Blaming Evolution for All Society's Ills
The July/August 2000 issue of Church & State explains:
[W]hen [Ken] Ham, of Answers in Genesis, was asked in an interview with CNN if children are being harmed by lessons on evolution, he said, “Oh, absolutely. I remember seeing Jeffrey Dahmer interviewed as to why he killed people, and one of the things he said was because he was told he came from slime. He was taught evolution; he believed he was accountable to no one but himself.”
John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, seems to want to pin virtually all of the world’s problems on evolutionary biology. ‘‘The failed concepts of racism, fascism, Marxism, imperialism, etc., are founded on evolutionary principles,” Morris told the National Religious Broadcasters’ magazine. ‘‘The failing practices of homosexuality, abortion and promiscuity, are consequences of wrong worldviews and rebellion against parents.”
Here we can see why the Christian Right really opposes teaching evolution — not because evolution is bad science (it isn’t), but because they think evolution is a source of problems in American society. It really doesn’t matter whether evolution is true or not from their perspective. All that matters is that it conflicts with their brand of Christianity, conflicts with their interpretation of the Bible, and leads to social conflicts.
As the NCSE’s Matsumura argues:
“People are short-changed in two ways,” Matsumura told Church & State, “First, this approach discourages finding real solutions to the problems that teaching evolution supposedly causes, Second, when you’ve got parents telling kids to literally put their hands over their ears when they hear the ‘e-word’ those kids aren’t going to learn how to use evolutionary science to solve problems in medical research, agriculture. conservation, and so on. And it’s not only science, but all public discourse that’s harmed. Demonizing the opposition is never healthy for democracy.”
I’m not sure that the Christian Right understands any tactic but demonizing the opposition. After all, they are on the side of truth, righteousness, and God. Theirs is a holy quest to restore the dominance of True Christianity to America and eventually the world. Their agenda is not their own, but God’s. Everyone who opposes them must therefore necessarily be opposing the will of God for all humanity. Who but demons and the minions of Satan would do that?
Quick Poll: Are evolution and the teaching of evolution responsible for society's ills?
- Yes, destructive doctrines like fascism, communism, and humanism can all be traced to evolution.
- No, of course not, that's just nonsense from the far religious right.
- I don't know.
- I don't care.
Read More:
Christian Nationalism & Dominion Theology:
- Dominionism & Dominion Theology
- Christian Reconstructionism
- Leading Christian Reconstructionists
- Reconstructionism & Christian Right: Common Goals, Beliefs
Christian Right Issues & Agenda:
Comments
“Here we can see why the Christian Right really opposes teaching evolution — not because evolution is bad science (it isn’t), but because they think evolution is a source of problems in American society.”
Can anyone say “straw man?” My friend, you are arguing against quotes that you have taken out of context, and then attached your own interpretation to. The “Christian Right” opposes the theory of molecules->monkey->man evolution because it is wrong from scientific reasoning. Call it “bad science” if you’d like. Both Ken Ham and John Morris are incredibly outspoken on the fallacies of evolution. If you have your own take on it, then feel free to share it, but don’t set someone else up in a stance and then argue against it, when it’s an outright lie.
What you’ve done is akin to my having written a paper about all the health risks associated with smoking cigarettes, and stating that “besides, you just look ugly with a cigarette hanging out of your mouth,” and then you coming along and saying “He isn’t against them because they’re causing cancer, but because they’re aesthetically unpleasing to him, with his Christian perspective.” Not good logic, brother. Tighten up…
That’s a pretty serious accusation. I challenge you to demonstrate that the quoted material doesn’t mean what I describe and, furthermore, than evolution is not opposed because of its alleged moral consequences.
That’s a pretty strong clam. I challenge you to demonstrate that evolution is “wrong from scientific reasoning.”
Now you are accusing me of a lie, but you don’t even try to demonstrate that I have attributed to anyone any view that they don’t hold
The quoted material does mean what you describe. The concept of evolution can be viewed as a source of societal ills, and is indeed opposed for that reason. In your saying that, there is no error. My problem with the article lies in these words: “Here we can see why the Christian Right really opposes teaching evolution — not because evolution is bad science…” You’re using quotes by people who DO say that they oppose evolution because it’s fundamental premise is incorrect (that everything is explained naturally and not supernaturally – more succinctly, there is no God). That could be called “bad science.” So you’re setting up your argument that the “Christian right’s” sole reason for dissent is what you play off as a purely misguided surface issue of societal ills, and then you argue that point down. That’s where the “straw man” bit came in.
