Why Intellegent Design survives

Digby discusses a recent survey on evolution vs. creationism and seems a little confused by the numbers:

Hey, a quarter of the population say they believe in both evolution and creationism so it’s safe to say that there is something very bizarre about this debate. [ Back to the Dark Ages ]

Let’s see of we can shed some light on that. Digby quotes someone who quotes Gallup (gotta love blogs):

Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.

Emphasis is mine because I want to make sure you don’t miss that key phrase: “doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans come from.” You can read that two ways: either those surveyed think evolution is the incorrect explanation, or they think evolution — while correct — is insufficient explanation.

If you ask my good friend Linda if she believes people evolved from monkeys, she will tell you “yes.” Ask her if she thinks God created humans, she will also say yes. This is neither a contradiction nor bizarre: Linda believes God created humans, and evolution is how we perceive that process occurring in the material world. That’s commonly called “ theistic evolution,” and it’s not difficult to see how someone who believes this might either self-identify as “creationist” or be identified as belonging to both camps by an unsophisticated or confusingly worded survey.

Intelligent Design takes advantage of this by billing itself as the “science of creation.” Never mind that it’s young-earth creationism and that the evidence is cherry-picked or outright fabricated. Folks listening with half an ear are just going hear that the Intelligent Design is the theory that a higher intelligence is responsible for the creation of humans. That makes them seem much more reasonable than the atheists who insist the theory of Evolution disproves the existence of God. And when it comes time to flip the switch for ID in the classroom, guess who wins — the people who appear to be rational integrators of knowledge, or the wackos who insist religious people are deluded idiots?

This is one of the reasons I say it is important for atheists to understand the religions they criticize. As long as Digby finds these kinds of results “bizarre,” Digby is going to have a hard time reaching people who hold those positions. But when you understand the people you are trying to persuade, then you have a much better chance at building an effective argument.