Evolution, Today's Burning Issue

Debate questions are not created equal. Some, such as "Do you believe in evolution?", are quite unlikely to lead to insightful answers from anyone. When this question popped up in Tuesday's Republican presidential debate, Mike Huckabee answered it forcefully with a vigorous declaration of faith...Christian faith, that is. He's never sounded more like a preacher to me than he did at that moment. At the same time, he questioned whether a presidential candidate's opinion on evolution is really all that important. Keep in mind that it really was an opinion/belief question only; nothing was asked directly about the teaching of evolution and/or creationism in schools, which is the major policy debate concerning evolution. Are the personal beliefs of candidates what we should be judging them on?

The chief flaw with judging candidates based on their beliefs that I see is that people do not act consistently even when solid in their beliefs. Plenty of people reject evolution but don't really mind it being taught in schools, for instance, whereas others who reject evolution are deeply disturbed that it might undermine religious faith by being taught in schools. The electorate don't know how a candidate will behave simply based on a belief -- at best certain policy directions can be implied by a candidate's declaration of a belief, but I think I'd rather hear a candidate's take on policy directly. There's also always the danger that candidates will simply try to match their set of professed beliefs to the set of beliefs they expect their base of likely voters to hold which means that a candidate's beliefs cannot even be used to judge his or her character very effectively.

As someone studying science but not biology, I've long been bemused by the attention accorded evolution. I realize that aspects of the theory seem to conflict with creationist beliefs, but no other theory in science is treated so universally as an issue of faith. I doubt very much that many of the candidates for president have studied up deeply on modern evolutionary theory -- this is as true for the Democratic candidates as it is for the Republicans. That means that when the candidates are answering the question if they believe in evolution they are not entirely sure what evolution is; they aren't approaching the issue from deep knowledge. Sometimes it seems like people want to debate evolution as it was presented in the 19th century, as if Darwin is the beginning and the end of evolutionary theory...and they often want to do this without reading "The Origin of Species"! Even though many people still see evolution in a 19th century context, evolution advocates nonetheless seem to want people to "believe" in evolution based on limited exposure to the theory. Personally, I don't really "believe" in theories -- they are models for thinking and frameworks upon which to build research. If an established theory is replaced by something new which suits the real world better, it's no big deal to me (especially if it's not MY theory!). I certainly cannot imagine getting upset because a theory I think is brilliant does not impress someone else.

That said, the "issue" of evolution is used as a litmus test on both sides. For creationists, denying evolution is a declaration of faith -- if eloquence and apparent sincerity mean anything to strong creationists, then surely Mike Huckabee picked up some votes on Tuesday. For the pro-evolution crowd, accepting evolution means accepting science. The issue isn't as straightforward as this, though. I don't think a creationist candidate is necessarily going to try to cut funding for science as an elected official. Sam Brownback has big dreams of ending cancer -- nothing about what he said in the debate suggested he wants to do this any other way than through science. Likewise, accepting evolution as a reasonable theory doesn't make someone necessarily opposed to religion or even to creationist ideas. While there is a legitimate battle going on over the evolution curriculum in schools, I think evolution as a political issue has limited traction and shouldn't be a deciding factor for anyone in choosing a candidate to support.