You’re right. I did not clearly show how you’ve misrepresented Ken Ham’s or the “Christian right’s” view. Check answersingenesis.org for Ken Ham’s views, carm.org for Christian apologetics (although not all Christians agree on evolution, unfortunately). Now I know that lie is a strong word, but if you deliberately deliver the wrong information knowing it to be wrong, I call it a lie. You’re obviously a reasonably intelligent guy, and if you’ve done enough research to know that Ham is the founder of answersingenesis.org, then I assume that you’ve understood that the reason he opposes it is not simply because of its effect on society, but because he thinks the science behind evolution is flawed at the source. And if you know that, then you’re misrepresenting his stance. And if you’re doing it deliberately, with full knowledge, then it’s a lie. And if I assumed incorrectly that you knew his position, then I retract my statement about it being an “outright lie,” and substitute “unintentional delivery of incorrect information.”
I challenge you to demonstrate that you can use a sentence without using the word “demonstrate” in it. Kidding. Jesus loves you, brother, and so do I. Christians aren’t out to demonize anyone, other than Satan, and he does that just fine by himself. We may not have the best reputation – thanks to a number of reasons – but the true goal of a Christian should be to live a Christ-like life. It can’t be condensed to a few sentences, but when Jesus was asked what but the most important commandment in the law (read: first 5 books of the Old Testament) was, he said: “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” Matthew 22:37-40
Let ‘er rip…
You can only have a legitimate problem with this is you believe that opponents of evolution identify “bad science” in it.
They say that this is the premise, but clearly lots of people don’t see that premise in there.
Besides, that wouldn’t qualify as “bad science” — bad science would be a failure to adhere to the scientific method, not dismissing the existence of supernatural agency for which no evidence is at hand.
I am familiar with their views. Now, once again, where do I lie about them?
I know he claims that the science is bad, but I am arguing that that is not the real reason for his opposition. In part, this is because of the failure of people like him to demonstrate any scientific flaws in evolution. They frequently lie about evolution — even about the definition and nature of evolution.
Like making claims and accusations that you can’t or won’t support.
No, I can have a legitimate problem with your claiming to know the “real” reason why people hold a view, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (Ken Ham has put together books, websites, articles, videos, etc on the faulty interpretation of the data that is “evolution”). The subject of evolution was not even the issue for me originally. Look at the semi-decent analogy I gave in my original reply to your article about cigarettes. That’s a pretty good parallel of what you’re doing, and that’s my problem.
Here we’re arguing over semantics. I’ve been going with the “bad science” thing because it’s how you formed the phrase originally. If, in geometry, one or more of your given statements in a proof is wrong, you’re going to end up with an incorrect answer, whether or not you use the proper methods. You’d get the final answer wrong, and that would qualify as “bad math.” Same for our discussion. Evolution has “pillars” that cannot be proven true, but they’re assumed to be true. For instance, nature is all there is (read: God does not exist and/or is not involved with creation), things have always been and always will be as they are now (uniformitarianism), spontaneous generation (something from nothing), mutations lead to new genetic information that did not exist already, etc. None of these things can be touched with the scientific method. It’s speculation, and it’s fundamental to all the evolutionary conclusions that follow afterwards. I would, and many other would call this “bad science,” but this is your article, so if that doesn’t fit your definition, then I guess I’m wrong there, too, and we can call off the proverbial dogs.
That’s a tough position for you, and I really don’t see how you can pull this one off. It’s the equivalent of my arguing that the reason for your and the “Atheistic left” supporting the theory of molecule->man evolution is not because they believe it to be true, but because they need an intellectual system that would give them permission to behave licentiously. If you accept God as real, then it would change the way you lived, and you don’t want that. You want permission to live free of morals, or more directly, to define your own. God doesn’t allow for that, thus you reason Him away with unreasonable conjectures, and rely on a God-less explanation for origins to justify your desired lifestyle. If you’ll permit me a quote to illustrate:
“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” – Nobel Prize Winner George Wald, PhD, Harvard University, “Innovation and Biology”, Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100. (emphasis mine)
Anyways, it’s a tough point to debate. Fun, maybe, but tough.
