…and this is a 
Mitt Romney, theistic evolutionist…and this is supposed to be a good thing?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: May 12, 2007 9:03 AM, by PZ Myers
What is going on here? I read Mitt Romney's comments on evolution on TPM Cafe and was surprised at how many people think it was a positive development.
Is this a first? Mitt Romney isn't pandering to religious right voters or flip-flopping on an issue important to them in this interview, in which he reveals that he opposes the teaching of intelligent design:
"I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe," Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. "And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body."
He was asked: Is that intelligent design?
"I'm not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design," he said. "But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."
While governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Romney opposed the teaching of intelligent design in science classes.
"In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution, or if there are other scientific thoughts that need to be discussed," he said. "If we're going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why it was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that's for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class."
How about that?
Read the comments over there. People are calling it "startling", "intelligent", and that it's brave of him to accept a basic tenet of biology. What the hell are they talking about?
OK, so it's a bunch of political junkies over there. What do they know? But then I read Jason Rosenhouse, who's "impressed", calls the statement "downright intelligent", and thinks "he's right on this issue".
Don't let me down, Panda's Thumb … oops, they've let me down. Steve Reuland admits that it's political pablum, but that it's "essentially pro-science".
I'm sorry, but Romney's statement is pure calculated bullshit with more acknowledgment of religion than science. It is perfectly in alignment with the strategy of rebranding ID as evolution. Seriously, if you follow the statements of the intelligent design creationists, you'll find that they say stuff that is just like Romney's comment — if there's any difference, it's that IDists are more reluctant to mention god than Romney was. Here, for example:
I believe in an old earth, a long evolution, I'm fine with common descent, etc.
I believe in the evolution of life the same way I believe in the evolution of computers. It's obvious both evolved in a stepwise fashion from simple beginnings but just as obvious is that neither could have happened absent contrivance.
Shall we call DaveScot "pro-science" now?
Look at Romney's statement carefully. Aw, heck, you don't even need to look carefully — the superstition jumps out at you.
"I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe," Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. "And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body."
Magic man done it! Seriously, follow the link and watch the movie clip. Intelligent Design creationism is the idea to ape scientific explanations exactly except for … a "thing", "some kind of force", that mucks about whenever the creationist doesn't understand how something could have evolved. Theistic evolution is the same thing.
He was asked: Is that intelligent design?
"I'm not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design," he said. "But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."
What have you got there? Teleology, an intelligent agent guiding the process, and an implicit idea that humans are the goal. It's not science. It's the antithesis of the biological view of evolution. The disingenuous disavowal of intelligent design by name is there to cloak an acceptance of design in substance.
I'm not arguing that Romney is particularly bad in this case. He's not pushing some insane Young Earth Creationist position, and I think if you pushed the candidates in the Democratic field they'd probably say something similar—they'd mumble some platitudes about accepting the scientific consensus and then throw in something about their belief in god, and how god used science to make us. It's all wrong. What is particularly troubling is how far we've sunk that so many on the side of science are willing to ignore the unscientific promotion of an unevidenced supernatural entity and pretend that this is good for us.
Try to imagine the next big court case to get ID out of the schools.
The lawyer says, "Mr Matzke (you know Nick will be there, right?), you've brilliantly dissected this textbook the Discovery Institute is using, and shown that despite the absence of any overt mention of god or religion, it's antecedents are derived from the creationist movement, and its authors are all strongly religious and have made statements outside the context of this particular book that strongly imply intent to promote religion. We should not be fooled by the absence of obvious religious advocacy in the book itself, but recognize instead its duplicitous nature and the bad faith arguments of its proponents?"
Nick will humbly reply, "Yes, sir."
And the DI lawyer will then say, "But half your witnesses are "theistic" evolutionists, and proud of it. They say openly that they believe a God, the Christian God, not even an ambiguous supernatural force, was involved in the creation of human beings. They write books about DNA as the "language of God". They lecture with considerable force that science and religion are compatible, and more, that science strengthens their faith in the Christian God. Proponents of the evolution position blithely call these people who insert a god into their explanations of origins 'pro-science'. Your side ignores or even derides scientists who insist on purely natural explanations of our evolution, and promotes those who use religion to sell science to the public."
"I'm baffled. On what basis are you arguing that this case involves a violation of the separation of church and state when I can scarcely tell the two of you apart, and when it's your side that more openly embraces religious ideas—when the Intelligent Design proponents show a history of nominally moving away from their religious roots, while your side shows a history of increasing recruitment of church leaders, theologians, and lay advocates of god-involvement in science?"
And Nick will say … I have no idea how Nick would reply. I'm sure it will be clever and devastating, and I'm sure it will explain how the statement that "I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation" is pro-science while "I do not believe in the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to explain the history of life on earth" is anti-science. I'd like to hear an explanation for how "theistic evolution" is less religious than "intelligent design".
If he can't, we're going to have an interesting time at the next trial. Maybe the gang at the NCSE should rethink their strategy a bit, because the way I see it, any defense that uses separation of church and state as its basis is becoming increasingly untenable.
Comments
Here is Tom Tancredo on evolution:
"Evolution explains changes in life. Creationism explains its origin."
Yet another example of Creationism 3.0: theistic evolution.
Posted by: Daedalus | May 12, 2007 9:23 AM
Exactly. An ad hoc accomodation (both intellectually and politically), plain and simple.
Posted by: Bob | May 12, 2007 9:27 AM
But ... won't it be obvious if they're loading textbooks with theistic implications? And unless they do, they'll stand or be shot down on the grounds of the actual science.
