Gallup: Only two percent of conservatives don’t believe in a higher power

posted at 2:51 pm on July 28, 2008 by Allahpundit

The number’s even smaller when you remember that 21% of “atheists” believe in God. The few, the proud, the heretics:

Gallup decided to present the data in video format for some reason so you’ll have to sit through two minutes to see how the numbers by party identification compare. I never know what to make of the fact that I belong to such a tiny minority within my own side; there’s no reason I can think of why faith should be some essential part of conservatism and plenty of reason why it shouldn’t, i.e. cynicism about human nature should correlate to some degree with a more general skepticism, but 50 150 million right-wing believers can’t be wrong. (Actually, they can!)

Anyone want to try explaining this?

It’s unclear how they’re dividing “East” from “South” so I can only guess that the entire coast is being placed in the former category, which will drag the number of believers upwards as you cross the Mason-Dixon line. If not, then that is one indigo-blue bloc the Dems have got going from Washington down to the southern tip of Cali. WaPo looks at the numbers and sees doom for the GOP out west in the decades ahead if those numbers continue, but we’re already doomed in the coastal states. The question really is Arizona and New Mexico. Given the size of the very Catholic Latino populations there, are we really in that much trouble? Er, yeah — but not because of religion.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air


Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.


Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

RightOFLeft on July 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM

Well, in the first place (and I mention this first because it was last), not virtually every biologist supports evolution. It’s nice for rhetoric but it’s simply false.

The bible says something about dragons and sea monsters and a big-ass ark that apparently got round the globe in a few days to pick them all up.

Alright, that cracked me up. To be picky, I think Noah “called them,” so they managed to crawl from all corners of the globe in time for a flood. It took a while to build that thing, though, so who knows? (Not to mention a cataclysmic flood, it is argued, greatly changed the landscape, so that nothing is as it once was.)

Intelligent design has not been around “for 10 years,” though it may have found its most famous champion in Michael Behe. It’s an old-fashioned view. Or, it was around before Darwin. What exactly, though, is the evidence for evolution? I’ve always seen the “this is what she looked like!” derived from a skull fragment, or some other insanely overblown vision. I’ve never seen evidence; I’ve seen projection.

What I object to in evolution is this idea that complexity just began arising, so that a single-celled organism can figure out how to become a human being. I reject the idea that the intricacies of a tree frog, let alone the human body, just evolved from a tree frog. It’s like the Buckley quote from his This I Believe, about the schoolmaster’s refusal to believe in that the random mutation of goo produced Hamlet, rather than God.

That, and:
We haven’t been able to reproduce DNA/RNA under primitive earth conditions.
For evolutionary theory to work, as I understand it, chemicals have to become a cell, and that’s where the ball starts rolling. The current level of oxygen prevents UV radiation from killing life; if it were less (as it presumably would be, according to evolution) life would not begin.
We simply don’t have all these little birds with one wing or animals with strange deformities, arising out of nowhere. We also don’t have the missing link (apropos, no?). It is a theory. The common dogmatic, slavish devotion to it is expected of cults, not science.

I didn’t mean to imply Dr. Dawkins was evil; I haven’t yet read his book (for the record, Hitchens is hilarious and Sam Harris is a clearly vindictive bore). Just that I disagree with him on evolution. Not for religious reasons necessarily, though I do happen to like the more eloquent defenders of imago dei; I just am not convinced. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in adaptation, which I do. I don’t buy that species are a human construct; otherwise we’d consider different melanin levels to be indicative of different species.

emailnuevo on July 29, 2008 at 8:14 PM

That “tree frog” sentence should be “evolved from chemicals/cells.”

emailnuevo on July 29, 2008 at 8:15 PM

The irreducible complexity argument has been debunked so thoroughly that creationists hardly bother mentioning it , anymore

miller telling some just-so story doesn’t debunk anything, sorry.

