Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

The politics of creationism

Evolution has become a touchstone issue for Republican presidential hopefuls.

By Nelson Jones Published 24 August 2011 14:06

Does it matter what a presidential candidate thinks about evolution? Richard Dawkins thinks it does. Blogging for the Washington Post, he writes:

It can have unfortunate consequences on education and science policy but, compared to Perry's and the Tea Party's pronouncements on other topics such as economics, taxation, history and sexual politics, their ignorance of evolutionary science might be overlooked. Except that a politician's attitude to evolution, however peripheral it might seem, is a surprisingly apposite litmus test of more general inadequacy. This is because unlike, say, string theory, where scientific opinion is genuinely divided, there is about the fact of evolution no doubt at all.

On this view, the main problem with Governor Rick Perry's apparent view that Darwinian evolution is "just a theory" is that it reveals that he has not troubled to acquaint himself with the evidence -- evidence that (as Dawkins can, of course, demonstrate in his sleep) is sufficiently overwhelming to amount to "fact". If he is ignorant about evolution, he must either be stupid or else willfully blind. Either way, it doesn't bode well for a holder of the foremost elective office in the world.

Perry isn't the first to be called out for his apparent doubts about evolutionary theory. During her vice-presidential run back in 2008, Sarah Palin was accused (on somewhat ambiguous grounds) of holding creationist opinions. The current Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann has been much more specific than either Palin or Perry, telling reporters in New Orleans: "I support intelligent design," before falling back on the default position among US religious conservatives that evolution was a subject of scientific debate and that schools should teach both sides of the "argument".

As she put it, "I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."

Of course, there is a debate about evolution. It's not a debate within science about whether or not evolution by natural selection is an established fact. There is no "reasonable doubt" in this sense. It's an argument taking place largely outside science as to whether or not evolution can be a legitimate subject for debate. And this raises a delicate problem for politicians whose ambitions depend upon appealing to a religious base whose opposition to Darwinism is more cultural than scientific. It has become a touchstone issue, "a question every presidential candidate must dread", certainly every Republican candidate.

A bald statement of scientific consensus, of the type Dawkins seemingly requires of Perry, Bachmann and the others, would be a political risk and an act of courage that it is perhaps unreasonable to expect of most modern politicians. At the same time, any candidate who made a clear commitment to full-blown creationism would find it difficult to broaden their appeal beyond the religious right -- a body of opinion that, while powerful, is not electorally decisive. It's a subtle balancing-act, albeit one that makes little sense outside the very particular atmosphere of US politics.

Americans will be electing a president, not a professor of biology. It is indeed distressing to think that the "most powerful person in the world" (is that still true -- and, if so, for how much longer?) has an incomplete knowledge of the natural sciences. However, is it necessarily an indication of low political or administrative capacity, as Dawkins argues? Probably not. It is quite possible to be highly competent and efficient in most areas of life while holding eccentric beliefs (see, for example, the 19th-century congressman Ignatius Donnelly, who combined far-sighted views about tax reform with wacky ideas about Atlantis and the authorship of Shakespeare).

More to the point, perhaps, a belief in creationism and/or intelligent design correlates strongly with conservative positions on a whole range of seemingly unconnected issues: abortion, guns, capital punishment, taxation, even environmental policy. Meanwhile, public endorsement of evolution is a reliable marker for "liberal" policy platforms on these and other subjects. Unlike evolution, these are matters for genuine political debate and disagreement. Quite how evolution should have come to occupy its current place on America's cultural faultline is a puzzle that has much to do with peculiarities of culture and sociology but almost nothing to do with science.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Rick Perry Richard Dawkins Michele Bachmann Science Sarah Palin

More from Nelson Jones

38 comments

Thu, 2011-08-25 00:30 — Thor (not verified)

Didn't huntsman just do what you say seems unthinkable: say, or at least tweet, that he believes in evolution?

Thu, 2011-09-08 00:25 — Luke (not verified)

I noticed there was a lot of interest in the science-denying Republicans, both on evolution and climate but that a comprehensive list of what all the 2012 candidates think wasn't available. So I put one together, along with quotes, videos, sources. I hope it will prove useful:

http://www.lukesci.com/2011/09/06/all-of-the-2012-republican-candidates-...

(Note that the article is a little long with quite a few videos embedded, so it might take a short while to load.)