The rationale here has already been made - it's methodological naturalism. The quote-unquote good guys can defend science that way, right?
Posted by: Robin Z | May 12, 2007 9:38 AM
The folks who like what Romney said are grading him on the curve. GOP science policy is so benighted, so negative, that anyone who says evolution is okay by him and that ID belongs in philosophy classes, not science classes, automatically looks infinitely superior to what we have now. Romney is some strain of theistic evolutionist (although "deity" is a very broad concept in Mormonism), and that looks a whole lot better than the gaggle of evolution-deniers who run the GOP today.
Is Romney on board with the new move to rebrand ID as evolution? I don't know. Probably not. Since the IDists are moving to co-opt the language of evolution as a disguise for their ideology, I suspect it's merely a coincidence that Romney's comments can be construed as agreeing with them. The ID people are now in the business of appearing to agree with evolutionary ideas while actually intending to subvert them. As long as they can get God in there somewhere, they'll probably be pretty happy, even if they continue to describe him as some nondescript "designer" rather than "Jehovah". Certainly Romney's statement has plenty of God stuff in it, so ID can say "Amen" and continue doing the Lord's work. (Oops! No doubt they'd prefer that I say "advancing science".)
Posted by: Zeno | May 12, 2007 9:42 AM
Ironic that all this time people have been attacking you for refusing to accept that the theistic evolutionists are on our side.
Because. They. Aren't.
Accepting divine intervention as an explanation when there isn't any evidence supporting it isn't just unscientific, it's anti-scientific. (And it isn't an explanation, either - if intelligence has to be designed by intelligence, who designed god? Whenever a theistic evolutionist is rash enough to actually try to answer this question instead of evading or ignoring it, then you can *really* see how anti-science they are.) None of this is new, so why has it been dismissed for so long?
I think most theistic evolutionists are just trying to reconcile the religion that was drummed into them by their parents or peers with the obvious evidence for certain factual positions (universal common descent, species changing over time, etc.) - without ever making the leap to putting the evidence first in *all* areas of inquiry, which would have led them to discard dogma. That kind of doublethink is a very human thing to do, of course. But I still think it's wrong.
The idea that if evolution happened, someone must be causing it is really no different than the idea that if it's raining, someone must be causing it. Evolution *looks* more complex and improbable and purposeful than the weather. But it really isn't. The odds against every raindrop striking the precise spot that it does strike are phenomenal, but that doesn't mean we should return to believing in rain gods. To say that evolution must have been something special because it produced *us* is just arrogance and the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
Given the human brain's well-known and well-documented tendency to believe that there's purpose and meaning and intelligent agency in everything, even when there isn't, we should be doubly suspicious of the claim that no, really, this time there really is purpose and meaning and intelligent agency. The intentional stance is a powerful tool, but we instinctively overapply it like crazy. Gotta watch that.
Posted by: Chris | May 12, 2007 9:45 AM
PZ, I respectfully suggest that you're missing the point.
If you're looking to smash religion off the face of the earth in one fell swoop you're kidding yourself (not that it's an unworthy goal, it certainly is).
When 50 something percent of the US population explicitly deny evolution, we have a huge problem. Why not start by encouraging people to accept the science of big issues like evolution before encouraging them to jettison their fairy tales? I think that this "whack-a-mole" game of beating down the silliness (ID, young earth creationism, miracles, transubstantiation) surrounding religions is a necessary precursor to a larger intellectual leap. Knocking each one of these idiocies on the head prior to going after god, backs god into an ever smaller corner.
It seems to me that if you allow religious people to investigate evolution in a way that doesn't threaten their beliefs, you're going to get a more widespread understanding of evolution. I believe that understanding will necessarily lead to a weakening of the grip religion has on so many minds.
Ultimately this hinges on whether you think there's a difference between understanding and accepting evolution or explicitly denying it. I think there is.
Do I applaud Romney's religious beliefs? No, they're crazier than a ... very crazy thing. How do I feel about his beliefs on evolution? I'll take them every day of the week and thrice on Sundays when the alternative is "bearded sky man sculpted them from dirt roughly 6,000 years ago".
Posted by: Darwinator | May 12, 2007 9:59 AM
Well, "brave", in that making such an ordinary and sane statement will be seen by /someone/ as transgressive. Ironically, I doubt the various complainers will actually agree what is wrong with such an opinion.
The fact is, one can offer the most benign opinion on science and evolution and still be surprised at how otherwise intelligent people will take violent offense. This is the danger of false dichotomies.
I mean, I'm of the opinion that many things should be taught in school. Clearly, evolution should be taught as a science in the appropriate class along with the other sciences.
If curriculum allows, we can also teach things like civics, philosophy (which probably encompasses things like theology and, heck, everything else, too), and art. Why not? Better understanding of things like qualitative research, critical thinking, and debate adds to our understanding of the world.
Most teachers agree that a multi-discipline approach, especially before any specialization, is a good way to approach education.
Hell, I'm of the opinion that the ID debate /should/ be taught in schools, just not anywhere near science class (simply because it is not science). Presenting the essentially philosophical arguments for ID, creationism and so on in the appropriate forum will, in the long run, /help/ some people better understand science and evolution. By exploding the false dichotomy of ID/evolution (the two issues are really orthogonal to each-other) we help increase the understanding of the real questions.
Of course, I'm tilting at windmills here, I know. Most of us become pretty set in our ways at some point, and will refuse to entertain, even for the sake of argument, an opinion that we /think/ might disagree with a fundamental belief of our own. (There is published study out there that suggests exactly this, but I'm unable to find it. Saving roll against "Google Attempt" misses.)
