Download What Should Politicians Say When Asked About Evolution?

What Should Politicians Say
When Asked About Evolution?
Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former
geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He has
authored the New York Times best seller Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent
Design (HarperOne, 2013) as well as Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009), which
was named a Book of the Year by the Times (of London) Literary Supplement in 2009. In his first book on intelligent
design, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009) Meyer examined the mystery of the
origin of the first life.
I spoke recently to the Faith and Law group on Capitol Hill in D.C., a regular meeting of
congressional staffers. At their request, I addressed the topic: "What Should Politicians Say
When Asked About Evolution?"
As you will no doubt guess, my talk was inspired by the media attention surrounding Scott
Walker's handling of a question about evolution on a visit to the UK. When a British
reporter asked Governor Walker "Do you believe in evolution?" he answered by saying: "I'm
going to punt on that one. . .That's question a politician shouldn't be involved in one way or
another. So I'm going to leave that up to you." After the encounter, both the British and the
U.S. media had a field day criticizing him for being unprepared, evasive, and scientifically
uninformed (or "anti-science").
Walker's campaign tried to help him recover from the slip by releasing a clarifying
statement that clarified nothing. It affirmed that he believed in both God and science -- but
he had not been asked about God, and the statement said nothing about what he believed
about evolution specifically:
Of course, Walker is not the only Republican hopeful to have stumbled on the same
question. In 2011 Chris Christie famously answered by saying: "That's none of your
business," thus appearing both evasive and belligerent. Mike Huckabee, for his part, tried
to laugh it off, saying: "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a
primate, they are certainly welcome to do it," which only made him look evasive and
flippant.
In my talk, I not only gave an answer to the question "What Should Politicians Say When
Asked About Evolution?" but I first explained why it is a difficult question for many
politicians, especially conservative ones, to answer. There are three main reasons.
First, the term "evolution" can mean several different things, ranging from (1) the
scientifically uncontroversial idea of "change over time" (think of small-scale variations in
the shape and size of Galapagos finch beaks) to (2) the more controversial notion of
universal common ancestry (think of Darwin's tree of life) to (3) the increasingly
controversial idea that the mechanism of natural selection and random mutation have
produced all the forms of life we see today without any guidance or design. The last
meaning of "evolution" is what Richard Dawkins calls the "Blind Watchmaker" thesis.
Equivocation in the definition of evolution can make it difficult for a politician to express
legitimate skepticism about the controversial meanings of evolution without being
presented to the public as being ignorant of established fact, or "anti-science." In Walker's
recent case, media coverage traded on precisely this ambiguity to present him as being at
odds with the majority of the American public, not to mention the scientific establishment.
Media outlets repeatedly cited a poll showing that 65 percent of the American people
believe that "human beings have changed over time" -- i.e., the first and non-controversial
meaning of evolution -- without mentioning that a huge majority of Americans (and many
scientists) reject the third and distinctly controversial meaning of evolution -- the idea that
the cause of the change over time is an unguided and undirected mechanism.
Second, many conservative candidates are themselves either genuinely skeptical about
some aspects of Darwinian evolution (without perhaps being fully aware of the above
distinctions), or they are aware that much of their base rejects it. Either way, they are
reluctant to express skepticism about the theory because they know the media regard the
issue as "settled science."
This brings us to the third reason the
question seems hard to answer. In the
United States and Western Europe, there is
a pervasive, yet false, perception that a
scientific consensus supports contemporary
Darwinian evolution (that is, "neoDarwinism") in affirming all three meanings
of evolution. As I argued in my book
Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal
Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, there
is a huge disparity between, on one hand,
how popular spokesmen for evolution or
"science" present the status of neoDarwinian theory in its field, and on the
other hand, the actual status of the theory
as discussed in the peer-reviewed biological
literature. Increasingly, even leading evolutionary theorists question the creative power of
its central mechanism of natural selection/random mutation.
Among the popularizers whom I call "Darwin's Public Defenders," neo-Darwinism seems to
enjoy almost universal acclaim. Science journalists and bloggers, biology textbook writers,
spokespersons for official science (Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and the
committees that write policy statements for scientific organizations such as the AAAS and
the NAS), tell us that Darwinian evolution is the great unifying theory of all biology and that
overwhelming evidence commands our agreement.
