Randy Barnett, pointing to a couple of LGF items about creationism in the GOP, remarks:
Republicans be warned: No demonstrably creationist politician will be elected President of the United States.
I wouldn't exactly call that a safe bet, especially now.
Those of us in the edumacated classes, with eclectic reading habits and a collection of Stephen Jay Gould books on the shelf, may regard overt creationism (as distinct from mushy unclarity on the subject of evolution) as an unacceptable quality in a candidate.
But what of the masses? The ones whose exposure to biology was one ill-taught required class in high school, and who simply have no interest in the matter?
What if the other candidate subscribes to an even worse philosophy, which has a direct bearing on government?
What if both candidates are creationists?
If the politicians of the world manage to turn the current recession into another great depression, expect a resurgence of old-fashioned hellfire-and-brimstone religion, and people flocking much more to churches than to, say, community-college courses on subjects completely unrelated to landing a job.
Bible-thumping churches offer comfort in hard times; biology doesn't. When predicting which way the electorate will jump, something to believe in is a safer bet than something that's aligned with the facts.
And keep in mind: many of those who most vociferously mock religious Republicans harbor creationist beliefs of their own. Listen to some of these people talk about Nature, and how everything in Nature must have some beneficial use to us if only we had the wisdom to find it, or how the answer to every problem lies in turning away from Technology and looking in Nature. Dress up creationism in pseudo-pagan language, and they just eat it up.