Posted by: clvrmnky | May 12, 2007 10:02 AM
Commenter 6 has it about right. I'm not even optimistic about eventual victory in this matter. Mitt is clearly the lessor of Republican evils in this manner. That doesn't mean any of us will fall for him, just that if imposed upon us, he is likely to be much less difficult to live under than boy George.
Posted by: bigTom | May 12, 2007 10:14 AM
When it comes to evolution, I wish reporters would ask simpler, more specific questions. Asking a vague question like "Do you believe in evolution?" allows way too much wiggle room and practically invites equivocation.
Instead, ask a simple question like, "Do you believe humans and chimpanzees share biological ancestry?"
Any politician that responds that the evidence overwhelmingly says Yes gets an A.
Posted by: notthedroids | May 12, 2007 10:19 AM
What do you imagine this next court case will be about?
If the text book explicitly advocates a religious perspective, like a creator God, then the case will be easy. It will be out on the basis of the first ammendment.
If they avoid mentioning God, and describe the scientific models -- and if they use the same scientific models as we do -- then why will there be a case? Are we going to bring a court case because the author of a book describing conventional evolutionary biology is known to believe that God creates by the agency of those natural processes?
You've already got in the schools a textbook by one of these theistic evolutionists. It's Biology, by Ken Miller and Joe Levine.
Do you want to raise a court case about that one? If not; then what do you expect to be different with books by other Christians who think that natural processes are the means of God's creative activity?
Posted by: Chris Ho-Stuart | May 12, 2007 10:30 AM
Romney may be a theistic evolutionist, but he does deserve points for alienating the extreme elements of the Republican Right, just like Guiliani did with his pro-choice position this week.
Yeah, sure, their positions still aren't that great in comparison, I suppose, but in the long term, forcibly dragging the Republicans towards the center and away from fundie crazies is what I call a win for Enlightenment modernism, and a move that's likely to increase US science comprehension in the long run.
It's -certainly- better than the views espoused by candidates like Huckabee and Brownback, who give direct cover to young-earth creationists.
I assure you, any young-earth creationist reading Romney's statements on evolution would not come away with the impression that he was even on their side at all.
Posted by: Kuni | May 12, 2007 10:31 AM
In other news, yesterday Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo bravely admitted that he accepted gravity as a basic tenet of physics.
As a former fundie myself though (attended and earned two degrees from Bob Jones University), I do agree with Darwinator's point though. Religious folks accepting evolution over billions of years - even if they do think it was instigated by God - is most definitely progress. Religious people are getting more "liberal" in many, many ways and they don't even know it - even if some of them have been getting more strident lately. In fact, maybe the reason they're getting more strident is because they see the foundation of what they believed is steadily eroding away.
Having said all that, would I prefer a President who openly acknowledged a preference for empiricism over mysticism? Of course.
Posted by: Robert S. | May 12, 2007 10:32 AM
Nice to know that politicians are still lying to save themselves from being crucified politically by mobs of ignorant religious people.
If God exists, why are there not Ten Commandments on every court house step? Why do we try to keep religion out of government? God could not possibly approve of that.
Why aren't we more diligent about destroying graven images? About villifying adulterers? Why aren't we impeaching Bush/Cheney for coveting Iraq's oil?
Why aren't we more like Iraq!?
All politicians who say they believe in God should go live in a Muslim country - where they have done a much better job of creating religious society.
Go away! Leave our secular society alone.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 12, 2007 10:33 AM
Divine intervention? Isn't that what got Eddie Murphy into trouble in Hollywood?
Posted by: Roy | May 12, 2007 10:34 AM
Is it a "positive development" that a lot of people have finally realized what a boon-doggle Bush Jr's Iraq war has been when it should have been obvious from the start?
Yes.
If people actually accept that evolution occurs naturally and without any divine intervention except perhaps at some mythic creation of the Universe phase, I don't care. That's fine.
That alone would represent a huuuuuge advance over the proud anti-brainism we've had for the past 30 years.
Hell, am I the only one who was impressed that, sure, 3 of 10 GOP debate candidates raised their hands to say they disbelieved in evolution, but 7 IN 10 DID NOT?
That seems to me a huuuuge relative advance over the past decades proud right wing un-thinkerism.
Posted by: El Cid | May 12, 2007 10:34 AM
PV, me thinks your fear is unfounded. If anything, it is the fundies that should be afraid.
A major theme of the history of science over the last 500 years has been the continual erosion of the position of gods as the maker and shaker of our natural world.
The majority of our citizens believe there is a god who plays some role in the natural world. 500 years ago the predominant "theology" was affirmative assertions of what god does: move the sun, moon, and stars, create that storm, throw that lightning bolt, bring that plague, etc. This view still lives in small fundamentalist pockets. But it is a mark of our progress that it is now mostly "God-in-the-gaps".
"God-in-the-gaps" is not a threat to scientific progress, since god yields whenever something becomes better understood. "God-in-the-gaps" is a slippery slope away from mythological beliefs, never towards it.
Many people instinctively invoke gods to explain what they don't understand. It may very well be a part of human nature. The fundamentalists will deny reason and evidence to keep their version of god alive in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But most people are not of the fundamentalist mind set: reason and evidence will persuade them. Any view of the evolution of life that increases the exposure to that evidence is a good thing.
Posted by: divalent | May 12, 2007 10:48 AM
It seems that we are seeing the emergence of a new "talking point" since the Republican debate. McCain, in response to the question about evolution, replied that he accepted evolution but that he also saw the "hand of God" when he viewed a sunset in the Grand Canyon. This phrase "hand of God" seems to be popping up with some regularity on the pundit circuit now (or perhaps I just became more sensitized to it through the debate).
