The controversy over evolution, in society as a whole and schools in particular, is viewed by many as an obscure dispute generated in large part by religious fundamentalists who want creationism taught instead.
A closer examination of the issue reveals there's much more to it. And the implications of the theory of evolution are far greater than most people realize.
Dr. John West of the Discovery Institute has now come out with a book, "Darwin Day in America: how our politics and culture has been dehumanized in the name of science" in which he shows how the scientific materialism worldview promulgated under the guise of science and evolution has impacted nearly every area of our politics and culture. From science, sex education, and crime/punishment to ethics, poverty, business and life & death issues. It's truly an example of an idea having consequences far beyond the idea itself.
Fortunately, the theory of evolution, rooted in scientific materialism, is being discredited by the Intelligent Design movement which simply seeks to demonstrate that the theory of evolution doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. The evidence doesn't support the theory. This is good news though the devastating consequences are and will continue to be felt for many years. This is why the battle over evolution in our schools and elsewhere is far more significant than most people realize.
A number of years ago, a Stanford-California college football game ended with Stanford, I recollect, doing multiple laterals to score a most unlikely touchdown, including running over some band members who had prematurely come onto the field.
This past weekend, a college football game in Texas involving Trinity University, a Division III school, ended with an even more unlikely set of laterals. View it here and be amazed.
"The evangelical crackup" is the title of a lengthy story in the New York Times Magazine. The title is a bit more provocative than the actual article which does note some interesting happenings in the evangelical political universe.
I don't see an evangelical crackup because there's not a monolithic evangelical entity out there, in politics or elsewhere. Evangelicalism is more of a movement than an institution and that's true regarding political/public square engagement as much as evangelism.
I think there are some interesting developments in evangelical circles. The most promising one is the broader cultural engagement by evangelicals. An exclusive focus on politics by evangelicals is a mistake in my estimation and would mirror the error of the Left which views politics as the answer to society's problems. I applaud broader, personal social engagement because that's what Christians should be doing. Government by it's nature is ill-equipped to address the pressing social problems of the day. (This is borne out by the fact that the percent of people living in poverty hasn't improved since Johnson's "War on Poverty" began in the early 1960s. I think one could make the case that it has in some respects made matters worse, e.g. usurped the role of private charities and persons and created programs which encouraged people to develop bad patterns of behavior such as out of wedlock births, and the like.) That's why it's absolutely critical that evangelicals are personally involved in addressing poverty, AIDS, and other social problems.
I think the media tries to find the spokesman for evangelicals e.g. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and it just doesn't work because of its diffused nature. I think the influence the media places on power or influence of particular evangelical leaders is generally overstated. Those viewed as leaders may voice the concerns of large numbers of evangelicals but they don't dictate what people will do.
I don't see evangelicalism as diminishing in influence with the passing of some of the prominent evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy. I think evangelicals have moved from a protest movement, e.g. Falwell and the Moral Majority in the 70s and 80s to a movement where individuals are personally engaged in the process by running for office, serving on staffs, being law clerks and judges. I think this is true not just for the public square but other areas as well.
I do think the war has changed the political calculus across the board, at least for a few years. (Though that could change if the situation changes for the better in Iraq.) It's drawn out the pacifist thinking of some and disillusioned others but I don't think it's changes the fundamentals of political involvement. I saw a poll recently which showed younger evangelicals are less likely to identify as Republicans but not less likely to identify themselves as conservative and are more pro-life than older evangelicals.
The media which deals in sound bites vainly tries to fit evangelicals into a neat little box. It generally doesn't work, because they're dealing with a movement not a monolithic institution.
One of the more insidious political doctrines in our public life is the distorted notion of the strict wall of separation between church and state. Some belief this artificial wall is coming down.
I would argue this is a very good thing for all concerned even though radical secularists and strict separationists at places like the American Civil Liberties Union would strongly disagree.
An interesting book as come out on this topic, written by a law professor at the University of Duquesne, Bruce Ledewitz. It's called, "American Religious Democracy: Coming to Terms with the End of Secular Politics". In an interview with World magazine he says the strict wall of separation of church and state is coming down and that's not something to worry about. He points to recent Supreme Court decisions and the make up of the Court, recent public policy positions motivated by religious concerns, e.g. gay marriage, embryonic stem cell, faith-based initiatives, and the fact that more people are voting for religious reasons than in the past.
He had some interesting things to say on theocracy versus a democracy. He said if the people enacted the book of Leviticus that wouldn't be a theocracy but a democracy. A theocracy is where a group of religious leaders can veto or enact public policy. That isn't the case where religious folks lobby and enact laws consistent with their religious convictions.
What interesting about Ledewitz is he's not a Christian conservative. He's Jewish and was the western Pennsylvania campaign coordinator for the presidential campaigns of Gary Hart and Al Gore.
I recently received a call from a woman who was very upset about her public employee union's support of very liberal candidates and causes. Why should she be forced to support the union when they support pro-abortion candidates in violation of her religious convictions, she asked. What's her recourse? Seek a religious exemption from her union dues going to the union. She has a right to have all of her union dues sent to a nonprofit organization. Not just a portion. There's been big legal battles over this right but the courts have consistently upheld the right of employees to redirect their union dues to nonprofits when they object for religious reasons to the causes supported by the union.
Here's an article on one court case and for more background information on the subject you can go to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation web page. I'm told they'll even defend you for free. If enough union members, private or public, opted out for the religious exemption to redirect their union dues to a nonprofit, I think it would have an impact.
