Huckabee says evolution is not an issue

by emptypockets

Republican presidential candidate Governor Mike Huckabee said this weekend that it is irrelevant to his campaign that he thinks the theory of evolution is wrong. Huckabee, along with Senator Sam Brownback and Representative Tom Tancredo, asserted their disbelief in evolution last Thursday at the first Republican debate. Nevertheless, Huckabee says, his disbelief in evolution has no bearing on his qualifications to be president:

"I believe that the Creation has a creator. I believe there is a God. And I believe God put this whole creative process in motion. How he did it and the time frame in which he did it, I honestly don't know. Nor do I think it's relevant to being president of the United States," Huckabee said.

What's remarkable is not that Huckabee is wrong about evolution, but that he may also be wrong about whether -- for once -- it matters.

It certainly was not an issue in the 2004 elections. I don't remember it being discussed, and haven't readily found any records of it. It was a peripheral issue in 2000, because in late 1999 the Kansas school board had just removed evolution from its science curriculum. Two weeks after the Kansas story made headlines, CNN asked "Is evolution a political issue? Should presidential candidates be arguing over whether the planet is 4 billion years old...?" ultimately falling back on the old "time will tell" ending: "But it remains to be seen whether this argument, which never seems to fall completely out of the public discourse, will play a major role in the still-evolving 2000 presidential election landscape."

It didn't. Both Gore and Bush thought that curricula should be left to local school districts. Both Gore and Bush were fine with creationism being taught in schools: Gore took the position that he "favor[ed] the teaching of evolution in the public schools" but thought "localities should be free to teach creationism as well," a position later amended to refer to religion classes, while Bush actually saw his own openness to evolution as proof that he was not a strict fundamentalist, saying "I think that, for example, on the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth... I don't use the Bible as necessarily a way to predict the findings of science." In the end, the press did not vigorously follow up and it was not an issue in the campaign.

Nor have Bush's increasingly fundamentalist views been a big issue since his re-election. In August 2005, Bush endorsed teaching creationism in schools, a position which was lauded by the director of a center at the creationist advocacy group the Discovery Institute as "the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biological origins," a validation of their anti-evolution position. Gary Bauer said the president's endorsement "at the very least... makes Americans who have that position more respectable, for lack of a better phrase."

The issue has been raised rarely in press conferences, mostly limited to the months immediately after Bush's remarks. In October 2005, White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan was asked "How does the President stand on the issue of evolution versus intelligent design?" He answered simply, "He stands where he stood before, that he believes that students ought to be exposed to different theories," and received no follow-up. In December 2005, McLellan was asked about a school curriculum issue in Pennsylvania pertaining to intelligent design, and again answered that curriculum decisions should be left to local school districts and that Bush thinks "students ought to be exposed to different theories and ideas." Again, no follow-up.

So, Huckabee has reason to feel confident: Evolution has not been an issue in the last two election cycles. Americans don't seem to care that their current president doesn't seem to believe in evolution. It has not successfully been pressed by candidates, by the press, or by advocacy groups. So what's going on when the New York Times leads its debate coverage by saying "some of [the] most striking moments centered on two topics: abortion and evolution"? Is Huckabee right that evolution will continue to sputter as an issue -- or will Americans, for once, care about a politician's understanding of evolution the way they do major litmus tests like one's stance on abortion?

The difference this year may be stem cells and global warming, two areas of science policy that the public cares about but that, unfortunately, lend themselves to nuance. Asking about evolution, on the other hand, may get at a candidate's view of science even when they'd rather be coy. On stem cells, for example, many take positions like Senator Bob Casey did when he said "I will strongly support funding for stem cell research that doesn't destroy an embryo." Global warming, likewise, has a shifting middle ground of those who recognize it, acknowledge it as manmade, expect temperature increases of different amounts, grasp different levels of consequences of those temperature increases, and support different degrees of policy actions to counter it. By comparison, evolution provides a clearer yes-or-no proxy for a candidate's attitude towards science: do you agree with the theory of evolution, or not? Thus, evolution serves a useful wedge.

