Getting conservatives on record on modern biology

July 8, 2005

If you haven’t already, be sure to check out Ben Adler’s piece in The New Republic on how many of the nation’s leading conservative thinkers and pundits describe their beliefs about evolutionary biology. It’s one of those questions I’ve always wanted to ask these guys, so I found this utterly fascinating.

Admittedly, it’s kind of an odd question. Asking an educated political observer if he “believes in evolution” is, on its face, almost silly. It is, after all, the 21st century. “Believing” in modern biology is like “believing” in gravity or electromagnetism. I may not hold these conservative thinkers and pundits in high esteem, but they surely aren’t going to reject a primary pillar of modern science, right?

Alas, some of these conservatives have managed to surprise me. Three of the 15 — Pat Buchanan, Stephen Moore, and Grover Norquist — said they do not personally believe in evolution. (Buchanan was the most emphatic about it.)

The strangest response came from David Frum, of American Enterprise Institute and National Review fame, who said he accepts modern biology, but questioned how it should be taught in public school science classes.

“I don’t believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. … Christianity is the faith of nine-tenths of the American public. … I don’t believe that public schools should embark on teaching anything that offends Christian principle.”

I have no idea what Frum is talking about and, I suspect, neither does Frum. Consider the bizarre assumptions he uses: Christians necessarily have to reject evolution, all Christians are the same in this respect, and our schools shouldn’t teach quality science if it upsets religious sensibilities. Wow.

But the respondents I felt most sorry for were those who evaded the question altogether.

The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol said he wouldn’t “discuss personal opinions.” Tucker Carlson skirted the issue, saying that “it’s plausible to me that God designed evolution.” Commentary’s Norman Podhoretz said, “It’s impossible to answer that question with a simple yes or no.”

I don’t know these guys personally, but I have a hunch these guys are in a bind. They know evolution is true, but they’re afraid to say so. As Digby put it, “It’s as if they are all terribly afraid that James Dobson might read TNR and berate them for not having a religiously correct fundamentalist view.”

Quite right. I can almost picture Kristol sitting at his desk thinking, “If I acknowledge reality, I might lose some subscribers. And they might tease me at Norquist’s next Wednesday Meeting. And Bush might get mad at me. Better to say I don’t ‘discuss personal opinions.’ Yeah, that’ll work.”

It can’t be easy being a serious conservative. I almost feel sorry for them.

Here’s a link to an op-ed from Sunday’s Philly Inquirer about the position the creationists are putting scientists in. It may not be news to some, but it addresses the insidious rhetorical tricks being used, and the resulting damage to science. http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/12042633.htm (Registration may be required. If it is, go to http://www.bugmenot.com for log-in info without giving up your info.)

  • I don’t care about whether this or that individual “believes” in evolution, or for that matter, the Big Bang or gravity or relativity or the germ theory of disease. What matters to me is that these are the theories that science relies on to explain and predict phonomena. If a theory emerges that explains the available facts better than the theory we have, scientists will abandon the old theory and adopt the new one. No belief required, just acceptance that this or that theory best explains what we can see and measure.

    That’s what science is, and science is what we need to be teaching in science class. If your religion requires you not to believe something taught in science class, that’s fine, but learn it anyway because that’s what the community of scientists is working with.

    On my first day of college physics, the professor said, “This is physics. In physics, we try to answer ‘How?’. We do not try to answer ‘Why?’. If you want to know ‘Why?’, go to church.” I think that distinction is just about perfect.

  • Having attended 12 years in Catholic parochial schools, I have one memory that serves me quite well on this subject. A nun that was teaching Biology to us explained how evolution and the Bible were compatible, as we did not have to adhere to the strict definition of “days” from Genesis. So the “nine-tenths” of America is not offended by the Theory of Evolution, only the most strict fundamentalists.
    I am so tired of the crap spewing from these radical fundies that I really want to start fighting back in this “culture war.”
    But we are not fighting, or if we are it is only to hold our ground. Do we need to actually try to eliminate these theocrats, and if so, how far should we go?

  • BuzzMon, the fundies don’t consider Catholics to be Christian. I too went to 12 years of Catholic schools and one of my friends from school is trying to find someone to marry him and his fiancee because her Christian pastor stated that he would not do it because my friend is not a Christian! What???? So the “evolution and the Bible are compatible” is logical in our eyes, but not recognized by Frum’s supposed nine-tenths.

  • BuzzMon makes an interesting point. This is a culture war that we didn’t ask for, that was brought to us by some very specific, very clever, and I daresay, very devious people. But isn’t being “liberalâ€? partially about not forcing people to think or do things based on personal morality? So how do we “forceâ€? them to accept that science should not cater to religion?

    That’s the trap. By framing this as a culture “war�, they create “sides.� This means there is an “us� and “them,� and that we need to push back in the same way they push us. Cleverly, they frame Christians as the “us,� leaving liberals as the atheists (which is, of course, false, even from an electorate standpoint—plenty of Christians voted for Kerry).

    But the answer is not to force them to change they’re mind, it’s to re-frame the issue. I don’t think we need to “get rid� of the theocrats, we need to expose their misleading, propagandist goals and methods and get leaders out there who can actually unite thinking people.