In the end I don't think it will serve the Republican candidates well with their religious right wing base. The Falwells, Robertsons, Hagees, and so forth have no patience with theistic evolutionists or with vague notions of a "hand of God". It would seem they are in a situation where none of the major candidate can satisfy them. It will be interesting to see where their support ultimately lands and if the "hand of God" remains an item in the candidate's playbook or if it will have to be jettisoned due to lack of support from both sides of their constituency.
Posted by: socinius | May 12, 2007 10:48 AM
I'll have to disagree with you on this one. I think this is a positive development. It's essentially a deist position.
Wouldn't it be nice not to be in a country where we have to argue whether evolution took place? This is a conservative christian, a mormon for god's sake, who saying this. It's an historical progression from YEC to deist to atheist. Hello, we're winning.
What's so wrong with "God created the Big Bang"? Well, a lot of things are wrong with it. But I'll take it any day over an ID type who thinks that God sat down with blueprints for flagellum.
Posted by: chuko | May 12, 2007 10:55 AM
I think it's pretty clear they meant "pro-science" relatively speaking.
What the heck was he supposed to say? "I believe in an all knowing all powerful Creator who was not ultimately responsible for evolution"? Should he have just renounced his faith?
Posted by: dorkafork | May 12, 2007 10:55 AM
Alas, asking that question would require the reporters to have a basic grasp of evolution. You're asking too much there, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Jillian | May 12, 2007 10:57 AM
...An evolutionary step.
It's unlikely that we'll do away with the god myth right away. As the environmental ridicule level increases, though, it will wither and eventually become vestigial.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 12, 2007 10:58 AM
Not that I think it's anything great. It's not particularly "brave", "startling", or "intelligent" to agree with 2 + 2 = 4. But he's apparently staked out the only position on evolution that is remotely agreeable with both science and Christianity, the idea of a God that set things in motion to create humans.
Posted by: dorkafork | May 12, 2007 11:00 AM
Seems to me everyone holds some irrational beliefs; that's just human nature. Being pro-science doesn't mean you can't admit to holding irrational beliefs - it just means you don't try to pretend that they're rational. Romney states that he holds a personal belief in something we can't prove - we atheists also hold a personal belief in something we can't prove. To me, the key point is that we all try to exclude our irrational beliefs when we're doing science. And Romney, by opposing ID in classrooms, seems to make that distinction successfully. I don't know much about Romney, but on the face of it what he says here seems fine to me.
Posted by: Suzanne | May 12, 2007 11:10 AM
Actually, what he's said is 2 + 2 = two twos. To get to four you have to say 2 + 2 + *magic* = 4.
Posted by: craig | May 12, 2007 11:16 AM
So, the question is:
What exactly is "Theistic Evolution" Supposed to Fix?
Scientifically it doesn't fix anything, just like intelligent design. It just allows people continue to retain a "nebulous" God belief; you know, the God belief that Dawkins is accused of not addressing in TGD; that Stegner can't fit into his hypothesis. The God Belief that works like Jello - just because you can't nail it to the wall doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The God Belief that God can be whatever we want it to be because it is not definable in a way that humans can comprehend.
A commenter on my blog said "You can't define God away just because there are so many disagreements about religion. People have different tastes in music, and you can't use that to prove that music doesn't exist!"
In truth I would rather have a candidate who is an Old Earth Creationist because at least they can state their foolishness coherently rather that continuing to re-define their concept of God so it doesn't conflict with science.
So, yes, I would like to know what the difference is between conventional ID's God and the theistic evolution God; and how it would help me understand the universe in any meaningful way. It just makes people feel better about being intellectual religionists.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | May 12, 2007 11:29 AM
I'll have to disagree with you on this one. I think this is a positive development. It's essentially a deist position.
Half measures are not enough. Watered down religion is still religion.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 12, 2007 11:29 AM
PZ: If I understand you correctly, you are concerned that pronouncements such as Romney's undermine the legal basis for past court decisions based upon the Establishment Clause. How can we exclude the flat-earthers, the vapor canopy drawers, the flood geologists, etc. if we don't exclude the equally-religious 'theistic evolutionist'?
Well, that's easy. The scientific community already excludes all of these 'explanations' on methodological grounds, rather than ideology. What Ken Miller may or may not think about God is not taught as science, even if one uses one of his textbooks, because (as Dr. Miller well knows) science doesn't care about his beliefs. Or yours. Or mine. Science asks, instead, for testable claims supported by evidence.
Now, what about 'Finding Darwin's God' or 'The Language of God'? They are, as Carl Sagan said of his program Cosmos, 'personal voyages'. They are not science textbooks, obviously, nor are they purely scientific works aimed at a general audience. They are meditations on science, but also upon history and culture: strictly speaking, they are not in and of themselves science, but works that seek to interpret science.
As such, they are consonant with their author's views on religion, but do not impel us to adopt either Sagan's Cosmos, Miller's Catholicism, or Collins's evangelical Christianity.
Contrast this with 'Of Pandas and People', which clearly labors with the intent of introducing an untestable claim with little evidential support as science within a science text, and one that clearly carries a religious agenda, and which purports to be a science textbook, and which is championed by those who would use the courts (as in McLean, Edwards, Seagraves, etc.) to mandate the dissemination of their views not merely in the public schools, but as part of the approved curriculum within a public school science classroom.
