Charles Darwin was born today — 200 years ago. (Abraham Lincoln was born on the same day. Lincoln lived to age 56 and died April 15, 1865. Darwin lived to age 73 and died April 19,1882.)

This morning, I found an essay at the Washington Post, written by Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite of Chicago Theological Seminary that postulates the interesting view that an increase in anti-Darwinism can be blamed on politics.

In A Christian Progressive Happy Birthday to Charles Darwin, Thistlethwaite writes, “As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin … anti-Darwinist views in conservative and even moderate-to-conservative Christianity have been increasing, especially in the last quarter century.”

Dr. Thistlethwaite writes, “We need to say clearly that this targeting of evolution by conservative Christianity is far more political in origin than it is purely theological. The Darwinian upheaval is just this: the origin of species is bottom up, through natural forces, rather than top-down and fixed like conservative Christian theology in particular would contend.”

I’d not thought of that connection, that evolution is very grass roots, a bottom up process, so, a belief in evolution, a belief that evolution results in progress, has political implications. Creation, on the other hand, is very hierarchical, top down, so a belief in creationism also has political implications.

Dr. Thistlethwaite notes that in Darwin’s time, heresy was serious business. She writes, “People in Darwin’s time could go to prison for heresy because it was seditious, undermining the divine origin of the monarchy.”

In Darwin’s time, heresy not only threatened accepted theology but, since the social order was ordained by the accepted theology, heresy could also be considered as treason, an act against the social order, an act against the state.

Dr. Thistlethwaite continues, “Today’s conservative Christian efforts to force school systems to teach ‘intelligent design,’ a form of creationism, reveals the same kind of political and social ideology as in Darwin’s time. Creationism goes hand-in-hand with efforts to claim the United States is a Christian nation. Creationists posit a God who controls the creation; this ideology reinforces political ideas of control of society. This ‘Christian politics’ is sometimes called ‘dominionism.’”

According to Wikipedia, “Dominionism describes, in several distinct ways, a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians, especially in the United States of America, to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either at a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.”

Dr. Thistlethwaite believes that the rising advocacy of dominionism and the rising anti-Darwinian views in conservative Christian churches are connected. Maybe. But, conservative Christians don’t need a political context to protest Darwin’s views, because, Darwin contradicts the literal words of the Bible that shows creation as a dramatic supernatural act. Darwin showed creation to be a natural process, not a supernatural act.

Dr. Thistlethwaite concludes her essay, “Evolutionary biology does not exhaust all that theology has to say about human nature. That’s where a Christian interpretation of the whole of human nature is a different interpretation that that of the sociobiologists, in particular, many of whom seek a wholly naturalistic explanation for human nature and behavior. But there are large and increasing areas of fruitful dialogue possible, as second and third generation evolutionary biologists nuance their own arguments. … I believe that human beings are both spirit and matter, but these are not wholly separate and certainly not opposed. I find the ways science helps us explore the material nature of humanity can also illuminate aspects of the spiritual. That’s only possible if religion and science quit pointing fingers at each other, however.”

Enjoyed reading Bob Higgins’ post today at Worldwide Sawdust. Bob writes that the effort to compromise with the Republicans is a mistake.  He says, “The battle over the ‘stimulus bill’ and the oft expressed desire of our new president and many on the left of the aisle to be non, or bi, or post-partisan is something that I find disturbing, worse, I find it somewhat cowardly.”

Bob writes, “Tens, hundreds of thousands of people worked and fought, spoke and scraped up funds for Democratic victory through all the horrible years of the Bush debacle and they deserve Democratic leadership.  They did not sign on to hear ‘If you give us a few more tuna sandwiches for the poor we’ll give you more tax deductions for the wealthy and federal subsidies for Foie gras and second homes‘ …. There are times when lines must be drawn, make that etched, in the sand and not crossed. This is such a time.”

Bob concludes his post, “So, fellow Dems, let’s quit pandering to those whose political philosophy is a proven threat to our country, our way of life and our rights and freedoms; as Jim Hightower says, ‘Ain’t nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.’”