Not that candidates won't try to finesse it. Some may go down the intelligent design path, arguing that instead of random mutation followed by natural selection, there is a subset of beneficial mutations that are introduced by God. I think a more successful middle ground is a variation of the one embraced by the Vatican, essentially that human physical creation is explained by evolution but that the human soul is made by God.

(Aside: During my research for this post I read Pope Pius XII and Pope John Paul II on this topic, and they are interesting. John Paul II says, of evolution, "The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation..." while Pope Pius XII says, in 1950, that evolution is worthy of study even if it's simply to show that it's wrong, and in general is more hostile to it while at the same time opening the door to its consideration. He is particularly concerned with its contradiction of the Biblical story of Adam ("For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents."), a problem John Paul II does not deal with and that I think even the most skilled politician would be unable to finesse, except perhaps to say that Adam was not the first man per se biologically but, rather, the first man with a soul, it being the soul that makes us human. In contrast I was delighted to read Pius XII's 1951 address in which he reviews the literature on the age of the universe and of the Earth, for example: "To calculate the age of original radioactive substances, very approximate data are taken from the transformation of the isotope of uranium 238 into an isotope of lead (RaG), or of an isotope of uranium 235 into actinium D (AcD), and of the isotope of thorium 232 into thorium D (ThD). The mass of helium thereby formed can serve as a means of control. This leads to the conclusion that the average age of the oldest minerals is at the most five billion years." This from a Pope! Which political candidates can state how old they think the Earth is, let alone why they think that? For the science-minded, I really recommend reading that Papal address -- it is delightful.)

In the end, though, the principles of evolution are so firmly entrenched that it is nearly impossible to finesse the issue, and that's what makes it a useful wedge. As Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education said, "I understand politicians like to compromise and that faced with one group who says two plus two equals four and another group that says two plus two equals six, [they] will tend to arrive at a position that says two plus two equals five. Unfortunately, sometimes the answer has to be four, and this is one of those times." That's what makes a good litmus test. And when 7 of 10 candidates disagree with their base, that's what makes a good wedge.

So Huckabee may be wrong, not only about evolution but about whether it will be used successfully as a wedge issue this time out. On the other hand, when about half of Americans are creationists, we might do well to wonder if we're wedging ourselves away from victory. As much as I'd like to see candidates selected for being pro-science, the real issue in this election -- for policy reasons and pragmatic ones -- has got to be Iraq. But as long as we're still in the primaries, I'll be happy to see the Republicans continue to trip over themselves with a monkey on one side and a Bible on the other. Their humiliation will not only help Democrats, but also, as the mainstream press ridicules them for their backwards views, it will help bury the idea that creationism can survive as a viable scientific point of view.

Comments

[Jodi]

emptypockets,

let us go to the central question.

I will go first.

I believe in God.

Do you?

[mainsailset]

Oblivious president? Please, not again! He's so entrenched in that bubble that he hasn't noticed that Americans are walking right over the top of that argument. Reminds me of Tom Delay coming to town a few months ago and talking the 2004 talk.

[DemFromCT]

I think it's an irrelevant question, Jodi. Most Americans beieve in God. The question is whether you accept the theory of evolution, and whether you think science is compatable with faith. My answer to both is yes.

see also < ahref="http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/05/do_you_believe_.html">Do You Believe In Evolution?

[earlofhuntingdon]

Even if you're convinced you've won the lottery, you still have to buy a ticket.

The central question is not whether one believes in God. It is what will you do with the here and now? Even if you believe God created it, "it" doesn't come with directions; figuring out what to do with it requires reason. Otherwise, all you can do is pray that that howl you heard was the wind or a wolf.

Did God give us brains so we wouldn't use them? If so, George is the holiest man on the face of the earth.

