More Recent Comments

Monday, April 08, 2013

Not Everyone in the USA Hates Evolution!

I lived in New Jersey for six years. I've lived in North Carolina for several months and my daughter lived there for six years. She now lives in California. We visit and vacation in New York (state) quite often. All these states are different but North Carolina is more different than the others.

Jerry Coyne has posted a graph showing why (see below) [Acceptance of evolution vs. religiosity in the U.S.]. It reminds me that some parts of the USA are much more like Canada and Europe. It reminds me that I shouldn't assume that Texas (or North Carolina) represents the whole country.

It also reminds me of a conversation I once had with a well-known defender of evolution. That person expressed serious concerns about a possible second civil war if trends continue the way they are going. (It might not mean war, but the point is that the Union is fragile and there are many good reasons for splitting the country.)


  1. Here is a link to a recent Gallup survey of the most and least religious U.S. metropolitan areas:

  2. LM writes,
    'It also reminds me of a conversation I once had with a well-known defender of evolution. That person expressed serious concerns about a possible second civil war if trends continue the way they are going.'

    Let me remind readers of Sandwalk that Larry ran a post not long ago about a man named Matthew Staver who 'expressed serious concerns about a possibe second civil war' if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriages. He used that statement to tar many Christians with the same brush, and titled his post 'This Is Why Christians Want Guns'.

    So, he can either own up to a blatant double standard, or retitle THIS piece "This Is Why Evolutionists Want Guns".

    1. Umm, I think you need to re-read this post, and the earlier one, Andy. There is a slight difference between worrying that a war might break out, and actually threatening to start a war. Do you really think that Larry is saying the "evolutionists" are the ones who would be using guns?

      Also, I wonder how you overlooked this phrase:

      It might not mean war....

  3. Good grief. The obvious difference is that the evolution defender was worried about •people like Matt Staver•.

    1. Good grief, Chris. Did you not read this part, that Larry also wrote?

      ' there are many good reasons for splitting the country'

      The 'obvious difference' is that Larry could support the idea of splitting the country over ideas that he personally agrees with, but would accuse a major portion of a religious group in America with bloodlust because of the comments of someone who could support the idea of splitting the country over ideas that he personally DOESN'T agree with.

      I don't agree with it either, by the way. I thought Staver's comments were idiotic. But that doesn't alter the double standard Larry is applying. But, like he always helps me point out, he is a propagandist.

    2. Larry noting that there are good reasons for splitting the country doesn't mean either that Larry 'does' or 'could' support splitting the country - if we're being logical, anyway. Whether there are good reasons for splitting is separate from supporting such a split, even as a matter of possibility ('could'). You are just charging in head down, as you did on the Staver issue, in order to have some sort of 'gotcha' moment.

      Is Larry actually a 'propagandist'?

    3. Here's a link to the post on Staver, so readers can decide for themselves if Andy is interpreting it correctly:

    4. I should add that I partially agree with you about the Staver issue, in that Larry's headline was overly broad.

    5. I'll also mention that, as Canadians, Larry and I regularly deal with the possibility that the country might split into two. and there are very good reasons that could happen, as well as reasons that it could not. No one expects this to involve an armed insurrection if it happens. It's just a fact of the very different cultures that coexist within the nation, an arrangement depends on whether the citizens of both cultures want to maintain that relationship.

  4. Andy

    Watch for Chris Mooney's new book: The Anti-Evolution Brain :)

  5. I'm getting a little tired of people who hijack a discussion by carrying out a vendetta against me on my own blog. I won't put up with it for much longer.

  6. North Carolina would be even worse if it were not for the Research Triangle Park region (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill).

    1. I stayed in Chapel Hill and that's where my daughter lived. It's one of the best places in the entire country. Drive for 10 minutes and you're in Durham. Definitely not one of the best places in the country.

    2. I lived in Chapel Hill too (postdoc at UNC) and agree that it's better than Durham or Raleigh. Loved the place; great weather and low cost of living combined with a literate and educated populace along with many academic opportunities.

  7. I personally think the word "hate" is too strong a word. I think the word "belief" would be more appropriate in this case, though I have to admit that I have not had much contact with people and churches where the anti-evolution "gospel" is taught.

  8. Its not the states but the identities that determines these things.
    Surey there are more evangelical Protestants in these but not those states.
    its not geography. I'm sure French Canadians are largely evolutionists and few creationists. Yet its not about Quebec.
    Creationism follows the most protestant and original british/ earliest immigrants population bases.
    not just in opinion but a general sharper savvy questioning of ideas. Traditional questioning of authority.
    In fact it follows republican/democrat tendencies.
    Otherwise america would be europe.

    Canada also follows this way.
    Yet all this just a way to avoid the merits of the case.

    In reality, one side or the other, the acceptance/rejection of evolution follows ones confidence in the authority behind evolution.
    Nobody, 95% or more, puts their minds to these subjects.
    Its about trust.
    Christians trust the bible and not man.
    America always mistrusted man's authority.
    Modern Boston trusts whatever comes from universities and books and tv.
    Thats all it is.
    The vast number of people know nothing about these things and hardly can give a good answer one way or the other.
    Identity and trust is behind these numbers.

    1. Boston ?

      What do you have against Boston ?

    2. I've thought that British Columbia (lived there for 10 years, Vancouver and Victoria), Washington State, Oregon and California (lived there for a year in Los Angeles) would make a natural national entity, a west coast coalition of sorts, the flag would have the marijuana leaf superimposed on a hot tub.

      I think this idea has been explored in novels by William Gibson (the flag idea is mine, not his).

    3. Byers raves: Creationism follows the most protestant and original british/ earliest immigrants population bases.

      Darwin, Wallace, Huxley, etc. were French, of course.

  9. Utah not among the most religious? It (and the Osmonds) being among its best-known commodities.

    I was heartened to see Tennessee plates on a car parked up for the Burgess Shale guided hike. Proves nothing in that sample size of one of unknown actual opinion, but it shows, at least, an interest.

  10. You know what Larry? It just hit me; what a relief...It bothered me for days...I felt like lieutenant (I'm a bad speller and this one killed me) Columbo... You have pasted the graph which looked familiar, but I could not put it together... Why??? Now I know. My buddy's office display poster shows almost the same graph; the more secular the society becomes, the more they become "substance lovers". Except for Arkansas--the people are very religious there but the big corp owns them everything there including their underwear... Well I just wait for evolutionary theory regarding that piece of puzzle..;