In Thursday's GOP cattle call, Chris Matthews did one of those grade-school teacher questions, asking those who did not believe in evolution to raise their hands. As we know, 3 out of 10 did so: Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo.
None of these, as things now stand, has a snowball's chance in hell (the first 8 circles, anyway), of getting the nomination, but their lack of handshowing could handicap whichever of the others gets the GOP nod. A story in tomorrow's New York Times looks into this - although I think it missed an important point.
The Times' story is titled "A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin," and segues from the debate question, such as it was, into an examination of how many conservatives are actually debating Darwin and using his ideas to justify their own theories on human nature:
Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.
But though the article occasionally mentions religious discomfort with evolutionary theory, and the introduction of intelligent design, the article downplays the religious aspect in favor of the internal conservative battle over how best to apply Darwinism to their arguments.
"I do indeed believe conservatives need Charles Darwin," said Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, who has spearheaded the cause. "The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought."
....
Mr. West [author of "Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest" (2006)] agreed that "conservatives who are discomfited by the continuing debate over Darwin’s theory need to understand that it is not about to go away"; that it "fundamentally challenges the traditional Western understanding of human nature and the universe."
"If conservatives want to address root causes rather than just symptoms," he said, "they need to join the debate over Darwinism, not scorn it or ignore it."
But I think the article missed an important point. The "tensions within the Republicans’ "big tent'" that it started by talking about are not, for most Republicans, the result of arcane intellectual battles among (non-neo) conservatives over how best to use Darwin's theory of evolution; they are a theological war over whether it is possible to "believe" in the theory of evolution and still be a good Christian.
(I put "believe" in quotation marks because a scientific theory is not a matter of "belief" in the confessional sense. One accepts it because the evidence supports it, or one does not, because it cannot explain the evidence. It makes as little sense to say "I don't believe in the theory of gravity; it's just a theory - but don't you drop that rock on my head anyway." Preaching to the choir, here, but it had to be said.)
Fundamentalists have major problems with evolution, because in their minds it contradicts the literal story of Genesis, and even those who do not go that far say that evolution does away with the need for God and a (their) moral code.
Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said that evolution made the world safe for atheists because it supposedly did away with the design argument for God’s existence. In graduate school, I once had a professor say that evolution was a view he embraced religiously because it implied for him that he could do anything he wanted. Why? Given that there is no God and that evolution is how we got here, there is no set purpose for life, no objective right and wrong, no punishment after death, so one can live for himself in this life anyway he wants. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer made the same statement on national TV. J. P. Moreland, for Focus on the Family
Moreland then warns believing Christians not to fall into the trap of what he calls "theistic evolution." And Moreland is one of the milder voices from that end of the spectrum.
And that end of the spectrum is pretty clear what it thinks about evolution:
Nearly six-in-ten conservative Republicans believe that living things have always existed in their present form, while just 11% say that evolution occurred through natural processes.
On the other hand, a plurality (48%) of Americans overall think that human beings and other creatures evolved over time. (Both data from the Pew Research Center report, 30 Aug 2005.)
Or look at this data from a MSNBC/Newsweek poll 31 Mar 2007: While 48% of the country as a whole though that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago or so, 73% of evangelical protestants thought so, a far higher number than any other religious group.
This is the group that goes out and votes in the GOP primaries. This is the group that (Article VI of the Constitution notwithstanding) does apply a religious test to candidates for public office: Either you believe the way we do, or you'll fry in hell before you get our vote.
It used to be conventional wisdom in politics that you run to the edge for the primary, and run back to the center for the general. That doesn't work any more, largely for three reasons:
- Bush showed how to run for the edge in the general as well; he wasn't looking for consensus, he was looking for 50% + 1. On top of which, he followed the Rove Rule: Get to 45% and you can steal the rest.
- Partly because of Bush, but in general as a result of evangelical penetration of the GOP ever since Roe v. Wade, the "edge" of the GOP has become so extreme and so insistent on theological fealty to its positions that it is not really possible to cover the distance from there back to the center of the country any more.
- Modern technology has made it impossible to take one position at one time, and a different position at a later time, and not get caught. Bush never had that problem, because for the most part he stayed consistently on the edge.
The Democratic edge is not as far, for the most part, from the center as the GOP edge is, these days. Also, most of the Democratic party recognizes that they can support a good candidate even if he or she does not hold to their every position. But the GOP edge claims that its positions are theological truth, divinely inspired, and therefore to espouse a contrary position, or to support someone who does, is not just treason but blasphemy.
That poses a problem for all those candidates last night who kept their hands down, and that's the problem the Times should have focused on.