Evolution vs literal biblical interpretation: No Peace/No Surrender

[Robert Cooper]

Having read Judge Jones judgment as well as most of the reactions of various interested parties, I am struck by the secular inability to understand Evolution's opponents. I hope to provide some clarity.

Repeatedly we see editorials and opinions claiming that Christianity is not being attacked by Evolution, that Evolution and God can co-exist peacefully, that the problems arise when some Christians try to force their beliefs upon others.

And there is some truth to this, but not the whole truth. Within Christianity there is a broad spectrum of beliefs regarding the interpretation of the Bible.

On one hand there are those who see the Bible as a combination of history and metaphor: a collection of the stories and wisdom of Abraham's descendants in the Old Testament, a collection of stories and wisdom of Jesus of Nazareth and his followers in the New testament.

On the other hand there are those who see the Bible as a divinely-inspired document, every word the literal Truth as told by God through a variety of representatives. it is upon this faith that they build their religious beliefs.

It is true that for those whose religious beliefs interpret the Bible as history and metaphor that Evolution poses no threat.

But not true for those whose religion is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. For them, Evolution is a direct contradiction to their religious beliefs. The Bible describes six days of creation, co-existence between humans and all created animals, a global flood involving a family and ark that saved breeding pairs of every animal... neither Evolution nor Geology support these claims. Indeed, both sciences deal harshly with such claims.

Most certainly, when it comes to the question of how Humanity came to exist, the literalists and Evolution are most at odds with one another. While the Bible literally states Man was created in the image of God, Evolution clearly states that Humanity arose from preceding species of hominids that arose from preceding species of apes.

Evolution cannot offer any comfort for the literalists, and literalists cannot make any exceptions for Evolution yet remain true to its religious premise: the literal interpretation of the Bible.

In his decision on Kitmiller et al vs Dover, Judge Jones wrote:

"As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Ammendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principle or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13." (Page 90 Of Judge Jones' decision).

Note the words in Item 2: "its principle or primary effect advances or inhibits religion". Let me make it more clear: "its principle or primary effect ... inhibits religion".

In the case of Christian literalists, Evolution most certainly "inhibits" their religious beliefs, most especially their ability to teach their faith to their school-aged children attending public schools where Evolution is taught. There is no compromise possible between a strict literal interpretation of Genesis and the scientific certainty that supports the Evolution paradigm.

Now look at Item 3: "it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion". Can it not be argued that this is exactly what is happening within the community of Christian literalists?

On Page 36 of his decision, Judge Jones writes: "The Supreme Court instructed in Edwards that it has been particularly 'vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools'. 482 U.S. at 583-84. The Supreme Court went on to state:
Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary.
Id. (citing Grand Rapids Sch. Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 383 (1985); Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60 n.51)."

This might help some of you understand why the Christian literalists continually assert that Evolution is a "religion" and/or "philosophy". If you believe that Genesis is the literal truth of God, any contradiction cannot be true. "Science" is defined as that knowledge which does not conflict with an acceptance of the literal interpretation of the Bible. Since Evolution contradicts this interpretation, Evolution must not be "science". Ergo, Evolution is a faith-based pseudo-"science".

From that religious point of view, re-read that quote from the Supreme Court and you can see why Christian literalists seek an end to Evolution in the classroom. For the literalists, Evolution is the "religious view" that conflicts "with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family". And as SCOTUS states: "Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary."

As long as the courts adhere to an interpretation of Evolution as a secular science, the literalist interpretation of Evolution as a religion cannot stand. Thus the many attacks on Evolution's legitimacy as a secular science by literalists.

So far, Evolution stands.

But there is a brooding silence on the issue of secular education's impact on Christians whose religious beliefs require a literal interpretation of the Bible. The religious beliefs of these groups, often forming significant majorities, are under assault by secular education. The question: is the state actively working to undermine a religious group by teaching their children ("Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary") that there is no basis for literal belief in their sacred book?

I hope you can see this is not a simple open-and-shut case. The danger of the state attacking a religion is just as serious as the state imposing a religion. In this case, tax dollars from Christian literalists are used to fund a secular education that can't help but challenge the religious beliefs of Christian literalists. They are being required to pay for the demise of their own faith.

When the Constitution was written, Darwin hadn't described Evolution. Back then, secular education did not contradict the Bible in any significant way. Constitutional literalists like Scalia will have a difficult time working through this issue. It was unforeseen.

Under these conditions, there can be no surrender and there will be no peace.

For the sake of completeness, I'll point out I am not a Christian literalist, and that I hold Evolution to be good science. I think that if the Democrats are to address this issue, it is important they understand it.

I hope I've contributed to that understanding.

(edit: typo)