Jerry Coyne on Religious America

Jerry Coyne wonders: Do religious Americans accept evolution? He writes:

Well, now I’ve seen it all. There are many ways that accommodationists try to show that faith and science are compatible, but never before have I seen a scientist with this aim play so fast and loose with the data. Dr. Joel Martin, the Curator of Crustacea and chief of the Division of Invertebrate Studies at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, has written an astonishing article in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach, “Compatibility of major U.S. Christian Denominations with Evolution”.

He fails to mention that this article is now behind a subscription wall. This journal was offered free for two years by Springer but now the article costs 34 dollars. Onward. Even though Coyne has it in mind to ridicule scientists who have religious convictions, he makes a valid point with his analysis of Dr. Martin's paper:

When Martin totals up the number of American Christians who belong to evolution-accepting faiths versus evolution-denying faiths, he gets 94,050,000 Americans in the former class and 45,850,000 in the latter, with 9,800,000 belonging to the “unclear” category. Voila! Nearly 63% of American Christians are of evolution-accepting faith! (This is, of course, heavily weighted with Catholics, who represent 71% of the “evolution-accepters).

The problem is obvious: the proportion of faiths that accept evolution is not the same as the proportion of believers who accept evolution.

Coyne is quite correct. Poll after poll have shown that a large percentage of all polled Americans do not accept evolution and that the correlation between lack of acceptance of evolution to religious expression is very high. In fact, recent earth creationism has taken hold in evangelical Christianity so much so that, as the Internet Monk put it a bit back:

Creationism has become a main plank in the platform of conservative Christian culture warriors. As a result, this issue has become more than a debate among Bible scholars who differ on their interpretations of Genesis. It has become a “litmus test” issue for many, identifying who is and who is not a faithful Christian.

So, unfortunately, despite the fact that Bruce Waltke’s views on these matters have been published in his writings for years, the BioLogos video was too provocative in the culture of fear that marks today’s climate in American Christianity.

As we have found out, now that we are home schooling once again, if one prowls the Home schooling resources, the YEC position is not just popular, it is the de facto position. Coyne ends by writing:

It is individuals who reject evolution, fight science textbooks, and make trouble for evolution—many of these in opposition to the “official” positions of their faiths.

I believe that he is correct.

----------------
Now playing: Pat Metheny Group - The Way Up: Part Two
via FoxyTunes

Darwin and Faith

Nick Spencer of the Guardian has an interesting article on Charles Darwin, evolution, and faith. Titled Darwin's Complex Loss of Faith, Spencer argues that Darwin's work on evolution did not kill his faith in God, but did alter it dramatically. Spencer also puts this in historical context:

Up until his return from the Beagle in 1836, Darwin considered himself an "orthodox" Christian. There is no reason to doubt this although it is important to recognise that his orthodoxy was a specific early 19th century, rational, demonstrable, civilised, gentlemanly kind of orthodoxy. In particular, it was heavily influenced by William Paley whose Natural Theology confidently argued that nature contains "every manifestation of design… [that] design must have had a designer … That designer must have been a person [and] that person is God." Christianity for Darwin was primarily a proof to be established and Paley did that admirably.

When his emerging theory began to undermine these ideas, it also undermined the Christianity that was built on them. It didn't happen immediately. Darwin's notebooks show him trying to accommodate an intellectually credible idea of God and his new theory – in many ways successfully.

It had only been recently that new ideas of the age of the earth and coldly factual observations of the geological record had radically revised science's understanding of the earth and its inhabitants. Darwin's faith was not unusual in that respect. As Spencer correctly points out, it was not evolution that separated Darwin from God:

When, however, his daughter Annie died in 1851, aged 10, suffering moved from being a theoretical problem to an agonisingly personal one. Most Victorian families lost children (Darwin himself lost two others in infancy) but Annie was his favourite and, unlike most Victorian fathers, he had witnessed every last, degrading moment of her short life. The experience destroyed what was left of his Christian faith.

The claim that evolution destroyed Darwin's faith is, thus, only a half-truth, usually made to prove somehow that evolution killed God. By the same reckoning, the claim that evolution had nothing to do with his loss of faith (which was entirely due to Annie's death) is no more accurate, and is often made for equally polemical purposes (usually to demonstrate that evolution presents no challenges whatsoever to religious belief).

I would posit that a faith that sees evolution as a threat to the very existence of God is not a very strong faith and certainly one that is worth examining.
----------------
Now playing: Brad Mehldau - 29 Palms
via FoxyTunes