That's more than enough for a good attorney to hang his or her hat upon, I think. Theistic evolution, as with other varieties of creationism, is not science, nor should it be taught as a 'God-friendly' version of science. But the fact that various religious positions exist, and that some are not inimically at odds with the facts at our disposal, is no cause for alarm---or for charges of hypocrisy.
Respectfully submitted...SH
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | May 12, 2007 11:36 AM
I don't like it either, but the "evolution is right, and there is no God" position is political suicide for any Republican. It's probably political suicide for just about any politician in this country. There needs to be an in between position, or else most people will reject the position they find emotionally uncomfortable and go back to their religion. Think of it as tofurkey for thinking people.
Posted by: Narc | May 12, 2007 11:45 AM
I disagree Suzanne, one need not have any irrational beliefs. One recognize and even profess the state of ignorance that one is in instead. If your default position, in the absence of evidence, is a faith based default position, there is no motiviation for correcting that ignorance.
We see where that philosophy is getting us. The evolution deniers won't even consider evidence that is counter to their belief. They are attempting to suppress that evidence and prevent its transmission to the next generation.
Posted by: daedalus2u | May 12, 2007 11:49 AM
Mike writes: "So, yes, I would like to know what the difference is between conventional ID's God and the theistic evolution God; and how it would help me understand the universe in any meaningful way."
There may not be any essential difference in the God as conceptualized by the IDevotee and the TE's. Certainly some brands of TE are compatible with the ID movement, and others are not. Both of course are beliefs, and properly speaking are not science as such, and any 'understanding' these perspectives might offer is entirely subjective, and thus devoid of any meaning as far as some are concerned.
For the record, I don't hold an ID-friendly position nor would I describe myself as a TE. I'm a theist, and I enthusiastically embrace evolution, but I'm deeply skeptical of attempts to derive notions of purpose or design from the evidence before us.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | May 12, 2007 11:51 AM
a) Please let's be clear that this is a political stance, not a scientific one.
The evidence for interference by a designer in the Big Bang is exactly the same as the evidence for a nonhuman intelligence tinkering with the course of biological evolution: non-existent. Science suggests reality is governed by physics according to universal mathematical laws rather than by events best explained as being remote-controlled from a cosmic executive floor. Occam's Razor works the same for both, no room to play pick and choose.
b) Romney didn't accept evolution, at least not according to the wording quoted. He's using "evolution" as a weasel word which, in his context, could as well mean that god designed life bit by bit in a way to make it look like it had evolved. There's no acknowledgement of a bottom-up mechanism in his statement.
Posted by: zoeific | May 12, 2007 12:03 PM
There is no point in pampering the religious. People are not so fragile that they won't survive the death of their gods. Plenty of people have managed to make the switch and it wasn't a big deal.
That's why I say: no half measures. Call the nuts nuts. Attack the kooks who say incoherent, illogical, unscientific and foolish things. Rip them to shreds. They practically ask for it. If some people find that threatening, tough. Many more will come to attention and say: "you know, you're right, religion is nuts."
The process of dropping religion is not hard. It should not be portrayed as a big deal. It's easy. It's a simple attitude change. Anyone can do it! Right now! This instant!
Romney could do it. He has probably done it dozens of times in his head. He's just afraid to say so.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 12, 2007 12:13 PM
Yes, and like I said, I suspect that everyone on the Democratic side would say pretty much the same thing. I recognize the utility.
What everyone seems to be missing is the utilitarian argument at the end of this article. Whether we like it or not, we seem to be locked into a strategy of fighting creationism in the courts on separation of church and state grounds. At the same time, many people are engaged in trying to win over hearts and minds for the cause of evolution by enthusiastically embracing religious interpretations of evolution rather than holding them at arms length. Am I the only person on the planet clever enough to see the looming conflict there? The creationists are being smarter than we are. They have been trying to present themselves as independent of religion (unconvincingly, so far), tapping into resentment of scientifically driven change—that's something they're going to continue to push. I keep seeing exactly the opposite strategy by the people supposedly on my side. They want to enroll the churches to help them out, they argue that the most persuasive speakers for evolution are those who also cater to belief in god, they spend much more time distancing themselves from those damned atheists than they do separating themselves from those saintly theistic evolutionists.
They've made a pact with the devil and sold the soul of science for short-term political gain, but they're losing the ability to separate themselves as clearly secular from the creationists.
Posted by: PZ Myers | May 12, 2007 12:14 PM
Copied from another my post a bit ago but I think apropo here. Forgive me PZ if I'm cheating... and before I wax on -- PZ YOU ARE RIGHT IN YOUR CONCERNS!!
Re: Whey we should care when these phonies answer these questions:
Don't their proclamations speak to their ability to discern the best explanation of things as they decide issues of vital importance (like deciding to go to bloody war!)?
Don't they speak to their support of a modern progressive world view, to modern education, or a host of other relevant progressive aspects?
And what the blazes does it mean when these office seekers blather that "my faith is important in my decision-making"?? Does it mean as linguistically it means that that seeker will throw out good solid evidence and make decisions based on a vision, or a mystic, or an astrologer or some ancient manuscript, or the whim of the ignorant and intolerant back-waters, etc. etc.? What the freak does it mean?!??
They make me sick ... BUT even more so ... "we" make me sick and the media makes me sick .. for not caring and holding them to rational accountability without compromise. Heck -- they want to rule the World.. we should at least demand that they are HONEST rational progressively knowledgable people.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | May 12, 2007 12:15 PM
Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
If the text book explicitly advocates a religious perspective, like a creator God, then the case will be easy. It will be out on the basis of the first ammendment.