Thu, 2011-08-25 21:20 — Keir

Atheism admits that evolutionary theory does not preclude faith, then. Progress.

Thu, 2011-08-25 03:29 — Keir

Please don't be naive. Americans (other than dear Sarah Palin!) are very certain indeed that evolution has taken place. That much is obvious from the laughable lies they tell when trying to pretend otherwise when dealing with those who know science or the Old Testament. Tony Blair knew very well that evolution has taken place when he tried to push teaching of Young-Earth Creationism in British schools. He has better chance of defending himself on Iraq than on Y-EC.

Y-ECers were for years commonly known, on both sides of the pond, by atheists as well as believers, as 'liars for Christ'- but nobody seems to remember that. Why? Because of Richard Dawkins, of course, who in like manner became a head-up-fundament fundamentalist, because mocking Y-EC was the only way he could find to attack the religion that he perceives most credibly opposes homosexuality. He, likewise, closed his ears and his eyes to all explanations that Christians had long found no conflict between their faith and evolution. So fundies, whose ship was sinking beneath the waves, were refloated, and given new importance by Dawkins and the media publicity that surrounded him. Red-neck Americans are grateful to Dawkins- who is no friend of the left. But then the left does not seem to have many reliable friends today.

But if the USA gets a Y-EC President, it does not matter much, as far as politics goes. It will be a bit of fun. Nobody of genuine political importance actually believes in Y-EC. Let the USA teach it to its children. They may suffer economically as a consequence, but then they are on the slide anyway. The UK can do business elsewhere.

Thu, 2011-08-25 23:44 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Katherine: I think that the problem with cosmology is that about 94% of the universe is made up of 'dark matter' and the other 6% baryon. Nobody knows what dark matter comprises of .. they only know 'it' exists because of its effects on other things. The same with drk force .. people don't know what it but they there is something because of its effects.

Then there is the problem of infinity and multi universes. If we say that God is 'unfathomable' then this fits in with what we don't know ... which is a lot!

Of course I question whether a certain select number of people have 'heard' the word of 'God' and written these words in books. Are those words any truer than the words you see before you now?

Fri, 2011-08-26 00:50 — Orwin O'Dowd (not verified)

For the record, at the formal presentation of evolution before the Royal Society, the lead was taken by Alfred R. Wallace, a proponent of intelligent design. And this at the explicit insistence of Charles Darwin, who remains sorely understood. We also owe him the term agnostic for the skeptical position in theology suitable to science.
Evidently Darwin was personally not bereft of faith. He saw evolution as a moral drama, in which species may be lead astray to extinction by the vanity or naivete of their desires.
For those who have any, intelligence is certainly central to the process, and what this means and entails is the open and interesting question.

Thu, 2011-08-25 10:12 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Is it not possible to have intelligent design that evolves?

You accept that the design was given the attributes to evolve according to circumstances then the two are not mutually exclusive.

Thu, 2011-08-25 10:18 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

@David Allen Green: 'Is a belief in creationism really any more or less rational than the array of beliefs that a Christian candidate may (claim to) hold'

What is rational and what is belief? Is it not possible for a designer to create something that has the ability to evolve? Is it not possible for a designer to create angels, souls, heaven and hell and to communicate these things to some people. If this possibility is the case is it not rational for some people to think that these things exist?

Thu, 2011-08-25 11:19 — Katherine (not verified)

@Mr. Divine

No, just because something is possible does not mean it is rational to believe it. To use Bertrand Russell's example, it is possible that a teapot is in orbit around the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars but it wouldn't be deemed rational to believe there is such a teapot as it is highly unlikely.

Tue, 2011-08-30 15:28 — Malcolm McLean (not verified)

Darwin originally considered a career in the church, before plumping for natural history. That wasn't unusual in those days. An educated man commonly considered taking orders.

However he gradually became more and more aware of the difficulty in reconciling Christianity with evolution. The ichneumon wasps, which lay their eggs inside the bodies of caterpillars, were a particular problem to him. He couldn't reconcile that with the idea of a loving creator. However Darwin never became a sneering atheist. He remained a very "serious", to use the expression of the time, man.

Thu, 2011-08-25 12:23 — Keir

True, but the estimation of humanity since prehistory of the probability of existence of deity approximates to the chances of finding a teapot in Debenhams.

