In honor of Darwin Day, writer Adam Gopnik penned a piece at the Nov. 19 Daily Comment site at the New Yorker: “The evolution catechism.” It’s about why politicians should be asked what they think about evolution: that is, whether they accept it or not. Some writers have argued that that question should be off limits, for who cares if a politician accepts evolution so long as they accept other scientific findings of greater import for both humans and the planet—global warming, vaccination, and so on? Gopnik’s reply is succinct:
But the notion that the evolution question was unfair, or irrelevant, or simply a “sorting” device designed to expose a politician as belonging to one cultural club or another, is finally ridiculous. For the real point is that evolution is not, like the Great Pumpkin, something one can or cannot “believe” in. It just is—a fact certain, the strongest and most resilient explanation of the development of life on Earth that there has ever been. And yet, as the Times noted, after Walker’s London catechism, “none of the likely Republican candidates for 2016 seem to be convinced.”
. . . What the question means, and why it matters, is plain: Do you have the courage to embrace an inarguable and obvious truth when it might cost you something to do so? A politician who fails this test is not high-minded or neutral; he or she is just craven, and shouldn’t be trusted with power. This catechism’s purpose—perhaps unfair in its form, but essential in its signal—is to ask, Do you stand with reason and evidence sufficiently to anger people among your allies who don’t?
. . . To oppose Darwinian biology is not to announce yourself neutral or disinterested or even uninterested. It is to announce yourself against the discoveries of science, or so frightened of those who are that you can be swayed from answering honestly.
Indeed. Gopnik falls down just a wee bit, though, when he has to explain why being against evolution is dangerous for a politician, for Gopnik sees the dangers in purely practical terms:
Evolutionary science is not abstract—evaluating reports of a “superbug” in Los Angeles, wrought immune by natural selection to antibiotics, means applying Darwinian principles as they go about their often scary work. The institutions of Big Science certainly have interests like any other, and the bureaucracies of science have orthodoxies of their own. But scientific reasoning is the basic way human beings achieve knowledge about their world.
The implication here is that politicians who reject evolution will, if elected, enact other policies that are both anti-science and have more dangerous consequences than those of, say, promoting or accepting creationism. And that’s not quite as clear, for there are many people who are perfectly happy to accept almost everything about science except evolution. After all, in the public eye, evolution has uncomfortable implications about humanity that most other sciences don’t share. Many creationists, however, are perfectly happy to get vaccinated.
So the question is this: does an opposition to evolution give you an idea of how a politician stands on other scientific issues of import? In general the answer is “yes”: in the absence of any other knowledge, opposition to evolution is statistically correlated with opposition to issues like global warming and scientific medicine, though not to others like the theory of relativity. The correlation, of course, is mediated through factors like religion and Republicanism, which nuture or support anti-science attitudes.
But in the case of a given politician, if you want to know his or her attitudes about important issues, ask them about those issues. Don’t just ask about evolution and blithely assume that someone who hedges about it will be anti-science in general. Ask about global warming. Ask about vaccination. Ask about their support for funding science.
And of course if we reject politicans because of the evolution litmus test, the test that Gopnik proposes:
Do you have the courage to embrace an inarguable and obvious truth when it might cost you something to do so? A politician who fails this test is not high-minded or neutral; he or she is just craven, and shouldn’t be trusted with power.
then every politician fails, because every politician is craven on one issue or another. Can you name one who isn’t? Obama, I believe, is craven about his belief in God, though I can’t prove it (that’s where evolution has the advantage, since we know the truth). Any politician who takes a stand that he or she doesn’t fully endorse, in order to garner votes, fails the Gopnik Test.
Still, I wouldn’t vote for a person who opposes evolution, for it does tell us unequivocally that someone can reject a palpable fact to get votes—a fact that I happen to have been deeply involved with for my whole career. To a scientist, that’s an unforgivable character flaw. If Hillary Clinton waffled on evolution (she won’t), I wouldn’t vote for her, either.
In the rest of the article, Gopnik trots out the evidence for evolution, which, as well all know, is multifarious and overwhelming. His description is quite good, and I have only a few quibbles. He seems to equate modern evolutionary theory with natural selection; he says that it’s controversial whether “everything we find in an animal is an adaptation,” or could be the results of genetic drift and accident (that’s not controversial; a lot of features in animal—and plant—genomes are clearly either the result of genetic drift or historical contingencies, like the presence of inactivated, ancient viral DNA; and he adduces only evidence from human fossils and DNA, neglecting all the evidence from biogeography, development, vestigial organs and genes, and so on. And I must insist that “flatworm” is one word, not two.
