Cultural Filters for Evolution

On April 19 the Economist, of all periodicals, published a “special report” entitled, “In the beginning: The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global.” I suppose for the debate to be acknowledged in the Economist is an indication that it is indeed getting big, even if it is still completely misrepresented. Whatever your position on the issue, you should find the article stimulating.

Here are a couple of my observations that I argue can be backed by the article: First, it is no longer just Christians who are objecting to the theory of evolution. Muslims in particular are noted. Second, the objections to evolution are increasing world-wide, regardless of the efforts by evolutionists and courts to the contrary. And third, the author completely ignores both religious and scientific foundations that surround the debate. The first two observations are more obvious. May I address the third?

Notice that on the evolution side the author sites scientists, such as Leaky. Notice that on the opposing side, framed as anti-evolution, only religious leaders are sited, such as Pope Benedict. Religious leaders are sited as disagreeing about the acceptability of evolution, but the opinions of hundreds of (gainfully employed) scientists who do not buy into evolution are ignored. The underlying impression is that evolution is science and non-evolution is religion. Take for example, in the paragraph just before the section sub-titled “The evolution of the anti-evolutionists,” you read the phrase, “..Catholic thinking that is relatively critical of science-based views of the world.” The only possible interpretation of this is that all thinking that objects to evolution is religious, in this case Catholic. Also, all “science-based” thinking is assumed to be evolution-based. I am not arguing here whether evolution is correct or incorrect (notice that this issue is also never considered in the article either); I am simply drawing attention to a built-in bias in the presentation. If one can grasp this bias, then one can begin to question the system of information filtering that society is imposing on media, and therefore question the validity of the arguments. If all objections to evolution are religious, then doesn’t that automatically mean that evolution defends a particular religious position? In this case, regardless of the evidence, there must be no god but chance. I say, if chance explains everything, fine. But to begin with the religious assumptions that (a) any explanation other than chance implies a god, and (b) intervention by god is impossible; makes the theory religious-based. It is religious because it begins with assumptions about the nature and behavior of god. Apparently this author, and the majority of writers in the media, have not taken their cultural buy-in to its logical conclusion. No articles supporting evolution acknowledge the religious basis of the position. One should ask, if evolution is so iron-clad, why must its readers be protected from it’s religious assumptions?

This entry was posted on May 6, 2007 at 10:43 pm and is filed under Culture & society, Science and faith. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.