The politics of creationism

Evolution has become a touchstone issue for Republican presidential hopefuls.

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.

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief
Show Hide image

Promoted by Janus Henderson

Europe: as the politics subside

How long can a resurgence of investor interest in Europe last?

Might Europe be the place to be?

I think European equities tick a lot of the right boxes right now. Economies are recovering – indeed the first quarter of 2017 saw Europe once more grow faster than the US, having outpaced the world’s largest economy in 2016. Valuations are not excessive, either relative to the region’s history or the US equity market. Like almost anything, I believe European equities also look compelling relative to bonds. The final part of the jigsaw puzzle might have been earnings growth, but here too Europe is, at last, getting close to achieving a gold star.

Most of this has been known for quite a few months now and is part of the explanation for the better performance of Europe year to date. Even the euro has strengthened against the US dollar, from about $1.05 at the start of 2017 to $1.12 at the time of writing. Politics looks more settled, after the surprises of the Brexit vote last year in the UK and the election of Donald Trump in the US Presidential election. Perhaps a comment I made at the beginning of 2017, that “by the end of 2017 the UK and the US might look to have been the exceptions” when it comes to successful populist votes, seems more prescient.

Now that the political backdrop is perhaps more settled, with the UK’s potentially tragic Brexit decision an exception, how long can a resurgence of interest in Europe last? One threat is the gradual move towards ‘tapering’ by the European Central Bank (ECB) of its unprecedented quantitative easing program, and the support this provides economies by injecting cash to drive down the cost of borrowing and increase consumer and business spending. But it is already clear that this will be a very slow process. The economic recovery in Europe remains quite slow and inflation, outside the UK, is well below the ECB’s target of ‘below or close to’ 2%. At the same time, the damaging effect of negative interest rates needs to be avoided.

 

What could derail this market?

The one exception to what looks to be a relatively rosy scenario, in my view, remains the UK. The Brexit ball is rolling onwards, following the invocation of the now infamous Article 50, but the calling of a General Election was another distraction. The UK is still no closer to knowing what sort of Brexit is desirable, or more likely, economically feasible. Once the reality of debt, demographics and a weak currency become clear, I suspect that the UK market will continue to struggle against other European peers.

Elsewhere in Europe, economies look well set, and I suspect that more capital spending and investment are likely to be incentivised with tax cuts in Europe, again outside the UK. In this scenario, those capital investment-related names such as Siemens, Legrand and Atlas Copco should continue to do well. Luxury names, and auto makers, many of which have rallied hard so far in 2017, are likely to struggle due to subdued consumer demand. Financials have also seen mixed performance so far, with insurance underperforming banks. This seems an anomaly given the paramount importance of long-term savings to cater for retirement.

It would be entirely healthy for European markets to drift through what will hopefully be a quiet summer, without shocks such as Brexit to contend with. I think all seems well set though for European markets to trade higher than current levels by the end of 2017.

Before investing in an investment trust referred to in this document, you should satisfy yourself as to its suitability and the risks involved, you may wish to consult a financial adviser. The value of an investment and the income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested. Nothing in this document is intended to or should be construed as advice. This document is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment. It does not form part of any contract for the sale or purchase of any investment. Issued in the UK by Henderson Investment Funds Limited (reg. no. 2678531), incorporated and registered in England and Wales with registered office at 201 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 3AE, is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to provide investment products and services.

0800 7318496