This is a very naive assumption give the present makeup of the Supreme Court. To understand the problem read the upcoming law review article, "Evolution and the Holy Ghost of Scopes: Can Science Lose the Next Round? " by Stephen A. Newman, New York Law School. It all hangs by a very thin thread and the next opinion may well be written by Justice Scalia, one of two dissenters in the Edwards case. This is from the abstract, and I recommend the entire article.
"Despite repeated setbacks in the lower courts, the politics surrounding anti-evolution efforts have never been more favorable for a renewed legal assault on the teaching of evolution in the nation's schools. ...The challenge may well succeed."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=981230
Posted by: tomh | May 12, 2007 12:15 PM
Of course Romney's pandering politically, he's a pol running for office. Is that point supposed to be surprising?
I'm glad to at least hear that he's in favor of teaching biology in a biology classroom. That's progress, from a right wing Repulbican, still wouldn't entertain voting for him, though.
But the point about "theistic evolutionists". As long as they keep the theism out of their biology, what's wrong with that? Do you mean that you really do believe that you have to be your kind of evolutionist to be in the club? Are you proposing testing for covert religious belief? Perhaps purges of biologists suspected of being squishy metaphysics-wise. Who made you boss of biology?
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | May 12, 2007 12:44 PM
Seems like the "ID rebranded as theistic evolution" meme is as much a way for people to start attacking theistic evolutionists full force as it is a way for ID to hide under the skirt of theistic evolutionists.
Posted by: plunge | May 12, 2007 12:55 PM
"olvlzl, no ism, no ist" states and asks:
You are missing a vital point. When a person is seeking a job that absolutely REQUIRES sound, logical, rational, and evidence-based thinking then we have have every right to demand to see that they can do just that!!! Listen .. we can allow compartmentalizing I guess .. BUT I for one want to be SURE that they can compartmentalize. I would not want my brain-surgeon to hold equal to any other "theory" the concept of demonic possession and exorcism as cause and cure for diseases. Get my drift?
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | May 12, 2007 12:57 PM
The idealogues are fleeing the sinking ship that is religion, and all the while 'liberal' thinkers are chaining themselves to the mast.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 12, 2007 1:02 PM
The idealogues are fleeing the sinking ship that is religion, and all the while 'liberal' thinkers are chaining themselves to the mast.
Give Caledonian the next Molly!
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 12, 2007 1:08 PM
The main difference between an evolutionist and a theistic evolutionist is the former understands that the process of evolution is a continuum, where humans are just a stage from which postmodern human species will eventually emerge. The latter believes the process of evolution reached its endpoint, that we, humans, are in the image of God and no other species would ever emerged that is "better" than us. It may took billions of years for God to achieve His goal, but WOW! Look at us. Nothing could top that. Theistic evolution is still an unbelievable arrogance based on ignorance.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 12, 2007 1:15 PM
I totally agree that we should keep agitating and calling a spade a spade. I'm certainly not trying to make common cause with Romney or to embrace some impossible marriage of yahwehism and science.
I don't see that this is a creationist position in a biological sense. There are a ton of other obvious things wrong with the position, of course. But a deist is not the same thing as a creationist!
With a YEC or ID creationist, you can make an argument based on the mechanism of evolution, biology, or paleontology. You can't do that here. He's not claiming (in this quote, at least) that god is directing evolution in some way, except perhaps in setting up the "initial conditions" - the difference between PZ's view of evolution and this one is philosophical.
I'll be with you pointing out that god doesn't exist, that the philosophy is untenable, and so on. I don't think radical atheists (like me, btw) should shut up and appease the masses. But what's the point in conflating this belief with creationism?
Posted by: chuko | May 12, 2007 1:26 PM
I agree with PZ and disagree with Chuko. There is absolutely a point in conflating theistic evolution with creationism. The only difference between these two "philosophies" is how many years it took to create the universe and human beings. I guess the two groups could argue whose watch is more accurate, you know, the watch that assembled itself.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 12, 2007 1:36 PM
ConcernedJoe, so you WOULD have ideological purity tests for job applicants for teaching biology and for brain surgeons, including ideologies that didn't impinge on their doing their job. I assume that this means you believe that anyone who isn't an atheist isn't qualified to have a job in the sciences, though I'd like an explaination of what you mean if this isn't included. I've suspected that this was the kind of McCarthyism building. I remember McCarthyism. I had friends who were victims of McCarthyism. No, I don't think I'm going to witness that again without resisting it.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | May 12, 2007 1:42 PM
S. Rivlin, your assumptions about what a "theistic evolutionist" believes are mere speculations. Why don't you poll a number of qualified scientists who believe in a creator god to find out what they really believe instead of making something up? Wouldn't that be the more scientific method to follow? How can you just assume you know what they believe unless they tell you?
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | May 12, 2007 1:46 PM
"I guess the two groups could argue whose watch is more accurate, you know, the watch that assembled itself."
ok, that's pretty damn funny...
Posted by: chuko | May 12, 2007 1:54 PM
PZ, if you and Larry Moran succeed in redefining theistic evolution as creationism, it will be you who will have handed the anti-evolutionists a huge victory.
You want people to choose between science and God. Guess what, in that case science will lose. I am quite familiar with academic circles. The subcultures of academia, science, and science blogs are not representative of most of rest of the country, much less the world. They are also echo chambers. Most people believe in God, souls, and a teleological universe. If you insist that science precludes all of those things, so much the worse for science. (Even Europeans are not nearly as rationalist and atheistic as we like to believe; look at the poll data more carefully.)