But these are simply the plaints of a captious biologist. In general, Gopnik’s description of evolution is excellent, as he’s one of the few non-science writers who seems to thoroughly grasp the concept and the issues it raises. He did, after all, write Angels and Ages, a nice book about the conjunction of Lincoln and Darwin (based on their simultaneous days of birth), which, as I recall, I blurbed. And it’s nice to see such an uncompromising defense of “Darwinism” (Gopnik doesn’t reject the term) in a mainstream magazine.
Adam Gopnik usually gets it pretty right on almost all topics, including noms.
Yeah, he outed my favorite restaurant in Paris in an article, ensuring that it would be crowded with tourists forever. (I’m not going to name it here!)
Once, during a brief stopover in Paris, I happened across a small cafe in which, through a window, I observed a cat, seated comfortably upon a large seat cushion, disinterestedly looking on while his staff finished off a modest meal. I don’t recall the name of the place, but I would be unsurprised to learn that it’s the same one.
I can’t make up my mind whether you have used “disinterestedly” correctly or not. When it’s cats, it’s a whole different ball of wool.
The politicians don’t “accept relativity” they don’t understand it. And, if they tried they would almost certainly fail. They don’t understand evolution either, of course. But, the differences are–they think that they do and they think it has implications for moral behavior
Which is their fatal flaw in thinking. Not surprisingly fewer people accept just religious Creationism or Scientific Evolution. The majority accept a mix. For better or worse they do. At least those aren’t like the minority of Creationists or those who mouth their agreement to get chosen in the RNC for the GOP. Anyone is will not stick to their own point-of-view can’t be trusted.
Evolution should not be the single issue litmus test. A candidate for any public office should be grilled to ascertain their powers of reason and knowledge. You can believe in evolution and still be wildly irrational. Leftists love to use the evolution quiz because they can easily nail right wing christians. But leftists would fail miserably if some new age mystical issues were brought up. Our current president and most past presidents have been mystics! Evolution will expose fundamentalist christians and muslims. That’s about it.
Exactly. And it certainly is a membership test.
Aside from that, which is a better response to a gotcha question like that, a lie or a refusal to answer? “Mrs Clinton do you believe in original sin?” I’d prefer a refusal to answer to a lie or an answer most of us will assume is a lie anyway.
That’s the Sensuous Curmudgeon’s take; you have to ask about evolution, not to obtain a good candidate, but to weed out those who are insane.
“…weed out those who are insane.” I really like that, but I fear, as Mormovies states, it is insufficient to do that, only a beginning.
Sorry but that is not a sanity marker. Not a bit of it and don’t think that it is. For one thing just by the numbers we are the insane ones. However that isn’t how we measure sanity. So please try not to continue to use that flawed idea.
I think Gopnik has crystallized this in a way that is very useful for discussion, even if it is not practical. As others have said, evolution shouldn’t be the only litmus test, but it is somewhat unique.
One question to the Professor: you say all politicians would fail such tests, and cite Obama regarding his belief in God. But in his statements, where did Obama fail to “embrace an inarguable and obvious truth when it might cost you something to do so” (Gopnik’s criterion). Are you assuming he is in fact a closet atheist, as you’ve suggested previously? Without that I’ve heard nothing from Obama regarding his religion that would have him failing this test. (This is not to say that I think he’s not made ‘convenient” statements in other arenas!)
More broadly, I agree that all politicians may be guilty at one time or another of failing the Gopnik Criterion. It might be more useful to point cases where an individual has done the “positive” of Gopnik’s scenario and actually embraced a truth despite expense to them. Not always easy to come up with examples even for those we admire, but viewing things this way may bring more substance.
I really like this ‘Gopnik test’. I think it summarises quite elegantly something I have felt for a long time – that what I admire most of any politician of any persuasion is one that can pass this test with the skill of persuasion and the willpower to combat opposition. For example, former Australian PM Howard (I am not suggesting I was otherwise a supporter of his), who changed Australian gun laws in response to a mass shooting against the wishes of many of his own constituents. Some would argue that to take action against the wishes of the voters who elected you is undemocratic. But this would imply that a politician’s only role is to institute the wishes of their constituents (we could probably replace all politicians with computers tabulating online polls!). It is probably true that politicians who do so would be labelled ‘dictators’ and would face a difficult re-election. But, I think (I hope!) that politicians who pass this test and take action on obvious truths despite their unpopularity will ultimately do democracies the greatest service.
Well said. The former South-African president WF de Klerk also comes to mind here…
I disagree, good politicians are pragmatical and be able to compromise.
That was the most decent wave that Howard ever rode, and it wasn’t limited to Australia. To my surprise, the comment thread at that (linked) recent story remained short and didn’t fill up with ranting gun nuts – I don’t think they’ve been moderated out, because it always leaves a stain.
