Most of my friends on the reality-based side of the culture wars (the blue team) are genuinely puzzled by the anti-evolution fury evident among elements of the red team. If revealed religion has made its peace with Copernican astronomy, they say, why shouldn't it be able to accommodate Darwinian biology?
There is, I think, a good answer to that question. It's not the Origin of Species that so bothers most anti-evolutionists; it's the Descent of Man.
The Book of Genesis says that human beings, male and female, were created by God in God's own image. That's not just a proposition in paleontology; it encompasses two important moral claims.
First, it implies that each human being is a Divine project, and therefore has obligations to act in certain ways that flow merely from being a human being. Behaving foolishly or cruelly isn't, on this view, merely self-destructive or destructive, it's blasphemous, because those bad actions are being performed by an Image of God.
Second, Genesis implies that each human being I confront is sacred, again merely as a human being and without any reference to his behavior, status, or appearance. He (or she) is sacred as the Image of God. (C.S. Lewis says in one of his essays that, aside from the consecrated wine and wafer, any individual human being that you meet is the most sacred object you will encounter that day, more sacred than any relic or image.)
Insofar as middle-school Darwinism asserts that each of us is merely an animal of a particular species, fundamentally like animals of other species, it undercuts both halves of that double-barreled moral proposition. If I'm merely an animal, why shouldn't I act like one if I feel like it? And, if you're merely an animal, why shouldn't I beat you up, if I'm so inclined and bigger than you are?
The red team is, I am convinced, wrong to think that believing the account of human origins in Genesis is a necessary condition for behaving well. But red-teamers aren't wrong to think of that account as providing a potentially powerful prop to moral behavior, and can't, therefore, justly be faulted as unreasonable or superstitious for objecting to attempts to kick that prop out from under their children, and other children who are their future fellow-citizens.
Article comments
1 - Margaret Romao Toigo
A very interesting analysis of the difference between the science of evolution and its moral implications. I think you've hit the nail on the head with regard to the sincere apprehensions some people have about evolution.
But those people who would eschew Darwin in favor of a literal interpretation of either of the two creation accounts in Genesis and call it science are more concerned with pride than they are with morals.
For them, it's not about providing props to moral behavior, but rather having their religion recognized as being superior to other religions. Darwin is seen as one of the many factors that has usurped that superiority over the years.
To be steeped in pride is to be steeped in the practice of rationalization, the contrivance of logic and fact that allows for the justification of horrors like terrorism, torture and executions by making pride into a virtue that is affronted by the very existence of those who are perceived to be lesser beings.
2 - Bennett
Very clear and thoughful post Mark. And nice follow up Margarette!
Thanks.
3 - Randy Kirk
I agree that the post was well written, thoughtful, and worthy of careful examination.
One way to find out why people think the way they do is to ask them. I can speculate all day long as to the motives, psychology, or blind spots that cause the science crowd to be able to look at what has obviously been designed and conclude that it has come from chaos without any intelligence.
I run around with a bunch of Bible thumpers and am proud to be one. I appreciate your comment that we should be cut some slack "rather than dismissing them as ignorant rustics." It seemed like a backhanded compliment, but who knows, maybe not.
I would agree with the main postulate. Christians believe that men are God-breathed. Different, distinct, not animals.
This is not to say that any Christian I know, read, or trust for wisdom has problems with animal studies as a method of trying to understand human biology, behavior, or medicine. Science needs to be careful not to so quickly jump to conclusions about animal behavior as some kind of way to understand humans, but it is a good method.
It would be wrong, on the other hand, to think that Christian intellectuals or even the average Bible Thumper stops with just this issue as the only problem with evolution.
For most that I know, the problem is with the proof of even the most basic elements, and with the cornerstones and main beams of the theory having fallen apart in the last 20 years.
Christian are widely divided on the Genesis story. Exactly how God did it. Long day theory. Metaphor. However, for this poor dumb Christian, if God is God, he could have done it in 6 days exactly as written. Yes, that would leave a lot of unanswered questions about big reptiles and such. But Darwin has his unanswered problems as well.
Finally, as to your last issue. Christians also differ widely on the use of force for different circumstances. If my child was in immediate danger of being tortured, and I could stop that by torturing his torturer, no contest. How about you?
4 - Randy Kirk
No one around to answer the question about someone torturing your child, and what you would be willing to do to stop it?
