At what point did creationism become a Republican issue?

[Big Phil]

It came up as an issue during the Republican presidential debate a few weeks back, and most of the candidates raised their hands when asked if they believe in Creationism. Nearly all conservative talk show hosts or pundits (Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, for example) have publicly stated their disbelief in evolution and how it Darwinian evolution is part of the "liberal religion."

Where the hell does this come from? Most of these people are educated and should know better - do they actually believe their bullshit, or are they appealing to the lowest common denominator and saying what they think their public wants to hear?

[Superman]

People often cite Reagan for this. Not exactly sure why, but I've heard it from a few people.

[Lord Zentei]

I reckon it's bullshit. For the most part, at least. They're going for the lowest common denominator.

And yet, I've got to admit that I know otherwise intelligent and educated people who get all huffy and defensive in their opposition to evolution. I suspect that they will argue against evolution and science in general partly because they don't like the change these forces represent, because they prefer the comfort of the culture remaining in the unchanging past. To them, evolution it is part, if not of a "liberal religion", then at least of the non-conservative culture which they dislike.

[Coyote]

And yet, I've got to admit that I know otherwise intelligent and educated people who get all huffy and defensive in their opposition to evolution...

Probably because they always get hit with that, "But you're intelligent... you should know better!" schtick that they can't defend against.

[Darth Wong]

Keep in mind that the one field where >99% of the practitioners reject creationism is the natural sciences. A lot of people who have trained in other fields are simply ignorant, and so they buy into what are (to be honest) very cleverly designed creationist rhetorical arguments. They're not scientific arguments, but a layperson wouldn't know the difference.

There are some people who really should know better, but I'd say that an awful lot of people who answer "yes" on creationist polls honestly don't know what they're talking about and have never bothered investigating. So the side which more aggressively pushes its message wins by default, and guess who's more aggressive. 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 too; once again this was not because of research; it was because of that "common knowledge" miasma which permeates American society and represents the sum total of rumour, innuendo, rhetorical chicanery, and ignorance.

[The Spartan]

Speaking for myself, it was a huge blind spot caused, likely, by fear.

I didn't realize it at the time, but I was, I think, terrified at the possibility that the whole God, and more importantly to me, heaven, story was bullshit. If evolution was true, then what I read in the Bible about creation wasn't literal truth. And if that's not literal truth, then maybe the rest isn't. You can imagine how my thinking would go from there.

I would also confuse abiogenesis with evolution and use it as a shield against evolution. This in spite of recognizing "micro-evolution."

Eventually, over the course of years, I was able to begin seeing evolution as "God's tool" for creation and to look upon the stories as religious allegories rather than literal retellings. It took a few years, and a close examination of the Bible, before I deconverted completely. Now, of course, I realize the factuality of evolution: Sure the details might be a little fuzzy, but the overall big picture is there.

[Patrick Degan]

At what point did creationism become a Republican issue?

When the party purged out all the smart people and turned itself into a mind-control cult.

[The Spartan]

Low cost Edit: My post above was in response to the Coyote's and Darth Wong's posts.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It was a long process. Through the 1930s and 1940s the southern christians largely supported the Democrat party, which was the home of the fucked up fundies. Then Truman desegregated the army, and the southerners bolted to form their own Dixiecrat party. The Republican party of the 1950s was moribound, and Eisenhower only won because of voter exhaustion with democrats after 20 years of having them in office, and his status as a war hero. His solution as a party man to try and build the party was to court religious voters through anti-communism measures, which were at the time mostly silly things like "In God We Trust" on currency and so on which weren't terribly important.

Then, come the 1960s, and the Republican Party is still getting smacked around the moment Eisenhower leaves office. Barry Goldwater actually first proposes the idea, though it doesn't do him much good because he was so extreme from everything else, but the heavy courting of southern voters on moral, social, and religious issues began then. Nixon took it full bore with his Southern Strategy and "Silent Majority". Reagan succeeded in bringing over the last of the conservative democrats with careful politicking and plenty of pork for their districts, along with rhetoric which appealed to them (he had been a democrat before--of their stripe--and knew how to talk to them), except for a few holdouts like Zell Miller. Really, the final transformation of the Republican party wasn't complete until the 2004 electoral campaign, when they brought in Zell Miller to give a firey Dixiecrat/Tillman style "WE STILL HAVE GUNS AND ROPES IN THE SOUTH!" speech to the whole cheering and hollaring convention.

The Republican party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, etc, basically doesn't exist anymore; what's happened in American politics is that we have the two branches of the Democratic party, the Dixiecrats as the Republicans and the evolved descendants of the old New Deal liberals of FDR as the current Democratic party.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Speaking of which I wonder how many people would vote for the Republicans if they were required to use the name Dixiecrat to properly reflect their legacy, heritage, and beliefs?

[Insert Username Here]

There are some people who really should know better, but I'd say that an awful lot of people who answer "yes" on creationist polls honestly don't know what they're talking about and have never bothered investigating.

A lot of people believe in the creation, but they don't believe in the six 24-hour day creation. Many Christians don't see the major conflict between creation and evolution.

As a Christian, I think it's undeniable that the earth is billions of years old, that dinosaurs did inhabit the earth, and that they were NOT on the ark. To name a few things.

