A related question: An NBC poll shows that 57 percent of respondents believe in the Biblical account of creation, compared with 33 percent who think evolution is the explanation. Many people believe that schools should teach intelligent design along with evolution, as if these two explanations are simply matters of opinion. A Pew Foundation poll shows that 42 percent of Americans think intelligent design should be taught instead of evolution. What are the implications of this?
Among conservative, evangelical Protestants, a tradition going back to the Scopes trial and to the start of the Darwinian revolution in 1859 links Darwinism to atheism, secular humanism, and even, at the time of the Nazis, to a eugenics program emphasizing the survival of the fittest and doing away with the unfit. Also, many people have trouble with the notion that their ancestors were apes, even though 97 percent of our DNA is the same as chimpanzees'. Those factors, along with the story of the Creation in Genesis, make Darwinism look suspect. So people can live in the world and deal with business and finance and yet take a sinister view of Darwinism. They link it to abortion, gay rights, and a lot of liberal movements they don't like.
In 1913, a social scientist found that about 40 percent of American scientists believe in a higher power or creator and an afterlife. In the '30s, the '60s, and the '90s, similar surveys again found the same percentage. So the scientific community hasn't become more secular. The percentage of scientists who believe that science and religion are compatible has remained constant for a century.
Over the past half century, mainstream religious sects have declined in membership and influence while the membership and influence of formerly marginal sects have increased. Why? Are there parallels to this trend in other areas of American life?
The country is definitely more conservative now than 30 years ago. Ronald Reagan's presidency coincided with the upsurge of the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority, all of which share the view that America has become too secular and lost its values. They point to what I call the Twin Towers of abortion on demand and gay rights. (Evolution is in the same bailiwick but one step down.) People see the formerly mainstream churches as too liberal on those two crucial issues. Those issues allow the conservative churches to say "We stand on solid principles and don't compromise," which has an appeal, especially in troubled times.
Reagan is important because he is seen as a principal force in the downfall of godless Communism, which validates the conservative viewpoint. All these issues - anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-Communism, combined now with anti-terrorism and a strong national defense - fit together. Conservatives feel they stand on principle.
The country has definitely swung to the right. I don't think it will remain that way because in America as elsewhere the pendulum swings back toward the middle. But conservatism is the reality today. I think it's important for liberals and conservatives to listen to each other. My editorial comment is that conservatives don't listen to liberals. They see them as so bankrupt they no longer deserve a hearing. The reverse is also true, though less so. The caricatures each side has of the other do no one any good.
Is tolerance for people of other religions (or no religion) increasing?
Yes, even among devoutly religious people. That is the
good news. People are better educated. They may not
embrace Hinduism, for instance, but they don't think
Hindus are evil and warrant blanket condemnation.
Americans realize we've survived as a nation for so
long because the First Amendment allows freedom
of religion. As the Founding Fathers said, religion
works best when it's left to prosper in the marketplace
of ideas. 
