evolutionary fun

Some days ago, Republicans held a 'debate' intended to voice the issues and stances of the various candidates for President, two years from now that is. While the questions were generally stacked in a manner consistent with what are liberal issues and thus of little interest to a Republican primary (global warming, abortion, etc), the funniest moment came when the candidates were asked if they do not believe the theory of evolution. Three of them raised their hands. As Jon Stewart commented, you will be missed. For the record, none of them were legitimate candidates and by the records tend to be ultra-conservative theocrats (Brownback, Huckabee, Tancredo, to which most people will go Who?).

I would have far more interested in tax policy formulations (sadly one of the morons is an ardent tax reform advocate also), but this revelation is an interesting tidbit. Of the ten candidates, having 3 who disagree on theological grounds with Darwin is about the ratio in the general population (of America that is). In other developed nations having just one of the ten raise their hand would be taboo and the candidate would hardly be taken seriously on any other issue. Overwhelmingly in industrial nations Darwin's theory is given credence and taught instructively such that the people of those nations do not follow with creationism or some similar silliness. Alone in the modern world, America is a confused place at times.

We have to wonder why. When this was a country founded on the idea of free worship (or non-worship) and the element that state and church were not conjoined as they often were in the politics of the Old World, why is it that a religious issue such as this (along with others like abortion and prayer in school) should be so dominate in our national politics as to be placed alongside such issues as global warming or foreign policy? I have to wonder why this has happened. I do not believe that religion has or should have no influence in society as a whole. But when it imposes so strongly upon the society as a public forum, something is wrong.

Think for a moment about prayer in school for example. Why do theocrats tout this as a source of social utility? If they are devoutly religious people, would not their children get an adequate time at home and in their private time away from schools to partake of this religious observance? Then why do they need time in school. I've no problem with someone who wants to pray in their school (at some ceremony or as a pretext for relaxation prior to an exam), but when the school imposes it upon people there are a number of problems. For example, which religious observance would be imposed, or even which brand of Christian doctrine if we simply assume some Judeo-Christian sect would dominate? Who would lead such a procession, a teacher? And for what purpose would it be done.

For whatever reason the fundamental belief of theocrats is that the absence of prayer or religion in general is the playground of evil. This is not always so. There are still a great many virtues (duty, responsibility, honesty, etc) that can be extolled in the public manner of education without constraining the student body to the requirement of religious observance (and the subsequent problems of ostracization that would surely follow). There are already enough problems with the simple secular 'prayer' of the pledge of allegiance. I recall quite vividly being singled out on occasion for my peculiarity in that practices. I would have quite another battle if my absence of religion were forced into a public arena and allowed to be picked over. I have no qualms personally in such a fight, but there are a great many others who might. As a result, I can think of no effort more guaranteed to add to the already tremendous strain of public conformity imposed upon young students than the inclusion of prayer. Pray on your terms and on your time with your children. Forcing 'mine' (since I have none, thank you much) to pray would be met with the strongest objections. It would be their choice to participate or object. That is the freedom of religion clause at work in a government arena.

On one point I have some agreement, that religion should be taught in schools. But not in the instructive manner of observance and ritual, but rather as a comparative theology. Never is the question of validity in our collective mythology raised when studying the ancient 'pagans' of Greece, Rome, Egypt or the Norse lands. I suspect this would be rather unpopular to do, but being critical of some parts of faith does not automatically engender questions on whether that faith is valid in and of itself. If someone truly wishes to believe, there are a great many questions on which science or philosophy is as yet silent or perhaps even incapable of answering (which is why I tend to ignore metaphysics for example). But having some skepticism will engender a great interpretation of that personal faith. Beginning to wonder what some passages might allude to instead of taking them at face value presents a religious faith that is more in line with the human spirit than that of some ancient and out-dated dogma. It crafts a more personal involvement with that practice than simply going through the motions. Even without any personal faith myself, having gone through and studied moral dilemmas and other greater questions on personal conduct, I arrived at some stable principles of my own invention and consistency (if you can call it that). Such stable forms give one the ability to practice what they preach, rather than simple obedience through fear or some other coercion.

Which brings us back to evolution. These fools who presume publicly to abandon such a scientifically accepted notion are not fools for their skepticism, but for their basis for such skepticism. They lack any consistent basis of their own choosing and basis to attack Darwin and even to defend their own position, whatever that may be, because with only faith-based lines of defense, there is no cogent argument to expound to reason. When we are to choose a leader, I suspect that that leader having a set of consistent principles which are intellectualized and practiced with the devout sense that a religion might impose, but are instead a self-inflicted set of boundaries might be a bit more important than whether that person believes in Darwinism. But at least we can knock three of these goof balls off the ballot box.