Thu, 2011-08-25 12:30 — Katherine (not verified)

@Keir

Not true. The assumptions (if that is what you mean by estimation) of humanity since prehistory is no guarantor of likelihood. For the overwhelming majority of human history humans believed the Earth was flat and stationary.

Thu, 2011-08-25 13:03 — Keir

And it was a very reasonable supposition that the Earth was flat and stationary. It is pathetic beyond words to posit something damn near impossible and place it in the same category as something very possible. It's worse than pathetic. It's desperate. It's contemptible.

And it's also off topic, yet another seemingly inevitable consequence of the contemptible amorality of 'atheists'.

Disraeli had a point about democracy.

Thu, 2011-08-25 13:11 — Katherine (not verified)

@Keir

You're right, it was a very reasonable supposition based on what was known at the time. My point was simply that humans believing something for very long periods of time does not make it likely/true. If I've misunderstood your original assertion then please explain what you meant. You seem very angry with me for some reason... :-(

Thu, 2011-08-25 13:40 — Keir

'My point was simply that humans believing something for very long periods of time does not make it likely/true.'

If that is all you have to say, say nothing, because it's irrelevant. You're either mendacious or incompetent.

Fri, 2011-08-26 13:03 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

@Orwin: 'Evidently Darwin was personally not bereft of faith.'

I read a biography of Darwin recently and I can't remember him being described as being possessed of faith. What is this possession of faith?

Tue, 2011-08-30 18:32 — Keir

But Darwin also said that his views of theism were no more valid than those of anyone else of theism. So why is he ignored on this point?

Sun, 2011-09-18 01:15 — SadObserver (not verified)

Perry epitomizes ignorance. This is not the ignorance which flows from lack of information: that could be cured. Rather, it is usually a militant crusading ignorance which ignores facts and logic and, worse, works to keep them out of the public discourse.

Thu, 2011-08-25 14:44 — Sir Michael (not verified)

What you people are blabbering on about is of no consequence. Whether people believe in god, evolution, both, or neither (yes there are atheistic evolution deniers) doesn't make any difference unless one happens to be involved in education or that particular branch of biology.

What matters is the assertion made by Dawkins (and now parroted by Jones) that creationists tend to be "right-wing". In making this claim I think Dawkins has demonstrated himself to be either dishonest or naive in the extreme.

He regularly rubs shoulders and has little conferences with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, both of whom are card carrying members of the anti-religion squad. Sam Harris has cheered on every single war in the Middle East as well as supported the use of torture, Hitchens was the biggest cheer leader for the Iraq war as well as being a pro-lifer.

Dawkins himself bankrolls those appauling anti-Islamic Pat Condell videos, Mr Condell being a supporter of the notorious UKIP party. So I am more inclined to go with the dishonesty theory rather than naive theory.

Thu, 2011-08-25 16:20 — Katherine (not verified)

@Keir

I only said it because you seemed to be saying the opposite.

Fri, 2011-09-02 19:14 — edwin thomas (not verified)

Come on folks, it doesn't matter what Darwin, Einstein, or anyone else thought about creationism, or God. There is evidence, or there is not evidence. I know of no evidence of the judeochristian picture of the matter. I would welcome some enlightenment on the matter. The "nature is all that is required to explain nature", views of science so far do pretty well, it seems to me. Given the history which science has demonstrated, of filling in the blanks, in time.

Thu, 2011-08-25 16:41 — Keir

You said it to make it look as if I was saying the opposite.

Wed, 2011-08-24 15:44 — gimpy

American's may well be electing 'a president, not a professor of biology', but that president will have considerable power to guide the Government spending on science.
A clergyman once wrote "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". With this in mind a president in denial of scientific theories of evolution would be very badly compromised when it comes to spending decisions on everything from ecology to life science with possibly awful, and avoidable, consequences for scientific research.

Tue, 2011-09-13 13:50 — Andyb (not verified)

If she really supports intelligent design then she is a complete moron and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a position of power. We need intelligent people to govern us, not idiots.

Tue, 2011-09-13 13:56 — Andyb (not verified)

"Atheism admits that evolutionary theory does not preclude faith, then. Progress."

This is no progress at all. All it demonstrates is the intellectual honesty of rationally minded people. It certainly does not validate religious faith. It's very sad when the only argument for faith is fig leaf that god can't be 100% mathematically ruled out.