Finally, the NAS’s abridged booklet asserts that biologists “have found intermediate forms of flagella.” But no reference or description is given for these alleged “intermediate forms of flagella,” because this claim is false. In 2006 Pallen co-wrote, “it is clear that all (bacterial) flagella share a conserved core set of proteins,” observing that “[t]his reduced flagellum is still a challenge to explain.” Pallen co-identified a core set of structural components “at the heart of the bacterial flagellum”:
“Three modular molecular devices are at the heart of the bacterial flagellum: the rotorstator that powers flagellar rotation, the chemotaxis apparatus that mediates changes in the direction of motion and the T3SS that mediates export of the axial components of the flagellum.”
Pallen’s article further admitted that “the flagellar research community has scarcely begun to consider how these systems have evolved.” By claiming “there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria” and that there are “intermediate forms of flagella,” the NAS is promoting incorrect information about the flagellar structure, and the NAS is wrong to imply that the evolution of the flagellum is understood.


right4life on July 29, 2008 at 8:15 PM

Evolution hypothesizes a specific range of mechanisms for change which have been directly observed.

actually they have not. the fossil record does not support gradual evolution…thus the need for punctuated equilibrium….. and when tested in the lab, evolution fails…mutations do not ‘add up’

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components.


right4life on July 29, 2008 at 8:19 PM

The bible is more scientific than intelligent design, because at least it makes falsifiable claims (plainly, since they’re so easily falsified).

since according to you, ID cannot be falsified…then how was miller able to claim he falsified the irreducable complexity of the flagellum?

his doing that proves ID is testable…ie it is science.

right4life on July 29, 2008 at 8:20 PM

since according to you, ID cannot be falsified…then how was miller able to claim he falsified the irreducable complexity of the flagellum?

his doing that proves ID is testable…ie it is science.

right4life on July 29, 2008 at 8:20 PM

I can’t believe you still don’t see the irony of that argument.

*snip* Well, in the first place (and I mention this first because it was last), not virtually every biologist supports evolution. It’s nice for rhetoric but it’s simply false.

emailnuevo on July 29, 2008 at 8:14 PM

If it were false we wouldn’t be having this controversy about what to teach in high school. I think Project Steve says it all, though.

All I’ve got to say is – the universe is a big place, and it’s been around a long time. Human life, amazing as it is, probably isn’t even the strangest thing there is to find in it.

RightOFLeft on July 29, 2008 at 9:35 PM

I can’t believe you still don’t see the irony of that argument.

no irony, just the truth. but you can’t even argue this point nor any of my others.

there is no evolution. sorry. the fossil record doesn’t show it, and it cannot be reproduced in a lab. its an atheist fairy tale, nothing more.

right4life on July 29, 2008 at 9:39 PM

why would you want christianity out of the governing process? do you want judaism out of the governing process? how about islam? sounds like you just want atheism as the governing religion, and we’ve all seen what that does.

Which interpretation should be the one the Government follows? The hardcore fundamentalist every word is true version? Once again, you make the error of Christianity being homogenus. Unitarians, Orthodox (Greek and Russian), Roman Catholic, Protestant and the dozens of splinters from Protestantism have serious doctrinal differences. That’s just Christianity. Outside of lip service, what else do you want?

oh I have the GALL to say all sorts of things to morons like you. I wasn’t talking about christianity in particular, since the quote I gave from adams mentioned religion, not christianity. and your post seems to want all religions out of government, except atheism of course, or do you just hate christians? do you have a final solution in mind for christians? since we are to have no role in government, what role do you see for christians in society? perhaps as a dhimmi, as in muslim societies? discrminated against, abused, etc?

This is awesome. So, Islam is the moral equivalent of Christianity? No, pal, not a straw man. That is your argument, that Adams was speaking of religion in general and not Christianity in particular, which is wrong. Adams writes often of the superior moral base Christianity has/had. Context is everything.

I love the persecuted Christian schtick, though. It’s laughable. Why, it’s just like 1933 and Nazi Germany all over again. You’ll be lucky to make it out alive, when the combined might of the Gays and Atheists join up to encompass nearly 10% of the population! How will you ever strike back? If only there were some amendment in the constitution to allow you to bear arms! The horror!

Hang in there, my brave little soldier.

Krydor on July 29, 2008 at 10:48 PM

me and you Allah… the only two in the crowd… of course I don’t have the commitment to go fullon Atheist… I still hold out hope for something. so I’m sticking with Agnostic… but make no doubt we get the same treatment you do.

Kaptain Amerika on October 31, 2008 at 11:51 PM

right4life on July 29, 2008 at 9:39 PM

check this out
and tell me there is no evolution…

birds with beaks shaped like flowers… however the same birds in other locations with different shaped beaks? mmmm wonder how that happened?

have you ever read anything about gene mutation? come on… you do your argument no favors by being oblivious to the facts… why not adopt the facts and refine your argument? why not argue that God designed evolution? then all you would have to do is explain who made God… and that should be pretty easy right?

Kaptain Amerika on October 31, 2008 at 11:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4