Given politicians propensity for repeating past mistakes, a test on basic history is in order as well.
And, when one considers the zeal with which the same, unworkable economic theories are championed in election cycle after election cycle, a test on basic mathematics skills. I’m not convinced a group this enamoured of Milton Friedman in 2015 can actually add.
Gopnik absolutely hit it on the head for why a politician should be questioned about evolution or any other question relating to science. Does a politician determine what is fact by following the evidence or by following the constituency and the money?
The real question is: does a politician accept reality? If you can’t accept reality, you have no firm basis to decide how to make things better and no business running for public office.
There are probably politicians who are secretly reality-based but craven about saying so. Since I can’t look in their hearts, if they say they don’t accept evolution (or gravity, or quantum mechanics), I’m going to take them at their word.
As for tests — I would say that every one of them flunk the most important test that only Elizabeth Warren passes. That would be the most important one – Who are you really here to represent? And not just part of the time…all the time.
Like the old saying goes…just follow the money.
“a lot of features in animal—and plant—genomes”.
🙂
I suspect that some of the politicians who deny evolution actually know that it is true. They deny it to pander to the republican evangelical christian base. Probably even more of them know that global warming is real and human caused, but they deny it to pander to corporate interests. My hypothesis is that this applies to many of the real long term politicos on the right who have been in congress for a long time, while the tea party types who are more recent, and more irrational, might actually believe that evolution and climate change are false.
This reminds me of the Democrats Presidential hopefuls being asked what their favorite bible verse was (Obama – sermon on the mount, Clinton – golden rule).
Personally my response would have been along the lines of “Seriously? That’s your question? Apart from the fact that we aren’t supposed to have a religious test to run for office, what does that have to do with my ability to govern?”
If one of them had answered with something similar, I’m curious how well it would be received?
Since politicians are supposed to play as every(wo)man it would sit poorly. Atheists have it harder than drug dealers and Muslims in the polls. We are dead last. We are the least trusted. So you can figure from that alone how any candidate would fair.
If I was asked I would first pose a counter question to them. What is their favorite part of the Bible, Upanishads, Quran, Vedas etc.
Gopnik is a good sport. But, and maybe I am misreading his article, he do seem to trot out the Accommodationist Mistake for a gallop:
“Here, though, the Republican candidates might have taken a lesson, or even comfort. Evolutionary biology certainly renders a certain sort of Biblical literalism untenable. But it is compatible with any number of readings of the Bible, and with very different political belief systems—there are, and have been from the start, Marxist Darwinians and liberal ones, Catholic evolutionary biologists and Jewish ones, transgender Darwinians and gay ones, conservative Darwinians and radical ones, and, somewhere out there, doubtless, a Wiccan or two is doing important work on the flat worm.”
It is ironic if Gopnik, after observing that facts are independent of belief, in the matter of belief consider not whether it is compatible with fact but can have the compatibility of cognitive dissonance and the cherry-picking of religious texts. Catholic evolutionary biologists are, famously, creationist or in conflict with the church. Retreating to deism fare no better, since it reinserts magic control into a contingent process.
It would be invaluable if our respected public intellectuals of science could have a note ready to send to those intrepid reporters who have the all to rare courage to ask politicians the Evolution question every time they do so.
A note not just of gratitude and encouragement but above all on how to best ask the question the next time: “Mr. Politician, did you know that the Theory of Evolution is the most established best supported by evidence of all scientific theories, more so than (insert list here)?”
Asking “do you believe in Evolution” plays into the hands of the idiot public who think it’s a matter of personal belief and misses the educational opportunity to inform what it really is: irrefutable fact. It also misses the opportunity to throw into even greater relief the unworthiness of an elected official entrusted with decision making powers who simply rejects reality either to garner votes or because he really is that stupid.
Agreed. I don’t “believe” in Evolution. I was persuaded by the facts presented. Just so one isn’t confused that Science and Religion fall along the same lines of acceptance and operation.
I tend to agree. I’d also point out that while every GOP president and most if not all of the GOP candidates have failed that litmus test since the ’80’s, none of the three GOP presidents during that time have put political capital into changing HS science curriculum to include creationism. So asking the question doesn’t tell you much about what their education policy (regarding creationism and evolution) will be. Bush II was the most egergious example of such hypocrisy, making all sorts of crazy claims in state of the union speeches and to GOP crowds about all sorts of things, which he never followed up on and most likely never had any intention of doing. Mars? Really dude?
I’m not sure there is anything to be done about this: evolution education is a hot button media issue and low priority policy issue, and that combination makes it ripe for craveness and hypocrisy: candidates have every incentive to lie about it on the campaign trail and then every incentive to do nothing about it in office.