"But Darwin also said that his views of theism were no more valid than those of anyone else of theism. So why is he ignored on this point?"

Because it is totally irrelevant when compared to intellectual masterpiece that is his theory of evolution through natural selection.

Tue, 2011-09-06 16:08 — Jean (not verified)

The concluding sentence in the article seems tired of the argument, as there isn't a "puzzle" in grouping relatively quick-and-easy, white hat/black hat opinions against positions which require more reading, more thought, and maybe more discipline. The subjects are pretty unrelated, but the points of view (whether wrong or right, or whether left or right) tend to indicate their authors' tendency to think in automatic or manual mode.

Wed, 2011-08-24 16:31 — Malcolm McLean (not verified)

However as soon as you start talking about the evolution of behaviour, as opposed to the body, the lefties start throwing up all sorts of objections, with a creativity that would put the intelligent designers to shame.

Wed, 2011-08-24 18:21 — Felix (not verified)

I don't think you really answered your own question.
"Does it matter what a presidential candidate thinks about evolution?"

Or rather you attempted to write an article saying something other than 'obviously' and got lost.

You point out that "It is quite possible to be highly competent and efficient in most areas of life while holding eccentric beliefs".

Which ignores the fact that whilst one may be competent one is unlikely to make good policy choices regarding education, environment, health etc., indeed any policy which one would expect to be based upon evidence since you disregard evidence when it disagrees with your supporters beliefs.

Wed, 2011-08-24 18:56 — phil shakespeare (not verified)

Religion and State were kept apart by the Constitution, this issue is fundamentally a religious belief, evolution is fact not theory and I could not trust any politician who demeans themselves by paying lip service to the purse strings of the religious right.

Sun, 2011-08-28 18:34 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Just don't mess around with the letters of Rick Perry's name! No it's certainly not a Da Vinci code.
Look, the guy will do anything to get elected to the presidency and if the voters say black is white or vice versa Rick will rubber-stamp that opinion as gospel.
Evolution - as a process it is quite easy to understand. Take the Ford Model T and look at all the models produced up to the present day. Has it changed? Yes, it has!
Same with the biplane! Point made!

Changeable Nature

Thu, 2011-08-25 19:03 — Karen (not verified)

I could not vote for anyone who did not accept as valid the theories of evolution and quantum cosmology. I wouldn't want anyone that stupid and that doctrinaire to be within the same zip code as the briefcase that has the key to starting a nuclear war.

Thu, 2012-02-02 12:53 — Benedict

That a politicians stance on evolution is more important than (for example) their stance on reigning in corporate greed or rebuilding a shattered welfare system that punitively punishes the poor is highly depressing. Dawkins, who talks about politicians without ever bringing this up, demonstrates that to him religion is the only issue of importance. http://www.diykitchenremodeling.net/

Wed, 2011-08-24 20:14 — asquith

Thoughts of a right-whinger who basically thinks the same thing:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275093/rick-perry-pushes-their-bu...

Fascinating.

Wed, 2011-08-24 20:27 — AJ1

The underlying issue is that the USA has a dangerously large proportion of the population who are religous fundamentalists. Politicians simply reflect this underlying reality.

The danger can best be illustrated by what a work colleague in the US said to me when I first worked there in 1984. She said that a nuclear war was foretold in the bible, that a nuclear war would be a good thing because the good would go to heaven and the bad to hell and that we should welcome it. In the argument that followed it was clear that this was something her church believed so she was not alone in this frightening belief.

The constant criticisms of islamic fundamentalism have always seemed a shadow of the terrifying reality of american christian fundamentalism to me because of this. When the behaviour of the states concerned is compared to the US it seems even stranger thate we are concenred about Iran for example and not the US.

A fundamentaist christian president would be a scarey prospect but we can alweays hope they are simply acting to win votes.

Wed, 2011-08-24 20:47 — Brandt (not verified)

If you are Tea Party, you are a terrorist. Sarah Palin is a mouthpiece for the Tea Party which represents nothing but hatred and dissension. Her rhetoric and violence-inciting imagery IS a form of terrorism and a prime example. She held Jared Lee Loughner’s hand while he murdered people with his misguided sensibilities. I was compelled to draw a visual commentary showing her handing him the gun on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-made-me-do-it.html She'll go to any lengths and keep spewing her insanity for that attention (and the money of course.)