If you’ve paid any attention to the rhetoric of the Religious/Political Right these days, you’re likely aware that one of the several targets these folk have in their sights is the teaching of evolution in our public schools.
Whether one should consider such a perspective tragic or not–at least in any classical sense of what the word means–that is debatable. It is, however, at least ironic.
Let me explain . . .
The theory of evolution, as it is reputably accepted–being as close to a scientific law (like the law of gravity) as it could possibly be, without necessarily being one–this represents science as no more or less than what it is: merely a method involving, exclusively, the testing of an observable hypothesis which can be empirically verified. In other words, science is not a set of beliefs or values. Where such matters are concerned, science–being as narrowly, if importantly focused as it is–science is neutral; it isn’t good or bad, moral or immoral. It just is. Put simply, the theory of evolution–or any other kind of science, for that matter–it doesn’t involve believing anything; it only observes, tests and measures empirically.
Which suggests that science, however important, doesn’t after all address everything that is important. Like beliefs, values, convictions, commitments, morals, ethics and relationships. Not to mention, feelings.
If you can discern the demagoguery of the Religious/Political Right, however, you’ve surely noted the allegation–however explicit or implicit–that the theory of evolution promotes the survival of the fittest. The rhetoric continuing–that this is not something good–with some even claiming an historical correlation between the theory of evolution and Nazism. Even if such a theory–being science–if it doesn’t promote anything but empirically observing, testing and measuring.
Hence, the irony–at least when it comes to the economic philosophy promoted by the Religious/Political Right–an economic philosophy that, if anything, embraces the survival of the fittest. As in, for example, “I got mine, you get yours,” or “Whatever I may be, it’s hardly my brother’s keeper.” Or how about so-called “trickle-down economics?” Even if the current economic crisis most people are facing demonstrates how little, proportionately, seems to have trickled down.
So here’s another irony, at least from a Christian ethics perspective. Since surely the majority of those among the Religious/Political Right who would consider themselves religious (or even “spiritual”) would proffer some form of self-proclaimed Christianity, however perverted. (As in, for instance, the in-fighting among Republican presidential candidates these days over who is, or isn’t a Christian.) Except by perverted, I mean–even if one had no interest in anything close to whatever may be Christian–if, nevertheless, one were at least literate enough to read the Bible, in general, and the New Testament (most notably the Gospels’ witness to Jesus), in particular: there is little in scripture that supports the economic philosophy promoted by the Religious/Political right.
Unless, of course, one is good at missing the forest for the trees. Is that ignorance, or arrogance, or some of both? As in not knowing what you don’t know, but think you do? Such a way of reading is, technically, called eisegesis (reading into), rather than exegesis (reading out of).