For example, in 2006 the AAAS declared, "There is no significant controversy within the
scientific community about the validity of the theory of evolution." The media dutifully echo
these pronouncements. As New York Times science writer Cornelia Dean asserted in 2007,
"There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for
the complexity and diversity of life on earth." In a similar vein, Bill Nye "the Science Guy"
has recently published a book proclaiming the case for the theory as "undeniable."
Yet in technical books and scientific articles, many biologists and other scientists now
doubt key tenets of contemporary Darwinian theory. In particular, many doubt the creative
power of the mutation/natural mechanism. Indeed, while almost all scientists accept that
natural selection can produce small-scale microevolutionary variations, many biologists
doubt that natural selection and random mutations can generate the large-scale changes
necessary to produce fundamentally new structures and forms of life.
For just that reason, many evolutionary biologists seek to formulate new theories of
evolution (six or seven of which I discuss and critique in Darwin's Doubt) though no clearly
dominant, or widely accepted, new theory has yet emerged.
Most politicians, of course, don't know about this tumult in the field or of any of the
scientific problems with modern Darwinism. They are thus often unnecessarily intimidated
by the consensus that supposedly exists in its favor.
In light of all this, any candidate asked about "the theory of evolution" would be well
advised to give an answer that affirms the need to teach about contemporary evolutionary
theory, but one that also makes clear distinctions between the different meanings of
evolution and indicates an awareness of the scientific problems with the standard theory
as demonstrated in the scientific literature. And frankly this is not party-specific advice. The
scientific literature says what it says, whether consulted by Democrats or Republicans.
Politicians can also say that they think students should learn about those problems since
they regard knowledge of the actual status of the theory as a matter of basic scientific
literacy. They should not frame the issue as one of "Science versus the Bible," or answer as
if they were being asked about their personal religious beliefs, or as if they think the only
alternative to current dogmatic teaching of Darwinian evolution (with its strict insistence on
undirected evolution) is to teach Bible-based creationism. They can challenge the dogmatic
(and often ideological) way the topic is currently taught and at the same time affirm their
commitment to scientific literacy, academic freedom, and critical thinking.
Here's a set of sample answers that would allow them to do just that:
Reporter: "Do you believe in evolution?"
Candidate: "Of course, I believe that organisms have changed over time. I certainly
believe in evolution in that sense. But I am skeptical about unguided evolution -- the
idea that natural selection and random mutations have produced the major
changes in the history of life we observe without any guidance or design. In fact, in
peer-reviewed scientific publications, many scientists have expressed doubts about
the creative power of natural selection and random mutation. I think that students
in learning about the modern version of Darwin's theory should learn why scientists
have these doubts. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of scientific
theories is a matter of basic scientific literacy. And there are scientific weaknesses in
modern Darwinian theory."
Admittedly, this may be a bit on the long side. It could be shortened to:
Reporter: "Do you believe in evolution?"
Candidate: "Of course, I believe that organisms have changed over time. Yes, I
believe in evolution in that sense. But I am skeptical about unguided evolution. I
know that many scientists in peer-reviewed scientific publications have expressed
doubts about the creative power of natural selection and random mutation. I think
that in learning about the modern version of Darwin's theory, students should learn
why scientists have these doubts. That's just a matter of basic scientific literacy."
Or even briefer:
Reporter: "Do you believe in evolution?"
Candidate: "I believe that organisms change over time, but I am skeptical about
unguided evolution."
I hope this helps. The campaign trail isn't a science classroom, but voters naturally are
curious to hear what a candidate thinks about a major scientific question, and an ultimate
philosophical one, that deeply stirs the public. Every thoughtful person should have a
seriously considered opinion about the origin and development of life. A man or woman
seeking the Presidency, whether a Republican or a Democrat, is no exception.
Image: White House South Lawn, by Daniel Schwen [GFDL, CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC BY-SA 2.5], via Wikimedia Commons.
About Center for Science and Culture
The mission of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science
and Culture is to advance the understanding that human
beings and nature are the result of intelligent design
rather than a blind and undirected process. We seek
long-term scientific and cultural change through cutting-edge scientific research and
scholarship; education and training of young leaders; communication to the general public; and
advocacy of academic freedom and free speech for scientists, teachers, and students.
For information visit our website at www.discovery.org/id/, and to keep up with the daily news
and commentary on the debate over evolution and intelligent design visit Evolution News &
Views at www.evolutionnews.org.