  • Eadie wrote: “But the answer is not to force them to change they’re mind, it’s to re-frame the issue. I don’t think we need to “get ridâ€? of the theocrats, we need to expose their misleading, propagandist goals and methods and get leaders out there who can actually unite thinking people.”

    I’d also suggest getting folks to read Tom Paine’s The Age of Reason. Anyone who can get through that with his or her faith (at least in the Xtian bible or any other religious scribble) intact is running on dogmatic autopilot than reason. If one can question the authenticity of the bible, then it does not follow that we should be debating evolution until we can ascertain the veracity of the bible. It nicely turns the tables on the fundies from attack to defense.

  • Chief, thanks for the link to the article (I accessed it without having to register, BTW). The author is quite right that scientists crave solving mysteries and I agreed with his line of reasoning.

    If one thinks in terms of medical science, there are many mysteries that still need to be solved. We are all hoping for cures for MS, diabetes, cancer, etc., etc. Will those who deny evolutionary science because it can’t explain everything also deny treatments that have been formulated due to scientific medical research (and sometimes researchers don’t know why that treatment works)? Will those who are against blastocyst stem cell research turn down future cures based on such research when they get sick?

    Maybe some can explain the distinction; I can’t. BTW, I’m one of those who isn’t a real Christian per the fundies. I believe in God, I believe we should use the brains He gave us, and that everything isn’t black and white.

    Hannah, liberal Christian

  • Mr. Flibble: re the Bible

    I believe that the Bible must be properly interpretted. Are the creation stories in Genesis literally true? No, they were written by and for people thousands of years ago, and based on the beliefs of the time. In reading the Bible we must decide what is relevant for today. We must remember the audiences for which it was written. It addressed the cultures of the day, the issues of the day.

    For Christians, the Gospel of Jesus is more important than anything else. Too many of the fundies are rooted in the Old Testament.

  • Hannah,
    I don’t want to get too far afield from the thread & start a discussion on freethinking vs. theism! I wouldn’t disagree with anything you’ve written–in fact, you’ve described the only way the bible could survive in the face of scientific research. But be careful characterizing “Christians” as having shared dogma: they really don’t. The fact of hundreds of denominations and thousands of heresies over the years is testament that the history of Christianity has been one of argument over what the bible means. And that we are no closer now than we were when Augustine of Hippo tried to figure out how we get to heaven, or even Paul when he confronted the Disciples about adherence of Christians to Jewish rites like circumcision.

    My point is that it’d be much simpler with respect to the idea of teaching the bible in schools to start from square one and ask whether the bible is in fact the Word of God or written by unknown people of unknown godliness for reasons unknown. If we can establish authorship, then we can move onto whether the stories in Genesis are allegorical or literal truth.

    You wrote: “For Christians, the Gospel of Jesus is more important than anything else. Too many of the fundies are rooted in the Old Testament.” Here’s my Parthian shot (it’s a fundie parody site!): http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/nosissy.html

  • Mr. Fibble:

    1. start from square one and ask whether the bible is in fact the Word of God or written by unknown people of unknown godliness for reasons unknown.

    Is this in doubt? The “Old Testament” was part of a collection of texts that Jewish leaders argued about, added to and edited over many years. Parts of the New Testament were written 300 years after Jesus died.

    2. Here’s my Parthian shot (it’s a fundie parody site!): http://www.landoverbaptist.org/sermons/nosissy.html

    OMG this is hilarious—the best part is that you can’t tell it’s a parody. Very telling about the fundie extremist movement.

    3. A “fundamentalist” can be quite reasonable; an extremist is not. I think the people we are talking about more accurately fit into the later category. I doubt a literal reading of the Bible can be construed to make coherent sense as a model for political action, so a “fundamentalâ€? approach would not lead to the current movement towards a theocracy. Besides, a “literal” interpretation negates the idea of the NT being didactic, since so much of Jesus’ teaching was through allegory and metaphor.

  • Why is the entire country being held hostage to a
    few million extremists who can’t let go of Stoneage mythology? Creationism has been thoroughly debunked by science. Why is it still being debated, and taken so seriously by so many millions who know what nonsense it is?

    Most Americans are religious, and have no trouble
    believing in a God that had enough brains to devise
    evolution along with the rest of the natural laws
    that govern our universe. Almost all those who believe that human beings occupy a special place in
    the cosmos have no trouble believing in a God who
    created homo sapiens through evolution.

    So why do these few extremists wield so much
    influence?

    The poll results underscore this paradox. Only
    a few, educated conservatives actually reject evolution. At least privately.

    Well, I guess the answer is obvious. The Republicans can’t win without these few million
    ignorant, superstitious souls. Not enough angry
    white men who have been brainwashed into hating
    liberals are around to carry the day.

  • 10. Mr. Flibble: of course I realize that Christians don’t all share the same dogma – I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear, but I did start by saying “I believe”. 🙂 And perhaps I should have said “For Christians, the Gospel of Jesus *should be* more important than anything else.”

    I tried to access the landoverbaptist site but couldn’t get thru. Will try later. I’m always up for religious humor.

  • Intelligent design is a religio-philosophical theory and is taught in any basic philosophy class. Why the fundies want it to be considered science is beyond me. They don’t teach the theory of evolution in philosophy or western religion classes. Though the biology and physics theories of Plato, Aristotle, etc. are discussed as philosophicl musings on ideas that were able to be proven or disproven with scientific advancement.

    • Comments are closed.