Atheistic anti-teleological naturalism is YOUR religion. It is a religion in two ways. You cannot prove it scientifically; you must at some level accept it on faith. Secondly, evangelical atheism serves the same social function of religion that Durkheim observed. I am saying this as an atheist, determinist, and non-teleologist.
The establishment clause cuts both ways. It can be used against atheists too if you deny any room to theistic evolution and try to force everyone to choose between "scientific" evolution and God. Be careful about what you assert in science courses and textbooks; teach the science, not your metaphysics.
Of course theistic evolution is not science. Neither is metaphysical naturalism.
Posted by: Colugo | May 12, 2007 2:11 PM
Romney is pretty clearly trying to use language that allows everyone to say, "He agrees with us." And like PZ, I'm dismayed that so many people seem to be stepping up and saying that.
Relative to the three candidates in the debate who stated that they don't believe in evolution, Romney's statement may look like an improvement, but I suspect that if you asked him, or many of the other candidates (Republicans and Democrats), about the implications of evolution, they'd quickly get tied in knots or contradictions.
One of the unavoidable conclusions of evolution is that humans aren't anything special relative to other species. The assertion that God used evolution to create humans is a rejection of evolution, not an affirmation.
There's a big difference between not being a creationist and actually understanding and agreeing with the principles and implications of evolution. We should have higher standards.
Posted by: Matthew Morse | May 12, 2007 2:22 PM
Just because Mitt Romney "believes in evolution" doesn't mean he knows anything about evolution. There is no argument for why he thinks evolution beats other explanations. He admits that he is not sure what is meant by intelligent design:
If he doesn't understand ID, then is he really going to understand Darwin's ideas much less Dawkins and Gould? What he might understand is that there is a fossil record and a huge genetic similarity between chimp and human DNA... the kind of stuff you see on the Discovery Channel.
If you really questioned him on the science I'd bet his knowledge would be discovered to be incredibly shallow.
Posted by: Norman Doering | May 12, 2007 2:25 PM
Perhaps the theists have been far cleverer than we have given them credit for. Maybe it is they who have been deliberately shifting the Overton Window, staking out extreme positions - Young Earth Creationism, Dembskian Intelligent Design - so theistic evolution (which is essentially a form of creationism) appears "moderate" and "reasonable" by comparison.
The "long term strategy" of cooperating with theists against Intelligent Design on the issue of teaching evolution in public schools is actually a Trojan Horse strategy developed by theists to compromise and corrupt science from within.
Now that the Trojan Horse theistic strategy has been unmasked, fight the power!
(Note: The above is sarcasm.)
Posted by: Colugo | May 12, 2007 2:29 PM
Going to disagree with PZ on this one. Theistic evolution is the way most christians reconcile science with their religion. So what is wrong with that? Better than trying to cram YEC into kids science classes or murdering biologists.
So what if Romney is religious? Get real, it will be a cold day in hell before an avowed atheist is elected president in the USA. Best you can hope for is someone whose religion doesn't deny reality.
And Romney definitely showed a bit of courage and took a hit from an important pillar of his neo-GOP party. The christian cultist crazies wingnut faction. While this is a significant number of supporters, IMO, it is a mistake to pander to the lunatic fringe just because it is large and they vote. We just did that twice and it has been a total disaster.
Posted by: raven | May 12, 2007 2:40 PM
"I'm not exactly sure what is meant by intelligent design," he said. "But I believe God is intelligent and I believe he designed the creation. And I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."
This is not a moderate position. It is not remotely praiseworthy. It is kooky. It is thoughtless. It is reprehensible.
If thoughtful people feel this is the best we can expect from our politicians, we are in deep trouble.
Wake up, everyone! This is sluggish refusal to accept reality. It is craven pandering. It is manipulative. Romney should know better. He received a good education and he is betraying it. He should be hooted out of any hall in which he makes these kinds of remarks.
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 12, 2007 2:52 PM
Let's unpack those statements. The first sentence establishes that theistic evolution provides a way for people to avoid a sense of dissonance between their reason and their emotionally-satisfying religious beliefs. The second implicitly indicates that things that provide relief from such tension are valuable and good.
"What's wrong with that" is you cannot survive in this universe if all you do is find ways to avoid tension. The safe and easy path leads ever downward into stagnation. There are things more important than people making themselves feel good.
Posted by: Caledonian | May 12, 2007 2:57 PM
PZ:
I think you are over-reacting. It seems to me that your complaint is with Romney making a religious claim (a belief in a creating God) and not a scientific claim about evolution. I hear him as merely saying that he beleives in a creating God, but fully accepts the scientific evidence of evolution. I do not hear any claims that God directed the process of evolution. (I should note that I pretty far to the left of Romney, and am otherwise not a fan).
I also think that the legal argument you protray at the end of your post is easily answered. Sure, there are many scientists that beleive in both a creating God and evolution, but this does not mean that even they would assert that their belief that an intelligent being created humans (and other creatures) through evolution is a scientic claim. Collins certainly made no such claim in his book. And that it the critical difference between ID and "theistic evolution"--ID proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific principle worthy of teaching in a public school setting. Most mainstream theists who accept evolution would not. They (or perhaps I should say we) may beleive in a God that created the world, but we will not assert that this is a scientific belief. It is not, it is a religious claim, and as such should not be taught in public schools.
Now, I understand that you may think that any religious belief is irrational, and that efforts to distinguish between a religious belief and a scientic claim is a false compartmentalization. I accept that, and we can debate that another day. My point is that this compartmentalization is critical to the legal argument as to why ID (or even the theistic aspects of theistic evolution) is a religous concept that does not belong in the public schools.