[Indyblue]

From Truthdig this is a must read for anyone interested in the study or theories of religious belief. It is a bit long but worth it.
http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/

[P J Evans]

I'm inclined to generalize here, and say that people who believe in creation rather than evolution are lacking in intellectual curiosity. They seem to be more likely to buy into the argument that 'it's always been this way, so don't ask [embarassing] questions'. Going that route you're likely to end up with a world of peasants ruled by semi-literate lords.

[emptypockets]

Whether one believes in God is, I think, not the question. The question is, How does one reconcile one's beliefs when they are contradicted by empirical observation?

The Papal addresses I link to above are three fairly wise and thoughtful attempts to reconcile extraordinarily devout faith in God with contradictory observations of the physical world. Anything approaching that level of thoughtfulness from the candidates would, I think, be welcome.

Un-thoughtful attempts to reconcile faith with contradictory observations tend to lead to ideology, and by experience are often regrettable. We were taken to Iraq based on an ideological faith despite an abundance of empirical observations that it was the wrong enemy and that, in any case, we would find ourselves trapped even with the best of plans (let alone the poor planning that took us there). The current stem cell research policy is, in a different way, the defeat of empiricism by ideology.

The question really isn't "Do you believe in God" -- it's "what do you do when your beliefs are challenged"? Do you become an ideologue, or do you search for a thoughtful reconciliation?

[earlofhuntingdon]

This debate is ancient. Science, more generally, reason, helps explain the world we find, religion helps us value our place in it, most especially, how we value each other. Those who insist that religion and science inescapably conflict are engaged in the politics of power, and hope to divide us from ourselves to get it. That's not science or religion, just competition.

[John Casper]

Tokyo Jodi, I see no evidence you believe in any almighty. Like a lot of Christianists, you worship at an idol that you and others have invented.

For large parts of the history of the Judaeo Xtian traditions, it was a sin to even mention the word, "GOD" out law. It was understandably seen as blasphemy against the "name" which is above all other names.

Go read the good neocon, Michael Novak's BELIEF AND UNBELIEF. Atheism is the not the sole property of the unbeliever. As you so ably demonstrate, it's functionally rampant among people such as you who think you "believe in God." Tokyo Jodi, you don't have the sand to confess here in a public forum that you "believe" in God. Such confession are an insult to the mere idea of God. Go read Paul's magnificent seventh chapter on works versus faith in his letter to the Romans. Although Paul and I are not in complete agreement here, imvho God really doesn't care if you believe in God or not. If there is a God and whether there is such a thing as "salvation," is not going to be left up to your unbelieveably puny "belief." The vast majority of humans ever born never heard of Jesus Christ and any interpretation of the Judaeo Xtian God. All reputable Xtian theologians agree, that it would be inconsistent with Jesus of Nazareth's revelations about God for those people to be banished to eternal damnation for something over which they had no control. I also suggest Schubert Ogden's THE REALITY OF GOD, which creates problems for the Thomistic notions of God. Tokyo Jodi, the ancients referred to God as the eternal now. The fact that earth is six billion years old is relevant to humanity and our insignificant place in the universe. Since even Xtianists espouse that God is beyond time, it's irrelevant in discussions about God's existence and immutability.

emptypockets, thanks for a terrific post. I always want to know where those assholes creationists dig for oil. On Sunday, they claim the earth is eight thousand years old. On Monday they invest in ventures based on mineral exploration, that depend upon the universe being around six billion years old.

OT, what gets lost is the sheer genius and relative morality of the author of Genesis. All the tribes fighting in Palestine around the time of the author of Genesis had creation myths. Both creation stories in Genesis (yes Tokyo Jodi, there are two) are very simmilar to what the Assyrians had and what the Hittites had.... IIRC, what separated the Hebrews so completely from these others was their unwillingness to practice child sacrifice. You're talking about primitive people who routinely watch their children starve to death via frequent problems with securing food. I'm sure Genesis was the laughingstock of many who read the Abraham and Issac story (where the angel tells Abraham not to kill Issac). That was child sacrifice. That was the point of the story. Somehow, despite all the famines that came afterwards, the Hebrews stuck with it, more or less. In ethical terms, they were the moral giants of their neighborhood. Genesis was not a scientist. There is no problem with revering the inspired quality of Genesis' work and revering and respecting the inspired work of Darwin's. Xtians have long held that Revelation, grace, has never been limited to what is in the Xtian canonical writings.

