Dispatch from the Values Voters Summit

Sarah Posner reports from the Values Voters Summit, a gathering of the theocracy-in-waiting. Various GOP presidential candidates spoke, as did Bryan Fischer, of the American Family Association:

Fischer followed Romney's speech with an ugly anti-Muslim, anti-gay, anti-liberal speech. Although he did not mention Mormonism, he did emphasize, repeatedly, that the president of the United States "needs to be a main of sincere, authentic, genuine Christian faith."

In the rest of his laundry list of presidential prerequisites, Fischer veered from there to discuss the "mythical separation of church and state," the need for a president to "reject the morally and scientifically bankrupt theory of evolution," and to believe in "the same Creator" as the founders-- the "creator revealed in the pages of the Old and New Testaments." That led him to an extended anti-Muslim rant

After which he declared that we "haven't had any attacks since 9/11 because we started singing 'God Bless America' in the 7th inning stretch."

I don't highlight this just to make fun of Fischer. I've written (as have other science bloggers) about why candidates' views on evolution matter, but this is a peek into the reasons that anti-evolution conservatives think it's an important question.

The question, I emphasize again, is not about policy. A president won't enact policies that change how evolution is taught; those choices happen in local school boards. The question is about the values a candidate would bring to the Oval Office.

For folks like me (as I said in the previous post):

Precisely because evolution is so distant from presidential policy, it makes a useful way to evaluate a candidate's openness to evidence, to scientific expertise (or professional expertise in general), and to empirical testing more broadly.

i-d918cd1f4c72639a7f581f7b47fd32a2-evil-tree-evolution.jpgFor Fischer and others in the radical religious right, the issue isn't about openness to evidence, and the importance of respecting science. It's about the supposed moral problems of evolution. To someone like Fischer, and for creationist groups like the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis, evolution is a gateway to a whole host of social ills. The illustration here is a colorized version of a graphic attributed by to R. G. Elmendorf in Chris Toumey's excellent God's Own Scientists, an anthropology of creationism in 1980s North Carolina. Elmendorf's figure is from a pamphlet issued by the Pittsburgh Creation Society which argues:

Evolution is not just a "harmless biological theory" â it produces evil fruit. Evolution is the supposedly "scientific" rationale for all kinds of unbiblical ideas which permeate society today and concern many people. Evolution "holds up" these ideas, and if evolution is destroyed, these ideas will fall. â¦

What is the best way to counteract the evil fruit of evolution? Opposing these things one-by-one is good, but it does not deal with the underlying cause. The tree will produce fruit faster than it can be spotted and removed. A more effective approach is to chop the tree off at its base by scientifically discrediting evolution. When the tree falls, the fruit will go down with it, and unbelieving man will be left "without excuse" (Romans 1/21). That is the real reason why scientific creationism represents such a serious threat to the evolutionary establishment.

From my own experience and these sorts of documents and data, I agree wholeheartedly with Toumey's assessment:

Creationism is a moral theory that evolution is intimately involved in immorality, as cause or effect or both. This view also implies that one can repudiate immorality by adhering to a literal belief in creation.

As Toumey points out, this plays out differently for different religious groups, with what he calls "the New Religious Right" seeing the issue "according to its ultimate implications for moral order," conservative Baptists (the old Religious Right) focused narrowly on a scriptural critique of evolution "so that their understanding of evolution lacks the broad moral critique of U.S. culture that the New Religious RIght attaches to the idea of evolution," standard evangelicals wanting to skirt the entire issue so as not to dull their popular appeal.

This moral aspect of creationism is a key part of its rise as a movement in the 1920s. Through the earlier part of the century, the nascent fundamentalist movement took various positions on evolution, with some essays in The Fundamentals (the series of edited volumes which gave fundamentalism its name) defending evolution, or defending some parts while rejecting others. It wasn't until William Jennings Bryan â no fundamentalist himself â tied evolution to immorality â to German militarism in World War I, the Leopold and Loeb trial, and other social ills â and until the pitched battle of the Scopes trial, that fundamentalism came to define itself as antievolution.

