One possibility is that respondents who identified as Republican and believed in evolution in 2009 are no longer identifying as Republicans. Fewer scientists, for example, are reportedly identifying with the GOP, and the overall trend is for fewer Americans to call themselves Republicans. But both Gallup and separate polling from Pew found approximately the same party ID in 2009 and 2013.Given that people do not tend to change their religious perspectives based on who is in office, I do not think this is it, either. Something is being missed here. I think it is possible that the rise in Republicans who reject evolution is being influenced, at least in part, by the uptick in the number of self-described conservatives being home schooled. From an Education News story in March:
Another is that the rise of "intelligent design" education has helped to swing younger Americans against evolution. Yet the age breakdown remains similar in 2009 and 2013, with respondents ages 18 to 29 most likely to believe in evolution.
What does that leave? Maybe the gap represents an emotional response by Republicans to being out of power. Among others, Chris Mooney has argued that beliefs on politically contentious topics are often more rooted in opposition to perceived attacks than anything else—an instance of "motivated reasoning." Given that Democrats have controlled the White House and Senate since 2009, this could be backlash to the political climate, though it will be hard to tell until Republicans control Washington again.
More than 2 million children around the U.S. are homeschooled, a number that is 75% higher than it was in 1999. And the number is expected not just to grow, but to grow exponentially over the next decade — especially since the advent of free virtual public schools and quality curriculum all around the country.While the story is quick to point out that the parents of these children are increasingly choosing this route not just because of religious reasons, conservative Christians are still vastly the bulk of those being home schooling. I have found very few home school curricula that do not exude antipathy toward evolution. This has been the case for some time. Arguing against this perspective is the fact that a higher percentage of younger people accept evolution. However, we don't know about the educational breakdown, apart from "did you graduate from college or not?" How many of those evangelical protestants that reject evolution were home schooled? It would be nice to know. In any event, however, it can only be one factor of many due to the relatively small number of children involved. The reasons behind the drop in support are likely multifaceted.
BTW: there is one very unusual response collected by the poll that I missed the first time around. Among self-described mainline protestants that accept evolutionary theory, 36% think that evolution was guided by God and 36% think that God was not involved. If you are a self-described mainline protestant in the second batch, how does that work exactly? You believe in God but you don't think He has acted in the evolution of biodiversity on the planet? What does He do?
There is a sort of "free process" view in which God is held to sort of set the universe up and let evolution run on its own. It's been espoused by Howard Van Till and some of the writers at Biologos and elsewhere. Its essential incoherence and unorthodox nature have been pointed out repeatedly by commenters at Biologos and discussed extensively at Jon Garvey's blog (http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/) Jon has recruited a few like minded co-bloggers for his site and they have been trying to get Biologos to deal with this issue in an open way for several years.
ReplyDeleteI can understand why people want to be able to distance God from the unpleasantness of infectious agents, parasites, natural disasters, genetic defects, etc., but the Biblical God never flinches from taking responsibility for these things, and if you think He is really omnipotent, it is incoherent to try to say that unpleasant things are somehow out of His control. The possibility that the God-granted free agency of evil angelic powers could have something to do with these things is another matter, but the "freedom" of physical processes is an idea that I find completely ridiculous. Nonetheless, evidently it has a hold on some people.
What does God do in gravity?
ReplyDeleteYah. Point taken.
DeleteSorry, that sounded snotty. I didn't mean it that way. I think my evangelical upbringing got the better of me on that post. The sort of "What does God want me to wear this morning?" mentality that I have been clawing and scratching to get away from. Sometimes I am there, sometimes I am not.
DeleteWhy would it be necessary for God to act in Evolution? Would not the initial act of creation be enough of an impetus on God's part? Why would a omnipotent Creator have to periodically tinker behind the scenes to get the "biodiversity on the planet" you describe?
ReplyDeleteHow would such a prospective be different from deism?
DeleteHow would God intervening in evolution be different than intelligent design? Why is your god so small that he would have to step-in instead of letting the physical laws of Creation work?
ReplyDeleteThat would work if you are suggesting that God has put into place a self-creating, self-sustaining universe, like what John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins have posited. I was not thinking along those lines when I responded to your initial comment. I do not envision a small god. Your comment made me think "initial creation, no action whatsoever." That is why I responded the way that I did.
ReplyDelete