Tokyo Jodi, please apologize to emptypockets for the disrespectful tone of your initial comment.

[EH]

Paul who?

[marky]

Is it just my imagination or has Jodi become more odious in recent months, as W.'s excellent adventure has gone South?

For me, a belief in Creationism makes someone unfit for higher office. Accepting a delusional belief system is not what I want of a President.

[John Casper]

This Paul:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galations 3:29.

So far as we know, Jesus of Nazareth never said anything against slavery (It took the US until 1865 to "get it"). So far as we know, Jesus of Nazareth never said anything good about the Greeks. He drew the line at Samaritans and even that got him in a lot of trouble. People who criticize Paul for being a misogynist are simply ignorant on that subject. For his time, he was a raging feminist.

[John Casper]

emptypockets, fwiw, I wanted to provide a little context about Pius XII, but I'll gladly defer to Sara and others who understand the issues better. IMVHO, his comments were a response to the ongoing theological war between Roman Catholic theologians and "reformed" theologians (those following some denomination that split with Luther in the Western schism).

One of Pius XII's many sub human and sub Xtian agendas was to elevate the need for the infallible papacy above Xtianity’s canonical scriptures. You may recall Luther's "sola scritura." Roman Catholic popes hated Luther for this, because it infringed on their authority to interpret scripture. It's this back yard denominational divide over authority which imvho forced a misanthrope such as Pius XII, to contradict his normally set in concrete anti-modernity posture. In Pius 12, you're talking about a guy, who agree with his predecessor Pius 11 that there was no reason why married couples should have sex after the woman was too old to conceive (Casti Connubi 1930).

emptypockets, I am not familiar with the documents you cite, but I have little doubt that you are quoting them accurately. They were no doubt written by scientists working in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, not P12. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/400_ann/program.htm

This is my problem, but when ever anyone has anything nice to say about Pius 12, (other than the fact that he is dead), I begin to hyperventilate. Again, that's my problem.

IMVHO, Pius 12 saw WWII as an opportunity to reestablish the Papacy has a "playa" in world diplomacy. Specifically, he wanted to regain Papal prestige and temporal power by brokering the treaty between the Allies and the Axis. In '39 when the Wehrmacht smashed through (liberated) Poland, the SS and Gestapo killed about a million Poles, the vast majority of whom were Roman Catholic. As we all know, beginning in '41 THE FINAL SOLUTION began in earnest and resulted in the deaths of about 6 million European Jews. Roman Catholic apologists for Pius 12 have always pointed to Pius 12's silence about the million Poles who were executed as proof that he was not anti semitic. As evidence prior to his Pontificate confirms, Pius 12 was virulently anti-semitic, an unqualified supporter of Hitler’s because everyone was so afraid of Stalin‘s institutionalized atheism. It's what got him elected pope after P11's death, because Pius 11 (d1939) was not anti-semitic enough for a lot of European Cardinals (He died before he could publish an encyclical calling Jews and Xtians spiritual brothers (Mit Brennender Sorge).

The evidence that Pius 12 ignored the pathetic pleas for help he received for the Poles as effectively as he ignored the equally pathetic pleas for help for the Jews is pretty solid imvho. How some, who consider themselves Roman Catholic, draw from that that he was not anti-semitic is an ongoing mystery to me. Pius XII clearly had the authority to have dramatically altered the outcome of WWII. If he would have simply asked German Roman Catholics to question Hitler's murderous conduct in Poland, it might have dramatically altered Hitler's conduct of the war. Hitler was overjoyed that Pius XII remained silent in the face of the Polish slaughter. I have to believe that this emboldened him wrt the invasion of Russia and the Final Solution. The evidence is clear that in addition to being anti-semitic, Pius XII was also a misanthrope.

