> In terms of stem cell research, evolution, and the Big Bang, those with a stronger general education showed greater political polarization, with conservatives

> In terms of stem cell research, evolution, and the Big Bang, those with a stronger general education showed greater political polarization, with conservatives more likely to reject them. For those with a strong science education, those topics were also polarized, as was climate change. This indicates the polarisation is not a consequence of whether people understand and apply scientific methodology, but rather is a consequence of network effects. Even working scientists who practice scientific methods do not have first hand knowledge of much science. Time precludes them from working on anything other than their own respective special sub-disciplines. Rather, their knowledge comes from reading accounts by other scientists, or people they trust. What people are trusted by conservatives? People who may be very well versed in scientific and engineering methods, such as mining company executives, and investors in mining companies. It comes as no surprise that for economic reasons, such people downplay the importance of climate change research. As a consequence, people in their networks don't rate climate change as a threat. Likewise with the Big Bang vs Creationism. These are just proxies for social and political status that office bearers in churches, and anti-churches, enjoy, which gives them the power to communicate with and influence vast numbers of followers and acolytes. When you read about the numbers of people who believe the Big Bang vs those who believe in God, you aren't reading about a scientific evaluation. You are reading about political groupings in society amongst people who compete for power and resources.