creationism. Quick question, does anyone know the last president that was part of the "young earth" club?

without googling, i'd guess Carter.

Kronocide Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:19:02pm

re: #93 Aceofwhat?

Yup. "we're all going to die" isn't a terribly helpful rallying cry...

I read them saying 'Jesus will decide when he comes back.' The implication about AGW is that it won't kill us unless God decides it's our time. But I wonder if some don't want it to happen.

100

FreedomMoon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:20:29pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

without googling, i'd guess Carter.

Carter? Judging by his politics I wouldn't put him in that boat.

101

b_snark (Fact-Checker Extraordinaire) Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:21:34pm

re: #98 Aceofwhat?

without googling, i'd guess Carter.

Wasn't it GWB?

102

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:23:24pm

re: #99 BigPapa

I read them saying 'Jesus will decide when he comes back.' The implication about AGW is that it won't kill us unless God decides it's our time. But I wonder if some don't want it to happen.

Oh. I was reading 'apocalyptic' in the 'universal destruction' sense of the word. Thus our misunderstanding. Apologies.

103

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:24:47pm

re: #100 tacuba14

Carter? Judging by his politics I wouldn't put him in that boat.

Heh. Proving, neatly, why we ought not judge folks by their politics. Jimmy Carter is a born-again, southern christian.

104

Kronocide Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:25:56pm

might be my mistake, I could have typed it clearer.

I think a large part of deeply religious types head off accepting AGW by believing that Jesus will save us, or make it all ok, or if we all die they'll go to heaven. I think this is a very strong influence.

105

FreedomMoon Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:26:12pm

re: #101 b_sharp

Wasn't it GWB?

Characteristically, he does not believe in evolution--he says the jury is still out--but he does not actively disbelieve in it either; as a friend puts it, "he doesn't really care about that kind of thing."

His own preference, Bush said around the same time, was that "children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started." This echoed a similar statement Ronald Reagan made on the stump in 1980.

Your text to link...

I don't know, reading into it, it seems like Bush (and Reagan) kinda adopted that position to appease the base. I think an outright supporter like Palin and Huckabee would give a much different answer.

106

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:26:31pm

re: #101 b_sharp

Wasn't it GWB?

i thought he was closer in belief to what your wife (and i) would offer, but i admit that i'm absolutely unsure about why i think so.

107

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:28:46pm

re: #104 BigPapa

might be my mistake, I could have typed it clearer.

I think a large part of deeply religious types head off accepting AGW by believing that Jesus will save us, or make it all ok, or if we all die they'll go to heaven. I think this is a very strong influence.

Oh. Yeah, gotcha. I think you're right, and it bothers the hell out of me as a christian. Such thinking conveniently ignores the "i gave you this earth, now take care of it you knobs" speech right there in the ol' Genesis book that the same crowd often seems to revere so thoughtlessly.

108

b_snark (Fact-Checker Extraordinaire) Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:33:14pm

re: #106 Aceofwhat?

i thought he was closer in belief to what your wife (and i) would offer, but i admit that i'm absolutely unsure about why i think so.

I know he is a reborn and is pretty open with his faith and I seem to remember reading about his distrust in evolution. That doesn't mean he's a YEC of course, but it opens the door.

109

palomino Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:35:44pm

re: #100 tacuba14

Carter? Judging by his politics I wouldn't put him in that boat.

Carter was an evangelical. He just didn't wear it on his sleeve or try to force it on others.

In private, however, his religiosity made him seem sanctimonious to many people.

110

palomino Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:38:07pm

re: #104 BigPapa

might be my mistake, I could have typed it clearer.

I think a large part of deeply religious types head off accepting AGW by believing that Jesus will save us, or make it all ok, or if we all die they'll go to heaven. I think this is a very strong influence.

Exactly, why worry too much about this life (or this planet) when a much greater reward awaits?

111

Seltzer123 Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:55:28pm

As often is the case .... Tim Minchin says it best

Youtube Video

112

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:56:25pm

re: #108 b_sharp

I know he is a reborn and is pretty open with his faith and I seem to remember reading about his distrust in evolution. That doesn't mean he's a YEC of course, but it opens the door.

yeah. and it was just a guess off of the top of my head...it seemed like one of those quick trivia questions whose answer would quickly be revealed, as opposed to an actual discussion. no worries.

113

Aceofwhat? Fri, Dec 17, 2010 5:57:42pm

re: #111 Seltzer123

except for the part where he's wrong, it's really funny. and i don't mind that he's wrong. pedantry kills comedy, and i'm a chuckle pacifist.

114

Alexzander Fri, Dec 17, 2010 6:43:36pm

re: #58 celticdragon

Not really. Should I be?

From The Analysis of Mind by Bertrand Russell:

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.

115

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Dec 17, 2010 7:38:15pm

re: #45 calochortus

I thought the Conservative Bible Project had pretty much ground to a halt?

Dunno. I cherish, however, the moment when I told my father the devout Catholic about the project. "That's not CONSERVATIVE! That's RADICAL!" he shouted.

116

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Dec 17, 2010 7:39:59pm

re: #54 celticdragon

Yes, I do. Her true believers are pushing for this, and the media just can't seem to ignore her tweets and Facebook BS.

She will run, and one of the male candidates will have to kamaikaze to try and take her out since we have seen what happens (the O'Donnel candidacy) when a male GOP pol goes after a woman. It is suicidal.

You noticed that Barbara Bush was tappeed to say what the male members of the Bush family could not say?

Palin was still bitchy when she responded to that. Tone-deaf. The only way to deal with a smack-down like that from an older, respected lady who's not a politician is to be sweet as syrup.

117

lawhawk Fri, Dec 17, 2010 8:02:45pm

re: #4 Charles

Independents and Democrats are at 34%, which is also pretty freaking bad.

Oh, it's even worse than that; only 8% of GOP and 20/21% of Ind/Dems think humans evolved, but G-d played no role.

But, if you want a positive spin - the topline result is pretty stable over the past 20 years. According to the Gallup topline historical polling, this is within the range of results since 1980. In fact, at 40% overall, this is lower than it has been (range running from 40% to 47% believing G-d created man in present form).

That suggests that the creationist view hasn't actually been gaining ground but still shows that all too many people in the nation are buying into a worldview that is unscientific and puts the nation at a competitive disadvantage on basic science and research and development.

118

freetoken Fri, Dec 17, 2010 8:22:58pm

re: #117 lawhawk

What has been happening is that the groups are slowly separating themselves on other axes of ideology also. That is, the parties are slowly (in the Dem case ever so slowly) purifying themselves along ideological lines.

119

Amory Blaine Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:11:38pm

What's interesting to me is that 20% of democrats and independents say god had no part in human development. Much higher than I would have thought.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

New Gallup Poll: Majority of Republicans Are Young Earth Creationists

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud