Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Does It Matter That Sen. Brownback Doesn't Accept the Theory of Evolution?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_27-2007_06_02.shtml#1180638047
[1]Jonathan links to [2]Sen. Brownback's explanation of his views,
which do indeed seem to reject the proposition that man evolved
through a natural process from lower life forms. Nor, as best I can
tell, does he take the view that evolution took place but that the
mechanism for evolution was set up by God. Perhaps I'm wrong on this
-- his argument isn't crystal clear -- but it seems that he is viewing
man as a product of separate creation:
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the
nature of man�s origins, we can say with conviction that we know
with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an
accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created
order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this
truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these
theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly
rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
How should this affect a person's judgment about whether he supports
Sen. Brownback? I'm not sure I know the answer, but I thought I'd
raise the question, and mention a few thoughts of my own. (Note that I
am by no means a supporter of Brownback's, though I have no implacable
hostility to him, either.)
1. We might argue that this shows Brownback believes things that are
provably false, and that this reflects badly on his judgment. But
while I myself believe in evolution, I can hardly say that divine
creation is provably false, at least under any familiar standard of
"proof." If God exists, and he can work miracles, he might have
created man in a way that makes evolution look plausible. I don't see
any evidence for this proposition, but I can't say I can disprove it.
For that matter, I can't say that a theory that man was created by
super-intelligent aliens -- either created from scratch or "uplifted,"
to borrow David Brin's science fiction term, from apes -- is provably
false.
2. We might argue that this shows Brownback believes things about the
physical world that are not based chiefly on reason and evidence, and
that this reflects badly on his judgment. This is a classic
burden-is-on-believers-to-show-it argument against belief in God: As a
friend of mine put it, there is the same evidence for the existence of
God (at least once evolution is available to explain the development
of complex systems) as for the existence of werewolves. Yet we would
comfortably say that "werewolves don't exist," and look askance at
someone who says "wait, maybe they do exist, you can't prove that they
don't." We usually put the burden on people who are claiming the
existence of things to provide some evidence that they exist; a
contrary view is seen by us as superstitious or unscientific (again,
consider claims about werewolves, vampires, or ghosts).
Likewise, the argument would go, we should fault those who assume the
existence of a God, and a miracle-working God at that, without real
evidence or logical deduction. Of course, this assumes that we've
rejected the logical arguments for the existence of God, but I've
never found any of those to be particularly persuasive, and in my
experience even many religious people don't rely on those arguments.
Note, though, that this argument would equally apply to candidates who
sincerely believe in the Virgin Birth, in the Resurrection, in the
parting of the Red Sea, and in any other miracle. Perhaps it should
apply to them; but I do want to flag that this argument isn't peculiar
to evolution.
3. We might argue that this shows Brownback, if elected President,
will have a lousy science policy.
Evolution is not in some abstract sense the "simplest" or "most
plausible" theory of the development of mankind or of other species.
Divine creation is in some ways simpler, and to some more plausible.
Evolution is the simplest or most plausible theory that doesn't
require the existence of some external intelligence (whether God or
aliens); in that respect, there is some truth to the argument that
belief in evolution rests on a sort of judgment about the relevance of
God just as creationism does.
But what makes evolution better is that this naturalistic assumption
is much more productive of potentially useful predictions about the
world. Compare, by analogy, the theories that the planets appear to
move around the sky because of gravity, that the planets appear to
move around the sky because divine beings push them, and that the
planets appear to move around the sky because all reality is just a
dream. The good thing about the gravity theory isn't that it's
provably true and the others are provably false; they definitionally
resist disproof. Rather, the gravity theory is the most useful theory
-- most useful at predicting the location of planets, at developing
machines, and more -- and the other theories aren't useful at all.
If this is right, then rejecting the theory of evolution would lead a
Brownback Administration to misinvest science research resources, and
to underinvest in research that assumes the theory of evolution. This
might distinguish most beliefs about one-off miracles in the past;
it's unlikely, for instance, that a government leader's belief in the
Virgin Birth would lead to poor governmental judgments about funding
of gynecology and obstetrics.
4. We might argue that electing Brownback would make America look
foolish to world elites that accept the theory of evolution. On the
other hand, note that this, too, is potentially true of electing
people with various other religious beliefs; and query more generally
how much we should guide our judgment by such concerns.
In any case, these are just some tentative thoughts. I offer them not
because I'm sure about them, or because I feel I've settled on an
answer, but just because I think this is an important intellectual and
practical question, and I wanted to stoke the conversation a little.
References
1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_05_27-2007_06_02.shtml#1180623275
2.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31brownback.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1180634723-qa/hCJr6IhKkSSn1eB+p+A
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
