politics

In an essay commissioned by Edge, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne writes about creationist presidential candidates, the fallacies they promote, and public servants’ responsibility to be scientifically literate.

When the moderator asked nine (Republican presidential) candidates to raise their hands if they “didn’t believe in evolution,” three hands went into the air—those of Senator Sam Brownback, Governor Mike Huckabee, and Representative Tom Tancredo. Although I am a biologist who has found himself battling creationism frequently throughout his professional life, I was still mortified. Because there is just as much evidence for the fact of evolution as there is for the existence of atoms, anyone raising his hand must have been grossly misinformed.

I don’t know whether to attribute the show of hands to the candidates’ ignorance of the mountain of evidence for evolution, or to a cynical desire to pander to a public that largely rejects evolution (more than half of Americans do). But I do know that it means that our country is in trouble. As science becomes more and more important in dealing with the world’s problems, Americans are falling farther and farther behind in scientific literacy. Among citizens of industrialized nations, Americans rank near the bottom in their understanding of math and science. Over half of all Americans don’t know that the Earth orbits the Sun once a year, and nearly half think that humans once lived, Flintstone-like, alongside dinosaurs.

Now maybe evolutionary biology isn’t going to propel America into the forefront of world science, but creationism (and its gussied-up descendant “Intelligent Design”) is not just a campaign against evolution–it’s a campaign against science itself and the scientific method. By pretending that evolution is on shaky ground, and asserting that religion can contribute to our understanding of nature, creationists confuse people about the very form and character of scientific evidence. This confusion can only hurt our ability to make rational judgments about important social issues, like global warming, that involve science.

I encourage you to read the whole essay. It contains a well formulated opinion on why it is so important (and to me, almost incredible) that 3 out of 9 Republican candidates don’t believe in evolution. Even more important than just the contention on evolution is how it is attacked.

Truth doesn’t exist. Or rather, it is not accessible to human cognition. We can only formulate theories on what the truth may be but ultimately, we cannot know it. We can only test our theories on the touchstone of facts. If the theory correctly explains the facts, then it is close enough to the “Truth” and it is agreed to be considered as a scientific truth. That is until a new fact is discovered that cannot be explained by this particular theory, in which case, it is either refined or discarded for a new one that can accommodate a more complete explanation. Sure there are things that are not understood (and there probably always will be) but science progresses by iteration (and sometimes revolution). It doesn’t start with concepts and tries to make the observed facts fit into a rigid framework based on belief, or, as Coyne puts it:

Scientific truths are facts agreed on by all observers using scientific methods. The formula for water is H2O, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. These are matters that can be verified empirically by any scientist, be she Muslim, Catholic, or Hindu.

What bothers me is not so much that evolution is put to the trial: as a scientific truth, it needs to be put to trial and pass the test of facts. What bothers me is the fact that there is no trial. Evolution is disregarded (as well as the facts) in favor of dogma. This attitude is more and more pervasive (it can also be found in other domains than science) and it is troubling to see such a powerful and predominant country as the US show the sign of a return to obscurantism. Coyne concludes:

This attitude has enormous political—and educational—implications. What happens if scientific truth conflicts with a politician’s “spiritual truth”? This is not a theoretical problem, but a real one, as we see in debates about stem-cell research, abortion, genetic engineering, and global warming. Ignorance about evolution may be widespread, but it’s not nearly as dangerous as dogmatic certainty about the real world based on faith alone.

What does such an attitude, held by people so close to becoming the next leader of the most powerful country in the world, mean for this country? What does it mean for the rest of the world? Supposing that evolution could be banned from being taught in school if such a dogmatic candidate was to become president, what’s next? Crusades? After all, if facts don’t matter and only the word of God is of importance, why not?