When Republicans head to the polls on Super Tuesday, they’ll carry with them views on creationism and global warming that set them apart from Democrats – views shared in degrees by the four GOP presidential hopefuls.

But few voters from either party honestly understand the science.

“People come to their political beliefs through emotions, but they think they come them through facts,” says Peter Ditto, who specializes in social psychology at UC Irvine. Ditto has a Ph.D. from Princeton but says that even he can’t process the scientific information about global warming to make his own determination.

“It is not necessarily the case that education or knowledge makes you more objective,” he said. “Liberals are biased in their direction and conservatives are biased in their direction. People find holes and problems in arguments where they look for them – and they look harder when the science offends or just upends their established beliefs.”

In other words, the “facts” used by voters are often subjective, depending on one’s political, philosophical and religious beliefs. The trend is growing, fueled in part by spurious information on the internet, and is a major reason for partisan gridlock in Sacramento and Washington.

Thirty percent of Republicans say manmade global warming is occurring, while 64 percent of Democrats say that’s the case, according to Pew Research Center. Pure creationism – which says man was created by God in his current form – is subscribed to by 52 percent of Republicans and 34 percent of Democrats, according to Gallup. Pew found the difference on creationism to be a closer – but still substantial – 39 percent to 30 percent.

See graphic detailing these and other poll results.

And it’s not just evolution and global warming that are too complex for most voters to thoroughly assess based on data. The comparative efficiency of health-care policies, the effect of a large deficit, the best way to reduce the debt and how to stimulate the economy are other key areas where factual understanding doesn’t determine a voter’s position so much as their preexisting ideology and whose word they’re inclined to trust.

See data showing U.S. taxes are at a historic low.

The Republican presidential candidates sometimes appear to have clear views on these issues – and sometimes seem to be adjusting their positions to appeal to potential constituents.

On the issue of manmade global warming, Rick Santorum calls it “absurd” – a matter of “not climate science but political science .” Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have made statements within the last four years indicating a belief that man contributes to global warming – but all have subsequently reversed that position.

“I think 100 percent of the explanation is that they need to align themselves with the views of Republican voters – especially those who turn out in the primaries and caucuses,” said political scientist Raphael Sonenshein, executive director at CSU Los Angeles’ Brown Institute of Public Affairs. “I can guarantee that whoever gets the nomination will soften their view for the general election.”

Romney and Gingrich say they believe in a hybrid of evolution and creationism – that God has guided evolution. Santorum and Paul believe in creationism, rejecting evolution entirely. President Barack Obama believes in evolution and that man contributes significantly to global warming.



The hand of God



College graduates are more likely to believe in pure evolution than those who never went to college, 45 percent to 26 percent. They’re also more likely to believe in manmade global warming, 58 percent to 45 percent, according to Pew. See the study.

But you can virtually throw that polling out the window as an explanation for the difference between Republicans and Democrats on those issues. The two have nearly the same level of education – 44 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of Democrats are college grads, according to Pew – but embrace broadly different views on global warming and evolution.

“Man was created in his current form by God,” said Orange County GOP Chairman Scott Baugh, who holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration and a law degree. “I think it’s implausible – if not impossible – that man could have originated from simple cells and evolved into this wonderful and complex system of organs, glands, chemicals, hormones and mind.”

Baugh is unwavering in the face of excavated skeletons that scientists say prove man has evolved.

“The notion that we came from simple cells from the ocean cannot be proved by scientists,” he said. “They must take their own enormous leap of faith to get there. Just as I cannot prove creationism, the scientists cannot prove evolution.”

Gallup’s Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport said most creationists find such shortcomings in evolutionary science.

“Obviously, creationism comes from the Bible and the book of Genesis,” said Newport, who is writing a book on religion in America. “Their view of life is framed by Biblical literalism.”

Ditto says that the general public on both sides arrive at their beliefs based on faith – they just put their faith in different sources.

“Scientists are like the priests of the liberal religion,” Ditto said.

While creationism itself rarely is the subject of political policy beyond school curriculum, it’s closely tied to high-profile issues that are – including abortion rights, stem cell use, gay marriage and birth control. And the most sizeable portion of the electorate subscribing to creationism are evangelical Christians – such as Baugh – according to Pew researcher David Masci.