No, brother. Reasons like not practicing what we “preach” (profess to adhere to), keeping our mouths shut when we need to speak up, not studying God’s word like we should to affirm it’s authority in our lives, focusing more on human rules and traditions than on serving God and loving others, not putting half as much time into our relationship with God as we do watching television, etc.
One for the road – “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Timothy 4:3
In the absence of genuine scientific objections to evolution, scientific objections to evolution can’t be the most fundamental and important reason for objecting to evolution.
So, you do personally assert that evolution is bad science?
That was a bad analogy because it was an example of an ad hominem fallacy whereas I am simply locating the basis of the most important and fundamental objections away from one area (science) and to another (morals) — an area which no one disputes is actually an objection in the first place. The only debate here is what’s most fundamental, not what’s an objection. That doesn’t arise at all in your “analogy.”
So I’ll conclude that you don’t comprehend what a proper analogy is.
So? The issue is objections to the science behind evolution and creationists frequently complain that evolution is not “real” science, that it contradicts other areas of science, that there is no scientific evidence behind it, etc. In other words, they call it “bad science.” This, however, is not in the end their most important and fundamental objection to it.
That’s a lie.
No more or less so than in the rest of science, which makes this objection a lie.
That’s an even worse lie because it’s twice a lie: it’s a lie that this is part of evolution and it’s a lie that the actual scientific field, abiogenesis, is about “spontaneous generation.”
That’s actually true in the sense that it’s part of evolutionary theory, but it’s a lie that it’s simply assumed to be true.
Of course lies can’t be “touched” with the scientific method.
Not at all. There are several converging lines of evidence which demonstrate it to be true. First, the evidence behind evolution and which proves that evolution happens is irrelevant. Elaborate conspiracy theories are drawn up to explain the evidence away, but in the end the evidence doesn’t matter. Evolution isn’t rejected because of evidence and so won’t be accepted on the basis of evidence either. So the science is irrelevant.
Second, writings and speeches aimed primarily at the evangelical audience focus little on science but heavily on the alleged moral implications of evolution. It’s only to outsiders that scientific arguments come to the fore. Actions speak louder than words when it comes one’s beliefs and the large amounts of time and effort devoted to attacking the alleged moral implications of evolution demonstrate a very high amount of concern with them. Even if evolution were proven true to them, all this concern would preclude accepting that it get taught in schools; you don’t invest so much time and money tarring something with evil only to throw open the doors to it later.
Third, this moral complaints are also central to a host of other “culture war” issues that the evangelical right attacks so often, thus demonstrating that they are at the heart of so much of what they find wrong with society today. If the problem with evolution were mere science then it would stand relatively alone, separated from other issues, but in reality it’s tightly integrated with abortion, feminism, atheism, humanism, homosexuality, and everything else.
Excuse me, but I’m not your brother and it’s presumptuous to label me as such.
Well, none of that factors into the reputation Christians have with me or with any of atheists I know. We don’t care how much time you spend watching TV, for example. We do care, however, when you make claims and accusations that you can’t or won’t support. Doing this gives you a horrible reputation, both intellectually and ethically.
Also, presumptuousness, arrogance, and self-righteousness play a big role as well.
(Evolution:)
Means nothing more than change.
Any man or thing that can not grow or change is a man or thing that can not grow.
Justin Mahaffie (5). Your definition of uniformitirianism, originally a geological concept, is incorrect. There are several ways of stating it, but they all mean the same. Uniformitirianism is a geological doctrine that processes acting in the same manner as at present over long spans of time are sufficient to account for all current geologic features and all past geologic features. “The present is the key to the past.”.
Mr Mahaffie.. Please, please, don’t take on A G B. Especially not in his own field. Refer back to the article before last when he demolished creationist arguments.
If you really want a worthy opponent where you have a chance of winning. Try the local kindergarten or a school for the intellectually deprived. You don’t seem to come out too well against Austin either. It really is embarrassing for the true believers.