Tag: Creationism

Creationism and Conspiracism

Katha Pollit has an interesting piece in The Nation about why it matters that so many Americans are creationists.

It isn’t that 46 percent of respondents are creationists (“God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last ten thousand years or so”). Or that 32 percent believe in “theistic evolution” (“Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process”). Or that only 15 percent said humans evolved and “God had no part in this process.” It isn’t even that the percentage of Americans with creationist views has barely budged since 1982, when it was 44 percent, with a small rise in the no-God vote (up from 9 percent) coming at the expense of the divine-help position (down from 38 percent). Or that 58 percent of Republicans are creationists, although that does explain a lot.

Beyond the failure in education, anti-intellectualism, and downright ignorance–the troika that allows the organized right to make such good use of climate change denial and Agenda 21 paranoia–it speaks to the default paranoia that lies behind so many Americans’ thinking:

Think what the world would have to be like for evolution to be false. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics. And yet this massive concatenation of lies and delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent with no degree at all can see right through it. A flute discovered in southern Germany is 43,000 years old? Not bloody likely. It’s probably some old bone left over from an ancient barbecue.

This is also what allows the right to use American Exceptionalism as a wedge issue–the fact that so many ignorant Americans have such unjustifiably high opinions of their own ability to know the truth and such contempt for everybody else’s. It’s where Evangelicalist absolutism and the populist strain in politics come together to do their worst.

But as annoying and dangerous as all this is, it’s not something that more stringent educational standards will cure. Evangelicalists don’t want to be Evolutionists–they want to be saved. And twist it as you might, you can’t reconcile a belief in Darwinian evolution with a personal God who reserves the gift of eternal life only for those who put their faith in His son. People whose patriotism is premised on Exceptionalism are going to be very protective of American Sovereignty–why shouldn’t they, if every other country is wrong? America’s Founders knew about this kind of thinking, which is why they had an abiding distrust of both direct democracy and established churches.

The one thing I think we should do is cut the 32 percent who believe that God “guides” evolution some slack. No, they can’t really have their cake and eat it too, but why rub their faces in it? At least they’re willing to acknowledge that God works in mysterious ways. Plus, if you look at the questions that Gallup actually asked their sample, you’ll see that there’s a lot of wiggle room. The critical phrase is “in their present form.” That leaves open the possibility that apes evolved into hominids and so on, but that they weren’t strictly human until they had an “aha” moment some 10,000 years ago (like the apes in 2001, except it was God that caused it, not an alien, or maybe aliens working through God).

And we 15 percenters should have a healthy respect for Kierkegaardian mystery too. We don’t know everything, after all.

If you enjoyed this post, please go to my Facebook page and “like” it (there is a button that will take you there on the top right hand side of this page). You can also follow me on Twitter.


The Peculiar Persistence of Tribalism

So I’m driving up Connecticut Avenue on my way to my reading at Politics & Prose and the cab driver has NPR on the radio. He’s not listening–he’s deep in Arabic conversation with someone on his Bluetooth device. But as I learned after a few more cab rides, NPR is pretty much par for the course in DC cabs (the private limo services that the Republican big wigs ride in must have the little TV sets in their back seats tuned into Fox). I go on about this at such length because in my Salon interview, I supposed that a lot of mainstream centrist Americans (those all-important swing voters) have at most a casual acquaintance with the hardcore right–perhaps, I suggested, from hearing a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh in a taxi (which was how I first made his acquaintance, back in the Clinton era). An angry commenter seized on that as proof that I am an elitist who has never been out of the liberal bubble or experienced the Fox hate machine for myself. Not only that, he added, I’ve apparently never even been in a taxi, whose drivers are all Somalis and Haitians and the like and don’t listen to Rush. As far as DC is concerned, I’ll give that one to him–NPR is definitely not Rush Limbaugh.

But I haven’t written my topic sentence yet and I’m already 500 words in. If anyone is still with me, I’ll get back to the point. So NPR is on, and Rick Santorum is making a speech somewhere (I Googled it back at the hotel and learned that he was talking to some ministers in Texas. Funny to think that JFK, another Catholic contender for the presidency, went to Texas to reassure a gathering of ministers that he believed in the separation of church and state).

Santorum’s topic is the liberal religion of secular humanism, a paradoxical construction I first encountered in Phillip Johnson’s brief for creationism, DARWIN ON TRIAL (I think Johnson actually called it “scientific materialism”). It is the most intolerant religion ever, Santorum tells the ministers.