“Evangelicals are Republicans because they tend to be socially conservative,” Masci said. “They also tend to be more conservative financially and in terms of defense.”

Overall, Republicans consider themselves more religious than Democrats, with 48 percent of those in the GOP identifying themselves as “very religious” and 38 percent of Democrats claiming that level of devotion, according to Gallup.

Scientists, who come up with evidence to challenge creationism, are far less likely to believe in God than the general population, 33 percent to 83 percent, according to Pew. They’re even less likely to be Republican than Democrat, 6 percent to 55 percent with most of the rest claiming independence from party affiliation.

Climate change divide

While religion is the primary force driving belief in creationism, views on global warming are more likely to take root because of political outlook, according to Masci.

The complex constellation of factors conspiring to place Republicans and Democrats on opposite sides of the climate-change debate include Democrats’ traditional inclination to regulate markets, support environmental protections, and promote collective rights. Meanwhile, Republicans tend to support smaller government and fewer regulations on business and are often skeptical of findings that interfere with those goals.

Denial of manmade global warming has gained traction thanks to campaigns to fuel skepticism, according to Masci, Newport and Ditto. That view appears to be supported by a 2008 study by researchers at University of Central Florida and Oklahoma State University. They looked at 141 books challenging belief in manmade climate change and found that 92 percent were linked to conservative think tanks.

A Pew poll found that 84 percent of scientists believe there’s manmade global warming, compared to 49 percent of the general public. The journal of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences looked at the writings of 1,372 climate scientists and found that 97 percent thought there was manmade climate change. See the NAS study.

But skeptics – who have come to include prominent conservative print, TV and radio commentators – have been fueled by the dissenting scientists and by incidents like the 2010 email brouhaha which initially seemed to indicate that climate researchers at England’s University of East Anglia doctored data. Six official inquiries cleared the scientists of misconduct, but the incident sowed further seeds of doubt.

“The Republicans have managed the issue better,” Newport said. “The average American doesn’t have the ability and information to make a decision on climate change, so you’re going to pick up the views of those you trust.”

Polling by both Pew and Gallup shows a coinciding growth in recent years in the number of Americans who don’t believe there’s manmade global warming. Republican chief Baugh doesn’t completely rule out the possibility of such climate change, but is among the skeptics.

“While there’s a preponderance of scientists who believe in manmade global warming, there’s not unanimity,” he said. “And there’s been manipulated and incomplete data, which chips away at the credibility. If you look historically at global warming and cooling, these patterns were around before man began using fossil fuels and these other behaviors some say are the cause.”

Conservative white men are nearly twice as likely as other adults to deny that humans contribute to climate change, according to an analysis of Gallup data.

‘Grinding inertia’

On policy issues like manmade global warming, many partisan voters simply line up with others in their party, according to Ditto. Personally, he believes man contributes to global warming – but doesn’t think that proves Democrats are any smarter or more reasonable than Republicans.

“I think it is largely a team sport,” he said. “The red team has been told that they shouldn’t believe in global warming and the blue team has been told that they should. And both teams are told that people from the other team are deceiving them.”

The phenomenon is fueled by the growth in contradictory news sources – ranging from partisanship on Fox News and MSNBC to the internet, where you can read details of everything from Barack Obama’s supposed Kenyan birth to alleged evidence that the government is intentionally poisoning the country by putting lethal additives in jet fuel.

Read about the proliferation of political conspiracy theories.

“We’re going to continue to have this tailor-made media environment where you can find the facts to support what you believe,” said Ditto. “The two sides have different moral goals. When you mix in conflicting facts, it’s hard to have a conversation. Like when one side says the stimulus created 3 million jobs and the other side say the stimulus hasn’t created any.

“It’s hard to make progress when you can’t agree on the facts. We’re seeing what the consequence of this are – this kind of grinding political inertia.”

See how the U.S. compares to other countries in key areas related to government.

See a survey showing which countries believe most strongly in manmade global warming.

.

Contact the writer: 714-796-6753 or mwisckol@ocregister.com