5 - Steve S
No one around to answer the question
oddly enough, about the time this site turned religious and debate on scripture seemed to dominate every political thread, most commenters seemed to die out. Hopefully this site will recover back to the hopping political discussions of old.
someone torturing your child, and what you would be willing to do to stop it?
I would do about whatever it takes to stop the torturing of my child, but I find the hypothetical of having to resort to torture to stop torture as being absurd and therefore not applicable to reaching a logical conclusion on anything.
6 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I don't answer hypothetical questions, either. Sure, they can be a fun party game, but hypotheticals are not relevant in serious discourse.
And speaking of serious discourse, it could be that people are discussing Scripture in regard to politics because religious issues are a significant part of many of the current social policy debates, such as abortion and same-sex marriage and how they relate to who Mr. Bush might choose to fill the new vacancy in the Supreme Court.
Sure, as Americans, we are supposed to look to our Constitution for guidance in matters of policy, but the reality of it -- right or wrong -- is that a good number of people look to the Scriptures for guidance in every aspect of life, including their politics.
When engaging in discourse with such people, it is a good idea to try and frame the discussion in terms they understand because they are often unconvinced by secular, Constitutional arguments, while they might just be persuaded by Bible-based reasoning.
7 - Steve S
it could be that people are discussing Scripture in regard to politics because religious issues are a significant part of many of the current social policy debates
It could be, but mostly it's because over 50 or 100 self-proclaimed bible thumpers joined in one day.
When engaging in discourse with such people, it is a good idea to try and frame the discussion in terms they understand
I can see that going on, and I understand it. And perhaps these discussions with extremist fundamentalists who live on the fringe and think they represent all, do need to take place, but the fact remains that dozens of regulars of both political persuasions, who have been here for years, no longer comment. I can check the leaderboard in the morning, and then again just before bed and most of the political comments haven't changed. It was never that way before the fundies tried to convert this site to a place where religion is factored into every decision.
8 - Randy Kirk
I will see Margaret's comment and raise her one. Maslow said it well. We have an heiracrchy of needs. Spirtual is one of the highest. Whatever your belief system, it dramatically impacts the way you do everything, including, maybe especially, politics. Ignore that to you everylasting folly.
9 - Eric Olsen
even more penetrating than usual Mark, thanks
10 - Margaret Romao Toigo
I have noted the consternation over the influx of religious conservatives, but I am ambivalent about that development because of that said consternation on the one hand and because of the interesting diversification of bandwidth on the other.
I find the challenge of engaging such people to be most fascinating and enlightening, but I also understand that such people can seem a bit overbearing to those whose every view is in diametric opposition to theirs.
Some of that influx can be rather condescending and even insulting in the assertion and defense of its positions. But some of the people who have strongly begged to differ with radically conservative viewpoints have not exactly conducted themselves in a courteous and respectful manner, either.
I think that these discussions with extremist fundamentalists who think they represent a majority do indeed need to take place if for no other reason than to demonstrate that there are many other viewpoints out there besides theirs, which may give some of them something to think about and possibly re-consider.
This little dose of statistical reality is good for everyone who thinks that the extreme ideologies of the Religious Right are representative of how most Americans (especially Christian Americans) think.
And that is an often forgotten battle in the so-called "Culture War." Defining Christianity and saving it from being forever tarnished by the political machinations of extremists who do not appear to have the first clue about Christ.
I have noted that the one dominant ideal among the vast middle (the real "Silent Majority") is that none of us wants the state to be too involved in our private affairs and we are willing to tolerate or even embrace a wide diversity for the sake of preserving that principle.
People come and go all the time. Maybe some have left because of the influx, but some might have left for other reasons or are only gone temporarily for summer vacation.
I have noted that most discussions of politics have not reached the same level of interest and intensity since November 3, 2004 when that whole election thing was settled, after which the Bush administration's ride on the crest of a so-called "mandate" kind of fizzled when the actual value -- or the lack thereof -- of Mr. Bush's assumed "political capital" was discovered.
11 - Nathan
The religious right and the liberal left. With such different (black and white) views on so many topics, it can be hard to express ones views while not saying the other is flat out wrong. I do believe there is a place for science and spirituality, though.
I've often found it hard to believe someone could disregard Darwinism in face of such overwhelming evidence of evolutions existence.
At the same time, the same can be said for higher powers. Civilizations from all around the world with no connection have formed their own conceptions of a higher power without interference from the outside world. In the end, all that really proves though is mans searching for a meaning to this all.