Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and, to a lesser extent, Ron Paul all deny the validity of evolution, a scientific theory that is at the bedrock of modern biology, genetics and other health sciences. Their rejection of this idea, along with their denial of other mainstream scientific thought, has nothing to do with a rational debate over the hard science. Their disbelief is firmly rooted in religious intolerance for ideas that can be interpreted as questioning the teaching of the Bible.
This may partially come from a misunderstanding of how science functions. Perhaps they were not given a sound education in the field of science, and the fact that it is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a set of moral laws assigning value or meaning to actions and processes within the universe. This belongs to the realm of philosophy, a discipline which includes religion. Science is an attempt to break down the universe into a set of blueprints, mapping out the mechanisms, not the meanings, of structures. Therefore religion and science occupy two entirely different spheres of comprehension and it is an error when one attempts to crowd out the other.
The use of the term” theory” to describe evolution is appropriate. Evolution is just that, a theory, a fungible thing subject to continual testing, refinement and, hopefully, improvement. It is not an infallible rule, which is the sort of mental construct evangelicals associate with ideas like evolution, as this is the same construct they use when interpreting their religious beliefs. Somehow, somewhere, the lines have been crossed in their heads.
Darwin, the titular founder of the theory of evolution (though scientists like the naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace or the Christian monk Gregor Mendel could be mentioned in the same breath), admitted that his concept of evolution was primitive. Darwin’s original theory did not account for many things and is just another step towards a better conceived theory of evolution.
3 Comments
I couldn’t disagree more with the tone and content of this article. If there are any Luddites it’s the environmental extremists who live on the Far Left side of the political spectrum. Because someone holds a sincere religious faith does not make him or her anti-science. This sounds like the rhetoric of the Left that seeks to demonize Republicans. I would encourage the writer to show more tolerance for those who share the majority of his political views. There’s an old saying in politics: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” If you go after your friends it allows your enemies to divide and conquer. If you want to read creationists and ID adherents out of the Republican Party then you’re going to have a smaller Republican Party, and that’s a party that will never win. Reagan had an 11th commandment of never going after a fellow Republican. When Republicans go after those who don’t agree with them on minor issues it just leaves more ammo for Democrats.
One reason I never became a Republican is for polemics such as this. While Democrats go after their opponents Republicans go after each other. When will they learn?
I find it disconcerting that you have taken my position that religion should not be taught as, or considered a universal replacement for, science and warped it to mean that someone with religious convictions is automatically anti-science. For someone accusing me of polarizing rhetoric, you might wish to stop jumping to unsupported conclusions.
I personally do not care if members of the Republican party believe in things like Creationism or I.D. Where I take offense is when they want to teach their religious mythology as credible science. There is no defense for taking a Biblical story and attempting to teach it as science. You should be ashamed of yourself if you feel endorsing strictly religious beliefs as hard science is an acceptable practice. Would you find it acceptable if Congress successfully passed a law requiring teachers to state that evolution is flawed and an equally valid, alternative theory for the origin of life is that it sprung from Vishnu’s navel?I hope you would not, as it impinges on the rights of any American to be force-fed a deistic world view (particularly in such an insincere, back-door way as Intelligent Design). This is not Saudi Arabia. This is the United States, and Republicans should know better. This endless pandering to people who irrationally reject or fear the implications of science needs to end, and it needs to end today.As for supplying ammo for Democrats, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but they’re already VERY aware of this problem. So are the Independents, who agree with the sentiments I shared in this article at a higher percentage than Democrats http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr070611ii.gif . Young voters, who were so effectively wielded by the Obama camp in the last election, overwhelmingly support the theory of evolution http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=240 . As for the Creationist and I.D. Republicans, from a pragmatic point of view they really have nowhere to go, so I have never seen a reason to cater to them, particularly when their demands require violations of our Constitutional rights. I would hope Ronald Reagan would support questioning the actions of members of his own party when they tried to profane such inviolate rights. If he would not, then he would be a poor defender of the ideals of the United States.
Yes, I have seen the polls that indicate that atheists and agnostics are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans, and Christians and those who are more orthodox in their faiths tend to be more Republican than Democrat. Not news. The age differences can probably attributed more to changes in the educational system and culture than scientists making a case for evolution over non-evolutionary beliefs. Moreover, there was no question asked about theistic evolution, which is quite different from atheistic evolution. A holder of theistic evolution can believe that divine intervention is a necessary condition for evolution to occur. Remove that group and there will be far few who believe in an atheistic version dependent on chance. We’ll see if Pew asks that question, but I won’t hold my breath.
Another problem with the poll questions is that they are asked in such a way as to not reflect what people actually believe. Creationists and IDers can believe in microevolution and therefore give an affirmative answer, which results in a skewed poll. It reminds me of a poll taken about 10-20 years ago which suggested that most Americans were antisemitic. A revised poll yielded different results.
I also take issue with your claim that to be taught ID alongside evolution is being force-fed a deistic worldview. If one is taught only evolution (we can say macroevolution to be clear), then children are being force-fed an atheistic POV. Moreover, the child is not taught critical thinking skills by not having the opportunity to make an independent evaluation of the evidence (assuming both sides are taught fairly and accurately). If anything, but removing the choice, it becomes authoritarian and even totalitarian.
Finally, since I didn’t see an evidence-based defense of evolution in your article it appears (please correct me if I’m wrong) that it’s just an assertion. It’s assumed to be true when it’s obviously the subject of debate (or else you wouldn’t have written the article in the first place). I see ad hominem insults (calling your opponents Luddites when we both know that Luddites were anti-technology — even going so far as to destroy machines with bombs — not really appropriate IMHO), such as irrational or having fear, etc. I have known and met people who believe in ID who are far from irrational and fearful.
You make numerous other assertions in your article that fly all over the place, such as the alleged conflict in Genesis. Your suggestion that creationsim and ID are relics could be thrown back with the suggestion that atheistic evolution is a merely a modern form of the discarded medieval theory of abiogenesis.
Once again, I go back to saying that there needs to be tolerance of those with whom you have disagreements that won’t have any personal effect on your life. If a politicians advocates teaching two views of something no one is harmed and the child/student has options and choices. The child/student can apply critical thinking skills, which is a benefit and no one is harmed. No one can complain that they are being force-fed one side or that there is a lack of freedom. As I recall, one principle of the Republican Party is freedom. Freedom of thought is not a bad thing.