Accept the implications

[Fade the Butcher]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/accept_the_implications.php

Awww, poor William Dembski is puzzled by the data that shows that acceptance of evolution rises with education level (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/american_political_conservatis.php). I'm sorry, guy, but that's what the evidence shows: better educated people tend to support good science more than poorly educated people, and Intelligent Design creationism derives its popularity from ignorance. Larry Moran puts him in his place (http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/01/does-disbelieving-evolution-reflect.html).
At the risk of boring anyone with an IQ over 80, let me make the point that Dembski is deliberately missing. In 2002, if you rejected evolution you were an idiot. That's because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The same correlation holds today, only more so.
One other thing that that graph shows is that conservatism is associated with disbelief in evolution, and several people have complained that they dislike the way I phrased it, as "American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science". They've complained that it's only a correlation, not evidence of causation, and that it's not about science, it's about evolution. However, I stand by my wording.

The voice of conservatism in America is the Republican party, and the Republican party stands against evolution, against stem cell research, against reproductive rights, against education, against the environment, against alternative energy research, against pollution controls, against good science education, against universal health care, on and on and on. I appreciate that individual conservatives in good conscience may deplore the anti-science agenda and divorce themselves from rather large chunks of the Republican platform, and I understand that the party has not always been such a refuge for know-nothings and may someday reshape itself, but face it: conservatism in this country is tightly coupled to scientific ignorance. If you are a conservative, that is your problem (just as the ineffective, dithering dullards of the Democratic party are my problem, as an openly declared liberal). Buck up, accept the responsibility, and do something about it. Fight for reform of America's conservative political party.

Or maybe you sensible people who believe in conservative values just need to found a new party and get out from the umbrella of what should be called the Insane Christianist party.

[Micaelis]

That the earth was created 6,000 years ago in the state we now experience is most certainly false. Assertions like that are junk science. From my own investigations I find evolution to be plausible. I also believe that it does not eliminate the possibility of intelligence in the formation of temporal organisms. Actually, I think evolution supports it.

There's also a difference between evolution and evolutionism. IMO, one should not transform a scientific concept into an individuated ideology. It defeats the purpose of science.

[Mike]

I really don't want to wade into an evolution debate, but I see different implications than the ones you would have us accept. In practice, 95% of the time better education simply means better indoctrination. Since what's being taught in most American schools is "good science" (i.e. evolution theory) it is unsurprising that evolution theory is what people tend to support.

I'm sorry, guy, but that's what the evidence shows: better educated people tend to support good science more than poorly educated people, and Intelligent Design creationism derives its popularity from ignorance. Larry Moran puts him in his place.

[Insidium]

But is it not also true that as the level of education increases, parents tend to take race into account when sending their kids to school? This is contrary to egalitarian propaganda and indoctrination.