Posted by: Chuck Blanchard | May 12, 2007 2:58 PM
PZ:
I think you are over-reacting. It seems to me that your complaint is with Romney making a religious claim (a belief in a creating God) and not a scientific claim about evolution. I hear him as merely saying that he beleives in a creating God, but fully accepts the scientific evidence of evolution. I do not hear any claims that God directed the process of evolution. (I should note that I pretty far to the left of Romney, and am otherwise not a fan).
I also think that the legal argument you protray at the end of your post is easily answered. Sure, there are many scientists that beleive in both a creating God and evolution, but this does not mean that even they would assert that their belief that an intelligent being created humans (and other creatures) through evolution is a scientic claim. Collins certainly made no such claim in his book. And that it the critical difference between ID and "theistic evolution"--ID proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific principle worthy of teaching in a public school setting. Most mainstream theists who accept evolution would not. They (or perhaps I should say we) may beleive in a God that created the world, but we will not assert that this is a scientific belief. It is not, it is a religious claim, and as such should not be taught in public schools.
Now, I understand that you may think that any religious belief is irrational, and that efforts to distinguish between a religious belief and a scientic claim is a false compartmentalization. I accept that, and we can debate that another day. My point is that this compartmentalization is critical to the legal argument as to why ID (or even the theistic aspects of theistic evolution) is a religous concept that does not belong in the public schools.
Posted by: Chuck Blanchard | May 12, 2007 3:00 PM
PZ:
I think you are over-reacting. It seems to me that your complaint is with Romney making a religious claim (a belief in a creating God) and not a scientific claim about evolution. I hear him as merely saying that he beleives in a creating God, but fully accepts the scientific evidence of evolution. I do not hear any claims that God directed the process of evolution. (I should note that I pretty far to the left of Romney, and am otherwise not a fan).
I also think that the legal argument you protray at the end of your post is easily answered. Sure, there are many scientists that beleive in both a creating God and evolution, but this does not mean that even they would assert that their belief that an intelligent being created humans (and other creatures) through evolution is a scientic claim. Collins certainly made no such claim in his book. And that it the critical difference between ID and "theistic evolution"--ID proponents claim that intelligent design is a scientific principle worthy of teaching in a public school setting. Most mainstream theists who accept evolution would not. They (or perhaps I should say we) may beleive in a God that created the world, but we will not assert that this is a scientific belief. It is not, it is a religious claim, and as such should not be taught in public schools.
Now, I understand that you may think that any religious belief is irrational, and that efforts to distinguish between a religious belief and a scientic claim is a false compartmentalization. I accept that, and we can debate that another day. My point is that this compartmentalization is critical to the legal argument as to why ID (or even the theistic aspects of theistic evolution) is a religous concept that does not belong in the public schools.
Posted by: Chuck Blanchard | May 12, 2007 3:02 PM
Caledonian, mind if we "unpack" your comment?
The first sentence establishes that theistic evolution provides a way for people to avoid a sense of dissonance between their reason and their emotionally-satisfying religious beliefs. The second implicitly indicates that things that provide relief from such tension are valuable and good.
What do you base the statement on that there is a "dissonance between their reason and their emotionally-satisfying religious beliefs"?
It would be clear that a person who accepted the science of evolution and believed in a creator god would believe that the evolution was the mechanism through which that creation took place. Where is the "dissonance"? Instead of pretending that you know it to exist, why not ask those who hold these two ideas in the same mind. Some of them are rather impressive scientists and scholars, they would probabaly be able to tell you a lot more than you can get by guessing.
As to and their emotionally-satisfying religious beliefs. The second implicitly indicates that things that provide relief from such tension are valuable and good.
Are you implying that something being desired is evidence that there is something wrong with either the idea or the person holding the idea? Because I seriously doubt that there are more than a small handful of scientific publications that don't represent something desired by those producing them. They clearly would like their ideas to be confirmed in most cases, and if not that to at least have a publishible result. I've known enough scientists and scholars to know that they have a very high degree of emotional investment in their work and by that I mean in confirmation of their research. I know for a fact that they would like to benefit from it, for it to provide a "safe and easy path" to tenure or at least a job of some kind. They also find that confirmation helpse them emotionally, through it they find ways to avoid tension. A career in science seems to be one of the more rewarding ways people find for making themselves feel good. Even those who enjoy anti-"theistic" snark.
Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | May 12, 2007 3:23 PM
Speaking as someone who works in politics for a living, I can pretty much guarantee that this is the best you're going to get from any of these candidates, Democrat or Republican.
phat
Posted by: phat | May 12, 2007 3:31 PM
I don't understand the problem here. If you accept off the bat that our president is going to be religious (which sorry, we have to), isn't this exactly what we would want them to believe? If you take religion + what we want in a president, we would basically just want their god to be 100% compatible with the world and not interfere. This is what Romney seems to be says re: evolution.
If you want to be upset in a philosophical sense, go for it, but this is exactly what we *should* want from a religious candidate.
Posted by: DamnYankees | May 12, 2007 3:36 PM
These comments are not only unfair but they are seriously harmful to the cause of promoting sound teaching of evolution. Many people are terrified because they assume that evolution and belief in God cannot co-exist. Why would someone eager to promote the teaching of evolution criticize one of the helpful voices asserting that faith and evolution can indeed co-exist, and that the religious who have been fighting evolution can and should stop?
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/blog/
Posted by: James McGrath | May 12, 2007 3:44 PM