Having said all that, I would still support an evolution question given to candidates but parsed in a more policy-oriented form. Such as: “if you are elected, do you intend to change the way evolution is taught in public high schools, and if so, what changes do you plan on making?” Because frankly, I don’t care whether they accept evolution or not or whether they are forced to lie about their acceptance of it to bring the right wing of the electorate into line. What I really care about is whether they intend to do in terms of education policy when they are in office.
I think education policy is very important too of course, but it is not the only point of concern regarding religious intrusion into what should be secular matters. Though Bush II didn’t facilitate the teaching of creationism in public schools his administration did oversee a disgustingly large intrusion of religion into government programs of all sorts from the military, civilian, in outreach programs, aid programs, committees, panels, etc.. Not just the appointment of overtly religious people, but giving contracts to religious groups to institute religious based programs for the federal government. Not to mention SCJ appointments.
To me questioning politicians about evolution in not really specifically about whether or not they accept evolution. But because of how believers feel about evolution it is a pretty good topic to explore 1) whether they are delusional or not, 2) whether they are likely to base decisions on rational assessment of the best available evidence or on ideology or on greed, and 3) whether they are reasonably honest or the typical lying sack of shit. You are unlikely to garner anything definitive, but you’ll likely get better results than you get from the typical questions asked of candidates. And, actually, when it comes to vetting the person who will be responsible for leading a large country, I think just about any line of questioning should be permissable.
I don’t really like asking, “Do you believe in evolution.” I’d like the questioning to be more like “Can you describe the basics, do you accept it, can you explain why it is reasonable to accept.” Of course they could just be completely craven and very good at telling you what you want to hear, but I think I’m likely to learn something useful about them rather than nothing at all.
Part of my point was, it doesn’t tell you 1) because most politicians are 2) or 3) regardless of whether they answer yes or no. I have no doubt Hilary would answer that she accepts it. I also have no doubt she’s going to base many policy decisions on political gamesmanship, rather than “rational assessment of the best available evidence.”
I also think the way its employed is inconsistent with your stated motives. Given that liberal voters have no problem with evolution education, supporting it provides little or no “character insight” into Democratic politicians; the right venal and machiavellian decision for them is to support it, not deny it, so support doesn’t tell you they accept science or whatever. To get that, you’d have to formulate a good question that places the likely response of liberal voters and a rational assessment on different sides of an issue, and see what that politicians do. How about asking about corn subsidies in Iowa? Oh yeah, they all fail that one, don’t they?
By employing it against politicians on both sides of the aisle – rather than a better question to Dems where you know this question will not tell you much – you really seem to be using it more like a litmus test of belief, rather than a real test of whether they will put rational analysis ahead of ideology or campaign contributions or what have you.
I know. I disagree with you about that. Given the caveat, which I explained, that simply asking if they believe in evolution or not is not worth much. You seem to be saying, “you can never know for sure so why bother asking.” I’m saying I don’t care that I can never know for sure, you can’t know anything for sure, and if good questions are asked I am confident that I will get useful information out of the politicians responses.
Do you mean that you see no significant difference between, for example, Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton? Or do you mean that asking questions, presumably good ones, to probe how they respond to issues that have widely held, strong religious / ideolgical beliefs associated with them that are in direct contradiction with our best, very well supported by good evidence and verified understanding of reality, is so unlikely to return any information useful for deciding which candidate will be less likely to make important decisions informed by their religious beliefs regardless or in spite of evidence to the contrary, that it is pointless to ask? I disagree there too. Or do you mean that all politicians are so dishonest that it is pointless to ask? I might agree with you there, except that would also presume that they are all expert at misdirection too.
Regarding the rest, as I said I am not focused on evolution education, and I am not advocating asking “do you believe in evolution.” Also, why would I not want these questions to be a litmus test of religious belief? How does that interfere with them being of use for testing “whether they will put rational analysis ahead of ideology or campaign contributions or what have you.” Perhaps there are better lines of questioning for testing those, but I don’t think you can devise a “real test” for anything via a journalist asking questions of a candidate. I don’t think that means questions shouldn’t be asked, and I think journalists, generally speaking, could ask some better questions.
Direct questions to politicians tend to not show the nuance of their real feelings. Watching what they have done, if they have been in the political game helps far more than nicely written speeches. Look to Pres. Reagan for an example. He sounded better than he really was as governor. Showed me what he would be like as president. And he was, raised deficits, lowered taxes on the wealthy and made it harder for people not wealthy, trashed the economy etc.
In the referenced New Yorker article, Gopnik links to his earlier extended essay about Charles Darwin, Rewriting Nature. What a smart, literate, insightful piece of writing that is!