Monkey on Our Backs

CRITICS have decried the Kansas Board of Education’s recent vote against evolution as a throwback to the 19th century. In truth, though, both sides of the evolution—creationism debate are locked in a 19th-century quarrel, seemingly oblivious to 20th-century scientific developments that have rendered much of their argument obsolete. While the “ol’ time religion” and Biblical literalism of Kansas board members have invited great scorn, many of their opponents in the evolution camp share a naively positivistic view of science, nearly as fundamentalist, in its own way, as the beliefs of creationists.

Not that anyone is likely to construe the Kansas board’s decision to strike evolution from the state’s required curriculum as a public-relations victory for evangelicalism. By allying themselves with so-called “scientific creationists” or “youngearth theorists,” the board members did much to discredit more legitimate critiques of Darwin. While one can respect the piety of a person whose literal understanding of the Book of Genesis leads him to claim that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that individual should hardly be surprised if the world at large fails to regard his views as scientific. No less an authority than St. Augustine cautioned Christians against quoting the Bible as a science text and warned that by doing so they would tend to render their religion laughable in the eyes of more knowledgeable people. The Kansas board members fell into this trap.

PG

About the Author

Patrick Glynn

Featured Tags

CRITICS have decried the Kansas Board of Education’s recent vote against evolution as a throwback to the 19th century. In truth, though, both sides of the evolution—creationism debate are locked in a 19th-century quarrel, seemingly oblivious to 20th-century scientific developments that have rendered much of their argument obsolete. While the “ol’ time religion” and Biblical literalism of Kansas board members have invited great scorn, many of their opponents in the evolution camp share a naively positivistic view of science, nearly as fundamentalist, in its own way, as the beliefs of creationists.

Not that anyone is likely to construe the Kansas board’s decision to strike evolution from the state’s required curriculum as a public-relations victory for evangelicalism. By allying themselves with so-called “scientific creationists” or “youngearth theorists,” the board members did much to discredit more legitimate critiques of Darwin. While one can respect the piety of a person whose literal understanding of the Book of Genesis leads him to claim that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that individual should hardly be surprised if the world at large fails to regard his views as scientific. No less an authority than St. Augustine cautioned Christians against quoting the Bible as a science text and warned that by doing so they would tend to render their religion laughable in the eyes of more knowledgeable people. The Kansas board members fell into this trap.