Bryan Fischer's comments, and indeed the creation/evolution struggle in general, cannot be understood outside that context. Fischer and others in his wing of the conservative movement agree that evolution is a shibboleth, but with a different nature than I (and probably you) attach to it. For these voters, evolution is an excellent way to test a candidate's morality because it is so abstracted from actual policy (unlike abortion, say), but to their eyes it bears directly on the sorts of moral stances that they want to guide a policymaker. If a candidate rejects evolution, it signals that he (or she) will vote the right way on abortion, terrorism, gay rights, women's rights, and if the figure above is to be believed, hard rock.

In trying to talk to people about evolution, it's crucial to understand that context, and not to simply dismiss those concerns if they bring them up. While I certainly don't see evolution as a moral issue, or one which dictates the values and ethics which guide me, it's important to be able to explain why that's so, and why others need not fear that accepting evolution will have such pernicious influences on their own morality. That empathic step â seeing the issue through another person's eyes â is crucial to helping them see the evidence for evolution in its own terms, and not through a glass clouded with unrelated questions of religious and moral implications.

And doing so might even turn around some votes.

More like this

In the last few weeks, and at tonight's Republican debate, lots of national politicians have been asked their views on evolution, and lots of politicians have answered embarrassingly. We should bear in mind, as I pointed out before: Like the Miss USA contestants, most politicians (excluding those…
The University of Notre Dame's Center for the Study of Social Movements is hosting a dialogue on science and politics, and I'm rather pleased with my contribution: "Will Climate Change Denial Inherit the Wind?" Do check out the other essays in the dialogue, especially Jeffrey Guhin's discussion of…
Rusty from New Covenant has replied to my post replying to his post in response to comments at the end of my post. Did you follow that? Drugs help, I promise. The upshot of the whole thing, and the issue under dispute, is that Rusty thinks it's "inconsistent" for anyone who accepts evolution to be…
With the election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States, many science-savvy folks have breathed a (tentative) sigh of relief. Perhaps we can finally put all this creationism in the classroom nonsense to rest now that a progressive Democrat is next up for the presidency. I'm not…

Joshua, thanks for this insightfull blog. Having spent too much time in conservative/fundamentalist churches I can tell you that you are dead on in your analysis. It is if people from scientific and conservative christian camps speak two different languages, but don't realize it.

By Loren Haas (not verified) on 09 Oct 2011 #permalink

you are making it too complicated. christians believe the bible is inerrant. the bible says god made man out of dirt. evloution makes the bible false so christians ghoose to be willfully ignorant rather than believe the bible errant..

By freethinker (not verified) on 09 Oct 2011 #permalink

There is a point not to be missed: Fischer and his ilk are Christian Dominionists. They seek to implement Biblical - and their version of Biblical law - to replace our Constitution.

Fischer contention that "A more effective approach is to chop the tree off at its base by scientifically discrediting evolution" is an impossibility. One has to ask how would a government enforce such a mission should they ever have their hands on the levers of power.

By noahsarkive (not verified) on 09 Oct 2011 #permalink

The only thing I can say about the whole values voters conference is a quote from Sinclair Lewis in 1935...

"When Fascism come to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

By Kirk Warner (not verified) on 10 Oct 2011 #permalink

The only thing I can say about the whole values voters conference is a quote from Sinclair Lewis in 1935...

"When Fascism come to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

Perhaps another reason why evolution is noxious to Fischer and his ilk is because it sees humans as part of nature's processes, not superior to them.

I think that any candidate for any public office who says anything - ANYTHING - about religion should be disqualified from being a public officer.
The First Amendment means that there should be no entanglement between religion and government. Discussing religion in a campaign for public office is, a-priori, such an entanglement.
I would like to see the ACLU, AU, FFRF, TIA join together their funds and their legal staffs and sue any, and every, candidate who mentions religion, any religion, either his own or of any other candidate.

A second thought - for anyone who wants to object based on the idea that merely mentioning religion is not the same as passing a law that "establishes" religion.
OK. But consider this: the last paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution says: "no religious test...".
Any mention, discussion, question, proposal, argument, about religion in a candidate's statement is (trying) to impose such a test - either in his/her favor or against his/her opponent.

Hilariously, research bears out that the assumptions illustrated on that tree of stupid that are actually a bad thing actually happen more in heavily religious societies. And the other things are not what we'd call bad.

LOL, they're all going 'oh noes, freedom and happiness, we must stop them!'

By Katharine (not verified) on 10 Oct 2011 #permalink