When Will The Times Stop Kowtowing To Creationists?
by tristero
Judith Shulevitz in tomorrow's Times Book Review continues the utterly disgraceful NY Times coverage of evolution and "intelligent design" creationism. Shulevitz lets some creationist from Discovery rail against Judge Jones' brilliant decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover for somehow imposing his religious opinions on others. You'd never guess that during the trial, this very same judge listened patiently for hours while creationist "experts" demonstrated from their own words that "intelligent design" was just a new phrase for the same old creationism and that in fact these same "experts" had repeatedly stated that "intelligent design" was invented to bring religious ideas back into public schools. She neglected to mention that one of these brilliant "scholars" was so ignorant of what science is, he asserted that by his definition, astrology would be considered a science. And you'd never guess that some of the instigators of the "intelligent design" creationism initiative in Dover were so deceitful in their answers and behavior that the judge made a point of declaring calling them out and out liars.
And then there are Shulevitz's mistakes. She writes:Darwin...realized that if he were to turn his theories into a credible science, he'd have to avoid ascribing a higher merit to those who won out in the battle for life.
But earlier Shulevitz (mis-)described Darwin's theory of natural selection as "the continual culling of less fit forms of life that drives evolution forward," ie, precisely the kind of oversimplified, easily mistaken, Spencerian formulation of evolution Darwin was trying to avoid.
Shulevitz then discusses Michael Ruse's contention that there's a quasi-religious movement among scientists called "evolutionism," which apparently is a "partly secularized postmillennialist" movement. The problem with this is that as far as I know of no scientist when discussing either evolution or their thoughts about how evolution might - repeat might - impact ethics, politics, and culture has ever tried to bring discussions of when the Son of God will return (and what we need to do to hasten that happy day) into the discussion. It doesn't work, even as metaphor, as Shulevitz suggests.
No matter. Shulevitz nevertheless accepts the existence of an evolutionism religious cult:[T]he notion that evolution equals progress still runs through many evolutionary theorists' works and public statements, giving them, at times, a curiously spiritual feel.
But she fails to provide a single example. I've read Ruse's The Evolution-Creation Struggle, the book she discusses, and I can't remember detecting a "spiritual feel" behind any of the remarks Ruse describes as "evolutionistic." And I recall being quite unimpressed with the notion that there was any coherent religious or philosophical system in the extra-scientific musings he quoted, even from such known firebrands as Dawkins. It all seemed more ad hoc than "spriitual."
Finally, Shulevitz winds up saying, sure, teach science in science class - good for her! But were it not for the IDiots and their tomfoolery, that would go without saying. And then: Teach evolution in biology class and evolutionism in religion class, along with creationism, deism and all the other cosmologies that float unexamined through our lives.
But Judith, how can you teach "evolutionism" as a religion if there is no such thing, outside of Ruse's dubious ruminations?!?
In short, Shulevitz, and the Times in general, continue to mis-cast the battle over teaching "intelligent design" creationism as one between two sides, religion or science. This mischaracterization persists despite considerable evidence that it is simply not the case that this is a religion/science clash of civilizations. Rather, it really is a fight between a handful of well-funded lunatics clamoring to make their particular religion - and no one else's - a State religion and the rest of us, who know that that is one of the stupidest fucking ideas ever.
(I'll leave the interesting subject of whether creationism is a fit subject even for a religion class to another post. For now, I'll just say that in some overlooked testimony during Kitzmiller, a Christian theologian and scholar cast considerable doubt on creationism's viability as an intelligible theology. In short, creationism is to theology as astrology is to astronomy: not worth the time and effort to study. )