As a tangent to the OP, I've never quite understood why 'Christianity' is a Republican thing. Especially considering the large number of Democrat Christians. It's all very weird.

[drachefly]

It came up as an issue during the Republican presidential debate a few weeks back, and most of the candidates raised their hands when asked if they believe in Creationism.

I was taking notes during the first debate...

evolution false?
L->R: nynynnnny (tancredo, brownback and... huckabee?)

Which was a surprisingly large fraction not against evolution.

Are you referring to a more recent debate?

[Big Phil]

It came up as an issue during the Republican presidential debate a few weeks back, and most of the candidates raised their hands when asked if they believe in Creationism.

I was taking notes during the first debate...

evolution false?
L->R: nynynnnny (tancredo, brownback and... huckabee?)

Which was a surprisingly large fraction not against evolution.

Are you referring to a more recent debate?

You're correct - it was only three (and those three); my memory did not serve me well.

What sparked this was listening to Ann Coulter on the radio this AM, talking about her book, "Godless," and how liberals believe in evolution. What astonished me was that the host went along with her, as if belief in Darwinian evolution is a symptom of a narrow mind or idiocy. I could only take about 60 seconds of the complete idiocy (and I live in Washington state!) before I had to change the station.

[Darth Wong]

I think people take a certain comfort in making decisions based on group allegiance rather than case-by-case research and analysis. It's so much easier and simpler. That's what's primarily behind this current attempt to classify scientific questions as "liberal" or "conservative" issues even though they shouldn't really have anything to do with politics. People want a nice clean package: if you're a Republican, you have a convenient checklist of things you're supposed to believe about everything from the environment to abortion, biology, astronomy, sociology, homosexuality, and economics. You don't need to think for yourself; you simply accept the whole package. This is historically part of the strength of conservative politics: its unnerving unity of opinion. Liberals are always fighting with each other, while conservatives move as one.

Remember that we are pack animals by nature due to our evolutionary ancestry; it may be the height of irony to note that the herd mentality fostered by religion is actually aided heavily by our evolutionary psychology background.

[Nova Andromeda]

-Adding to what Mr. Wong said, another large motivation may be lack of confidence in one's own ability to make a good decision. We probably have an instinct to stick with whatever the group thinks is best and/or traditional methods. For millions of years our ancesters had a very limited ability to predict the consequences of changing how things were done. Going against the grain in those times probably had a very high risk of rnning afoul of unintended consequences.

[Doctor Why]

As a Republican, I believe that the Religous fundamentalists really took control of the party in the ninties. Under Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party was a coalition of Conservatives, Libertarians, Religous Fundamentalists, and pro-military Liberals. This coalition fell apart after the cold war ended, and finally broke when George H.W. Bush failed to get reelected. In my opinion, this is where the party became dominated by the fundies, who before where just a militant minority. As Barry Goldwater said in his later years to Bob Dole, "We have become the Liberals of the Republican Party".

[Trajanus]

70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 too; once again this was not because of research; it was because of that "common knowledge" miasma which permeates American society and represents the sum total of rumour, innuendo, rhetorical chicanery, and ignorance.

The same thing happens in the American military too. Everyone I've talked to in my unit agrees that we should stay in Iraq "until the job is done." Most even want a troop increase. Of course, they'll ignore the fact that it's our presence in the Middle East that creates the resentfulness which terrorists recruit off of. Just like you said, "common knowledge" over research.

[Trajanus]

It came up as an issue during the Republican presidential debate a few weeks back, and most of the candidates raised their hands when asked if they believe in Creationism. Nearly all conservative talk show hosts or pundits (Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, for example) have publicly stated their disbelief in evolution and how it Darwinian evolution is part of the "liberal religion."

Where the hell does this come from? Most of these people are educated and should know better - do they actually believe their bullshit, or are they appealing to the lowest common denominator and saying what they think their public wants to hear?

You seem to be forgetting that 2/3rds of the Republican base are evangelical Christians. Hell, even Democrats have to regularly preach their faith in public.

[Winston Blake]

Speaking of which I wonder how many people would vote for the Republicans if they were required to use the name Dixiecrat to properly reflect their legacy, heritage, and beliefs?

I think it's odd that the Republicans get all the best subconscious connotations. The name 'Republican' sounds very similar to 'American' and gets to be called the 'Right', i.e. 'righteous', 'opposite of wrong', etc. On the other hand, the Democrats get stuck with a name that sounds like the word 'Aristocrats' perverting the word 'Democracy'. Then they get the losing side of the traditional connotations of Right = Good/God, Left = Evil/Satan/Sinister.

[CaptJodan]

Speaking of which I wonder how many people would vote for the Republicans if they were required to use the name Dixiecrat to properly reflect their legacy, heritage, and beliefs?

I think it's odd that the Republicans get all the best subconscious connotations. The name 'Republican' sounds very similar to 'American' and gets to be called the 'Right', i.e. 'righteous', 'opposite of wrong', etc. On the other hand, the Democrats get stuck with a name that sounds like the word 'Aristocrats' perverting the word 'Democracy'. Then they get the losing side of the traditional connotations of Right = Good/God, Left = Evil/Satan/Sinister.

That, and they have an ass for a mascot.