Evolution and liberalism

Concerning the evolutionary paradigm and liberalism, in the United States, CBS News reported in October 2005 that the Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals.

CBS News reported the following:

“

Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent). White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.

”

Given that liberalism is so prevalent in academia, it is not entirely surprising that college graduates are indoctrinated into the evolutionary paradigm via evolutionary propaganda. In addition, liberals are more likely to be superstitious.

In September of 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported:

“

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith -- it's what the empirical data tell us. "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.... This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.

”

American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism

As noted earlier, liberals are more likely to advocate the evolutionary paradigm than conservatives. Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." Professor Brooks found that American liberals are significantly less charitable than American conservatives despite earning more. American Conservatives also donate more time and donate more blood. The results are not entirely surprising given that Darwinists have historically often displayed behavior in accordance with social darwinism.

Atheism and liberal Christianity alliances

See also:

Atheism and liberal Christianity alliance related to evolutionism

See also: Atheism and liberal Christianity alliance

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists and agnostics. See also: Atheism and evolution

In terms of atheists and politics, most atheists lean left politically (see: Atheism and politics and Secular left

The atheist Eugenie C. Scott served as an Executive Director of the pro-evolution organization National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and considerable amount of her time was spent working with liberal Christians as far as supporting the teaching of evolution in public schools.

At the same time, the atheist and evolutionist PZ Myers wrote about NCSE favoring liberal Christianity:

“

It’s still going on. Jerry Coyne repeated our common criticism that the NCSE spends too much effort promoting Christianity; then Richard Hoppe fires back, complaining that his comment was held in moderation (Coyne has been sick for a while, you know…I wish people would have more patience), and then repeating the common and misguided defense that NCSE is not an atheist organization. We know. We’ve both agreed on multiple occasions that the NCSE should not be an atheist organization. But still we get this same tiresome objection. NCSE’s main remit is defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. That defense is both legal (think Kitzmiller) and political (think the Dover PA school board election after that trial but before the verdict was in). One cannot win political battles without accepting alliances with groups with whom one does not agree on all aspects of all issues. To imagine otherwise is to live in dreamland. Yes? Please look in a mirror, Richard! As I’ve said before, said just above, am saying again, and will no doubt have to say a hundred times more, no one is asking the NCSE to become an atheist organization, and no one is saying that the NCSE shouldn’t make strategic alliances with religious organizations. I’d put it in 72 point type if I thought it would help, but I doubt that anything will. The problem is that the NCSE is not neutral on atheism vs. religion, but has clearly taken a side in preferring one particularly fuzzy, liberal, soft version of Christianity as its ‘acceptable’ religious belief.

”

See Also

• Evolution as a secular origins myth
• Superstition
• Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality
• Atheism and deception