How did creationists evolve?

In a land famous for its crude Darwinian business and social ethic, it's odd to find more than half the people sold on creationism instead

by Stephen Peplow

A visiting Martian could be forgiven for thinking that evolution and capitalism might have something in common. In both systems, long-term survival depends on finding a particular niche while developing and changing to altering circumstances. Surely Americans, as world-leaders in capitalism, would also be Darwin's greatest fans?

The fact that Americans don't like Darwin is one of those unnoticed and unappreciated ironies that provide such delight—or would do were they not quite so hazardous to those of us who enjoy the quiet life. It is like watching a child play with matches: amusing until the house burns down. It is also troubling to those of us who admire America and secular principles on which the American constitution was written.

Many Americans—well over half it seems—reject Darwin's theory of evolution in favour of creationism, sometimes called “abrupt appearance theory” or “scientific creationism” to try to smooth the edges. At the same time, the same people hold that “survival of the fittest” free-market ideology is the only game in town.

Even the Pope agrees that there is no incompatibility in believing both in God and the theory of evolution. After all, if God created the world, then He created Darwin and thereby Darwin's theories.

This isn't good enough for American creationists: a belief that Genesis is literally true means an outright rejection of ape antecedents anywhere in the closet. In the letters page of a Kansas newspaper, the Topeka Capital Journal , one mother encouraged the teaching of creationism this way: “I am writing in response to the poor souls out there who believe that the state board of education has taken education back to the Dark Ages. I say it's about time! Take my children back to the Dark Ages where truth was taught and they received the education they deserved.”

Beliefs like this would be easier to dismiss were they not held by at least half the population, including certain key members of the Bush administration. Was the work of Locke, Bacon, Newton and the rest of the Enlightenment all in vain?

It hasn't always been this way. In 1922 Woodrow Wilson was asked for his thoughts on evolution. He replied, “Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education, I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.”

Disbelief in evolution seems to accompany a belief in free market economics, with no sense of irony. At home there is blind and unquestioning faith in Manifest Destiny while the cultural and economic systems of weaker countries are shredded. Linda McQuaig , author of books such as It's The Crude, Dude, suggests that the reason the Bush administration botched post-Saddam Iraq was that there never were any plans. The Bush neo-conservatives, she claims, hoped to use the country as a giant experiment, a practical demonstration to a skeptical world of the power of the unfettered free market. Iraq, her argument goes, would have made an ideal testing-ground: no civil society to speak of, no grumpy unions, and perhaps best of all, no pesky environmentalists. Just unleash market forces and the country would rebuild itself, as if by magic. Too bad that this chance to see David Copperfield in action on the truly grand scale was wrecked by insurgents and other spoil-sports.

While Americans now reject Darwin, they have previously shown great interest in spin-offs or perversions of evolutionary theory, particularly where business might be involved. In the 1860s Herbert Spencer toured America giving highly acclaimed lectures on Social Darwinism. Spencer claimed that evolutionary theory explained the relative success of individual humans. Wealthy members of his audiences learned that they were rich because they were “better” or “fitter;” indeed, they positively deserved to be rich and therefore there was no need to fret about future difficulties with eyes of needles. John D Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were eager disciples.

The corollary was that the poor also deserved their lot in life, and that it was therefore wrong to help them. As the weaker members of human society, they should not be allowed to breed. The next logical step was eugenics and, to its shame, Canada was one of several countries which followed this path.

Spencer's ideas of Social Darwinism were ridiculed back in his native Britain, Darwin himself repudiating them, but in America they still linger on. The influential writings and philosophy of Ayn Rand, with their forthright rejection of altruism and mocking of Immanuel Kant, are in many ways a continuation of Spencerism. It is no coincidence that her books still sell well in America.

Spencer, Rand, and present-day neo-conservatives make the mistake of thinking that there is no such thing as society, and that life is, or should be, lived in a grim Hobbesian state of nature.

The rest of us can see that there is society, and people do cooperate and help each other. We are far from being the amoral egotists of classical economic theory. The motives may perhaps be somewhat mixed: a little altruism one may hope, but more likely a pragmatic “do as you would be done by” reciprocity. Anyway, it seems to have worked up to now.

The Bush administration has shown a distinct lack of interest in cooperating with other states over such global public good issues as climate warming and international courts of justice. Evolutionary history shows that cooperation is the key to survival in the long term. Would it be wrong to hope that this particular lesson from history passes the creationists by?

****