From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: The Number and Influence of Fundies (Was: Re: I visited the icr in p
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:08:46 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Sep8.195029.24950@isrc.sandia.gov| smlacke@isrc.sandia.gov (Scott M Lackey) writes:
|From article <27014@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM|, by wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson):
|| [.....]
|| 
|| Contrary to the impression they give due to the high level of exposure
|| on TV, radio, and various other media, the Fundies comprise only about
|| 1% of the religious population. Science and technology have eroded
|| their positions long term and what we are seeing today is just
|| a minor reversal of the overall trend. I think we can safely ignore
|
|   There is no doubt that fundamentalists generate more exposure
|than their numbers would make appropriate (especially in subjects related
|to science where numbers are irrelevant), but their numbers are 
|significantly above 1% if I'm not terribly mistaken.  The numbers of
|ICR supporter types may be small, but a large segment of our population
|believes this stuff.  A December 1991 Gallup poll showed that 47%
|believe that God created humans as we appear now, and that God
|did it about 10,000 years ago.  If this were just another example
|of an "Americans are embarrassingly ignorant" poll we hear of regularly

I was surprised to hear that 1% number, too. I heard it on a discussion
show on CNN or CNBC or some such. Sorry I can't documented it. It may
be the people who attend in person and contribute. The numbers who
watch the telecasts are more in number.

I didn't know about the 47% statistic. That's chilling. But I wonder
how many answered out of ignorance, as you do, and those who were
answering frivously. 

|	We have a major political party (guess which one) made up of
|people who don't dare come out for science for fear of losing 
|support of these people.  Surely they are not this worried about
|losing 1% if they are willing to throw away the athiest vote (4%???)
|and the gay vote (10%???) and others so quickly.  Of course I realize

If that major political party went after the athiest and gay vote
they would be the other major political party. One can be conservative
without being fundamentalist--they won the last few times. Including
a group into your party doesn't mean pandering and doesn't indicate
their numbers.
|
|| a minor reversal of the overall trend. I think we can safely ignore
|| them. They will never go away, but unless civilization collapses
|| they will never dominate.
|
|	You may be right, but I don't think so. They will definitely
|never go away, but unless rational people oppose them, I do not
|think we can assume they will never dominate.  They have had
|some really scary successes.  Also, even if they do not dominate,
|they can do some real damage to our society. (They already have.)

I agree with you that they need to be opposed. My objection was to 
a physical picketing and demonstration at the ICR.
|
|| 
|| -- 
|| Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
|
|Scott Lackey


-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16253 alt.conspiracy:10550 sci.classics:701