[P J Evans]

There is one form of creation I recognize: time. Because you never get to repeat any moment of it. And it's as continuous as evolution.

(Also, I think that 'Judeo-Christian' is a code word for 'Old Testament' or 'Mosaic law', and should be pointed out as such. The people who are big on it seem to be much more comfortable with the commandments of Moses than those of Jesus.)

[emptypockets]

John Casper, I've got no background in religious history and so very much appreciate the background on Pius XII. He seems to be an intriguing figure, and quite a key one historically going by your summary. His http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM>Humani Generis encyclical (the 1950 address I mention) is noteworthy for directly addressing evolution, and because John Paul II uses it explicitly as his foundation for moving the church closer to full acceptance of evolution. But the encyclical itself is more an attack on evolution -- putting it in its place -- than anything like an embrace:

"Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism."

It's difficult to read, and if I saw it posted without an author I would take it as a right-wing rant, not something thoughtful at all.

The other scientific address, the 1951 piece, reads as if it were written by a completely different author, so you may be right that it in fact was. In it, he sounds like a kid who has just discovered science and is simply in awe of all it has to tell us:

At first sight it is rightly a source of wonderment to recognize how the knowledge of the fact of mutability has gained ever greater ground, both in the macrocosm and in the microcosm, according as science has made new progress, as though confirming with new proofs the theory of Heraclitus: "Everything is in flux"...This common experience is corroborated by the natural sciences, which have taught people to understand these and other similar changes as processes of destruction and construction of corporeal substances in their chemical elements, that is to say, in their tiniest parts, the chemical atoms. Going still farther, natural science made known that this chemico-physical mutability is not, as the ancients thought, restricted to terrestrial bodies, but even extends to all the bodies of our solar system and of the great universe, which the telescope, and still more the spectroscope, have demonstrated to be composed of the same kind of atoms.

He really does a very nice job with it, and judging by your encapsulated biography of him, it would make sense if this were written by a different author (I wish I knew who!).

He ultimately revels in the scientific theory of the Big Bang and the idea that the Universe has an age, as evidence that there was a Creation, seeing it as scientific validation of ancient Biblical word. (He then makes the nonsensical step of concluding that if there was a beginning, there had to be a Beginner, or God, to set it in motion).

earlofhuntingdon, "politics of power" sounds like an election campaign, and that which would "divide us from ourselves to get [power]" sounds like a wedge issue, doesn't it? Clearly this is politics, not science or religion -- but that's the kind of a blog this is!

[Neil]

Not all christians believe the word of the bible should be taken literally. Jesuits for example, take an intellectul approach to theology. They see room in God's universe for creation that includes evolution as well as a loving God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit: three persons in one God. That is a mystery of faith.

That said, believing in a Christian God (or Judeo-Christian God, or taking Jesus as your savior, or believing in Mohammed or being a agnostic) is just another way lazy anti-intellectual right wing theists have fucked up the conversation about what's imporant and what's not important in selecting a President.

The President we have now, "W" took Jesus as his savior and since has had private conversations with Jesus about invading Iraq. Seems like Bush and his deity got that one wrong.

When I saw the bumper sticker "Who would Jesus Bomb?" I took it as snark. When W saw it, he apprarently took it as a signal to ask. Anyone hear had a conversation with Jesus when Jesus spoke back? Anyone here that is NOT on a thorazine drip?

It's time to redirect the conversation about what qualities we want in our President... away from 'who believes or disbelieves' in which god or no god, and the narratives that accompany that belief - whether their religious belief about creation can accomodate evolution too.

[Neil]

Odious Jodious,

Do you believe in the easter bunny? Does your belief in the easter bunny rule out easter egg hunts?

I thought so.

