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.”
This is an interesting counterpoint to the recent article on how only 14% of the public believes in evolution. Christian conservatives are estimated as 1/4 to 1/3 of the population. So it’s not just them.
If there is a thread that runs through the various strands of political conservatism it appears to be issues of authority bringing with them the comfort of certainty. God and the Bible over humankind, the military with its regimented system of rank, men over women, parents over children, owners over workers, whites over people of color, humankind over nature.
Usually you think of evolution being unacceptable to conservatives because it is contrary to the creation stories of the Bible. The underlying conservative assumption is that the Bible must be literally true in all aspects or it is “a lie” and chaos reigns. While “fundamentalism” is an American protestant term, similar beliefs are found in religions all over the world, probably in response to the enormous changes that modern life, technologies and power relations have brought to peoples’ psyches and sense of well being. Since the Bible is really a collection of religious books of various genres written and re-edited over a thousand years, it is pretty much impossible to take every word literally. Fundamentalists profess the idea that the Bible is literally true, but then adopt interpretations that finess the problem areas. Even George W. Bush, who benefitted more than any other American leader from conservative Christian votes, admitted that the Bible was probably not literally true about everything. Likewise many conservative Christians accept most scientific findings on things like the age of the earth, and can live the idea that the Genesis passages are other than scientific truth, even while they adhere to other parts of the Bible they deem crucial.
But today evolution creates much more discomfort than other scientific findings. (At one time of course, the idea that the earth circles the sun instead of vice versa was unacceptable to political-religious authority. That is no longer an issue today although the dispute may just have moved over to other turf). This post may explain why. If evolution depicts the appearance of people as happening from the bottom up, this would contradict the Biblical image of creation as happening from the top down. And top down, authority and certainty are vitally important issues to conservatives, and are also political issues. (Perhaps somewhat less so with Obama as President than Bush, which may explain the conservatives post -inaugural emphasis on Obama’s perceived inadequacies. Obama, like Clinton, is viewed as an interloper and usurper, lacking in legitimacy to the throne of authority, kind of like the bad uncle in the Lion King cartoon film. Bush on the other hand was, dare I say it, lionized, particularly during the post 9/11 period of most heightened anxiety.)
Anyway the author quoted suggests that some middle ground may be more accessible about evolution than it seems to be in politics at the moment. Evolution could be consistent with a God that either intervenes supernaturally somewhere in the process or perhaps just set up a process where evolution occurs naturally. “Spirit” may exist even if we can not measure it in natural processes. Or maybe not in the way we usually think. These questions remain without definitive answers. This means that we do really live with some uncertainty, however comfortable or uncomfortable we will be with that.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Professor, Chicago Theological Seminary: “As a Christian, an advocate of human rights, and a person strongly committed to democratic ideals…”
Perhaps the professor and commited human rights advocate could help our democracy out with a response to Bob Garbe: “I do not want the State of Ohio or the public school system advocating philosophical theories hidden in science that contradict or insult the faith I impart on my children. When the Board of Education advocates for the theory of evolution by giving it the status of required learning then the board is acting to divide major portions of the community.”
Or will she be supporting the use of public schools to promote her own version of Christianity and the ideals of democracy?
Here is the whole paragraph from Garbe.
“In the areas of faith I do not want the State of Ohio or the public school system advocating philosophical theories hidden in science that contradict or insult the faith I impart on my children. When the Board of Education advocates for the theory of evolution by giving it the status of required learning then the board is acting to divide major portions of the community. This split is evident by the flight of children to alternative schooling. An illustration of how destructive this theory is to society can be measured by the increase in amoral attitudes of many young and old alike. The news papers are replete with reports of the consequences of an “anything goes” philosophy rooted in the hypothesis that we evolved from hydrogen.”
He articulates the points common among evolution opponents
1, evolution is not real science but a faith statement;
2. In the absence of belief in a “designer” we have moral chaos.
Yes, I am guilty of excerpting the portion of Garbe’s testimony which deserves a response. As evidenced, I included a link to the entire testimony.
Had Garbe noted the derisive stereotypes from Inherit the Wind would public school supporters be free to ignore his concerns based upon his documented opposition to evolution? Could we decide his intransigent opposition to the progress of science denies him a seat at the table of enlightened civic discourse?
Any suggestions for how the Governor might find support for 21st century science education?
Probably one reason there is less resistance to evolution in Europe than in the US is that the Scopes trial became perceived as a cultural extension of the civil war, with Southern ignorance against Northern learning and intelligence and all that cultural baggage that comes out of the American experience. This still dominates the culture wars and their politics.
Garbe’s objections remain philosophical or religious objections and should be dealt with at that level. 21st century science is less mechanistic than that of Darwin’s era, but I’m not sure that makes the existence of God/intelligent designer provable as a matter of science. Does the wierd creation/destruction of the quantum mechanical level give God a way to meddle in the physical world? Maybe, but how can anyone show God actually meddled in that way? Perhaps someone can figure out a way to show scientifically that something was designed intelligently, but I’m not presently convinced. It’s the finding the watch argument, but mostly anyone finding a watch knows generally what a watch is. If you find something that is not like what we have seen designed, how do you prove there is a designer? You can assume your conclusion that there is a designer, but even if your observations are consistent that doesn’t prove there is one.
More likely you are talking about limitations of what science can show, and Garbe and his opponents are arguing about faith.
Garbe’s objections remain philosophical or religious objections and should be dealt with at that level. … More likely you are talking about limitations of what science can show, and Garbe and his opponents are arguing about faith.
In which case, educators could say, “Mr. Garbe, we will respond to your concerns, but we can’t promote your religious views in public schools.” What actions are appropriate?
Probably you want a class about philosophy or religions, which some schools have. As long as they don’t try to promote some religious views it meets First Amendment muster, so people could argue about designers and randomness and similar things. Maybe even a section on philosophies of science. However in science you can only use the methods of science.
The problem will be getting funding for it and fitting it in, while schools are concentrated on passing standardized tests.
Maybe even a section on philosophies of science. However in science you can only use the methods of science.
I think you’ll find that’s already in the Academic Content Standards. So why can’t Ohio Citizens for Science, NSTA, NCSE, NAS, AAAS, etc. pull together a model lesson plan that meets Ohio’s standards and addresses Mr. Garbe’s concerns?
Oh, yeah. All those groups appear more worried about winning lawsuits than quality science education that respects parental concerns with children’s education.
Eric, it has rarely been about respecting parental concerns or rights when it comes to public education. That is why a great percentage of the brighter kids go to private schools.