“The intolerance of the left, the intolerance of the secular ideology, it is a religion unto itself, it is just not a biblical based religion….Just like we saw from the days of the atheists of the Soviet Union, it is completely intolerant of dissent. They fear dissent. Why? Because the dissent comes from folks who use reason, common sense, and divine revelation and they want no part of any of those things.”

“They want their world view to be imposed without question, and if you question them, you’re haters, you’re bigots, and you should be as a result of that ostracized from the public square,” he added.

He’s talking about me, I realized–if the author of THE NEW HATE isn’t one of those people who accuses regular folks of being haters then who is? If the fundamentalist right wing and Opus Dei-style Catholicism has a monopoly on reason, common sense, and divine revelation, what does that leave for the rest of us? Superstition, error, and vindictiveness, I guess. Unless it’s the other way around.

But that is precisely where I don’t want to go. I don’t want to get up on my high horse and say that there is no place for faith and feeling in one’s world view, because let’s face it–most of the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount (or for that matter, The Ten Commandments) are categorical imperatives, not the product of a rational calculus of profit and loss. I don’t believe in divine revelation myself, but I don’t throw my whole lot in with reason, either. If pure religion can lead to the auto da fe, pure reason can just as easily take you to the gulags, to Auschwitz, to any number of nightmares perpetrated on the principle that noble ends justify the most despicable of means.

People are more than the sum of their ideas–they are formed by their families and tribes. The contraception controversy that we find ourselves in the midst of (and who in 1965 would have dreamed that the stuff of Griswold v Connecticut would be coming back to haunt us almost fifty years later, in a time when the parties to the original lawsuit probably imagined we would be wearing rocket belts and commuting to Mars) is interesting not so much because of the Church and the far right’s negative stance, which are both predictable and internally consistent, but the anguished unreason of some otherwise liberal Catholic pundits (Chris Matthews, E.J. Dionne), who, whether they follow the Church’s teachings on contraception or not, deplore the state’s intrusion into religion’s sphere. The Church, they say, shouldn’t be compelled to pay for something it disagrees with (even though non-tax exempt entities like me and my family are compelled to pay for things that we don’t approve of all the time).

Joan Walsh has a really good piece in Salon on the persistence of tribalism in American Catholicism. Atavistic memories of anti-Papistry are roused when the Church is attacked, she says. And there is guilt too.

There may be an element of remorse involved when liberal Catholics defend their faith, especially among those who defy the church (rightly, in my opinion) on its most blinkered teachings in the realm of women’s rights, gay rights and sexuality. For some it may be guilt: OK, I might not listen to the bishops, but I think we ought to demand that they’re respected in the public sphere. And for some it may be grief: We grew up with a rich tradition of social responsibility and spiritual meaning that’s unfortunately been warped by leaders who worship worldly power and have odd views about sex as well as women. While the child abuse scandal makes most Catholics sick, sometimes even I wince when non-Catholics judge the whole church by the corruption of a comparative (though very powerful) few.

All of this is understandable, but it’s not something that should be blandly enabled. As Walsh goes on to say, it has a serious bearing on the 2012 election. And it puts some Catholics in league with some very strange bedfellows:

It wasn’t until I debated the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins on “Hardball” this week that the craziness of the right-wing Catholic alliance with conservative evangelicals became particularly obvious to me. They’ve locked arms with some of the very forces that once persecuted their ancestors – some of whom still despise Catholicism to this day. On “Hardball,” Perkins posed as a defender of the Catholic bishops’ position on Obama’s contraception rules. But he’s also been an ally to virulent anti-Catholics like Rev. John Hagee, who called the church “the great whore” and a “false cult.” And Rev. Robert Jeffress, who likened the church to Satan and labeled Catholicism a “fake religion.” Like Zionist Jews who’ve made common cause with right-wing evangelicals over Israel, some Catholics are lining up, in the name of religious freedom, alongside folks who want to wipe out their religion.

I could write an even longer and windier post on the bizarre alliance between Zionism (some Zionists) and the Evangelicalist (some Evangelicalists) right. Perhaps I will.

PS. If you’re a Goldwag completist, you might be interested in reading a different version of this piece, which I just posted at Killing the Buddha.

If you enjoyed this post, please go to my Facebook page and “like” it (there is a button that will take you there on the top right hand side of this page). You can also follow me on Twitter.