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

I must differ. It isn't irrevelant. It affects everything to different degrees at different time.

emptypockets

a lot of what you say has merit. I think that the real key to these discussions is whether a person is a bible literalist. I am not. For example, 7 days to God is not 7 days to us. Now as far as morals are concerned, that is a different matter. But even there these are translations of translation by men who have a point to make.

As a scientist and a technologist, I like the I. Newton statement:
"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and again finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

And I keep in mind Kelvin's address to an assemblage of physicists at the British Association for the advancement of Science in 1900 in which he stated, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

My summation of those two statements is that there is nothing more foolish than a scientist that claims to know all, and especially a lay person that thinks that science explains all.

Of course science and technology does give us some useful tools, and I could easily worry the people here at TNH, or at FDL by showing some easy simpler ways to render a hard drive's files unreadable.

(Just like the deskside fax machine for communicating memo's back and forth without archiving/retention.)

Neil, and
Casper

I can see that you don't have any good logical retorts since you have degenerated into making only nasty comments.

[oldtree]

I like that first comment! did huckabee find out about the question and get an answer in real fast?

it is always helpful when any candidate says anything like this. It will show the rest of the world just how they view things. You can always use the gold standard of logic, if they believe in fables and let such fables influence their lives, there is no logic associated.
For those of us that think the book written in the dark ages about a fellow from 1000 years earlier has any thing to do with truth, it is not only logic, but reason that is called into question

[John Casper]

Thanks emptypockets. Yes, I was not clear. Pius XII signed his name to Humani Generis, as a papal encyclical, but it was in all likelihood authored by others. I have no idea how to find who those contributors might have been.

[J-Ro]

I'm not sure I buy emptywheel's assertion that evolution is more of a cut and dried issue than global warming or stem cell research. Evolution, though well supported by scientific evidence, is still a theory, and thus open to change. While I believe in the classical Darwinist version, I have friends and professors who talk about differing versions, such as a version of evolution where organisms evolve within their species, but don't branch out to become a new species. My late uncle, a professor at Columbia University, actually believed in that last one, what he called parallel evolution. Basically, life on earth started in parallel tracks and never split off into different species like a tree. Monkeys and us may have had ancestors that lived in similar areas, but we never shared a comment ancestor species wise. An interesting theory, and one that can be supported by some scientific evidence.

Anyway, the point is that this issue might not serve as a useful wedge, mostly because there are lots of scientists that believe in evolution AND are sprititual people, there are varying theories of evolution, and the President will most likely never mandate whether evolution should be taught in schools and has little control over the debate, which is not the case for other wedge issues such as abortion.

[John Casper]

Tokyo Jodi, lmao. What did I write to you that was "nasty?"

[emptypockets]

Without Biblical literalism, there is no conflict between evolution and God.

[emptypockets]

J-Ro, the theory of evolution is quite clear at this point. I am not aware of any serious hypothesis like the one you put forward, of multiple origins for life on Earth. More importantly, such a hypothesis doesn't explain the extreme conservation, both in the parts list and in the way those parts are assembled, among all life we've encountered.

The wedge here isn't about separating evolutionists vs creationists. It's about separating those who are able to logically reconcile their faith with empirical observation, from those who cannot.

At the risk of repeating myself: the question here is how one deals with having one's preconceptions challenged by experience -- something that we've seen time and again with this administration (and we've suffered deeply from their inability to reconcile their expectations with reality). Having Biblical literalism challenged by fossil and genetic evidence is one clear example where folks have had to grapple with this. (Going to Iraq and finding no WMDs is another.)

There is no way you can say this character trait is irrelevant to policymaking -- rather, it is at the very heart of it.

[John Casper]

"Anyway, the point is that this issue might not serve as a useful wedge, mostly because there are lots of scientists that believe in evolution AND are sprititual people"

Knowledge of God or religion is always historically based. As humans, we cannot know anything that occurs outside of history. The idea that the theory of evolution is somehow a referendum on God's existence was prevalent in Darwin's day. Theologians, however, have dealt with it, and I do not think that is any longer the case.