But Campolo really stepped in it a week and a half ago, when he put his name on a screed in the Philadelphia Inquirer called "The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism." It's a weird little rant, riddled with red herrings. For example, referring to those (like me) who oppose the teaching of "the intelligent design theory of creation" in public schools, Campolo writes:
Arguing for what they believe is a nonprejudicial science, they contend that children in public schools should be taught Darwin's explanation of how the human race evolved, which they claim is value-free and depends solely on scientific evidence.Huh? "Value-free?" Who says that? It's a pretty simplistic and unsophisticated view, and while I'm sure quote miners can dig up examples of commentators who say stuff like that, I'm very suspicious of Campolo here. It's not just that he's wrong; his claims about Darwin's racism – and Darwin's alleged influence on (of course) the Nazis – are very nicely dispatched in a piece by Joshua Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas. Rosenau shows just how wrong Campolo is on the facts, and on the moral implications of common descent. (And readers of the Inquirer did some good work, too.)
But there's something else I don't like about the piece. It seems to be crafted as an argument in a case for "the intelligent design theory of creation." Campolo chides young-earth literalists, but links ID to the "suggestion" that "the evolutionary development of life was not the result of natural selection, as Charles Darwin suggested, but was somehow given purposeful direction and, by implication, was guided by God." That's a pretty soft view of ID, and though Campolo has expressed reservations about the ID program elsewhere, it looks to me like he's bought some of its most intellectually damaging claims.
Anyway, check out the Campolo piece, and don't miss Rosenau's excellent work at Thoughts from Kansas. He cites another hero of mine, Mark Noll. Superb.
9 comments:
I remember Josh's excellent piece. I think at the time one of the DI's new talking points was, "No Darwin, No Hitler", a point the hapless George Gilder likes to re-iterate.
The problem with that kind of empty sloganeering is, it prompts an obvious and equally empty retort ("No Jesus, No Inquisition").
But sloganeering seems to be about all the DI can muster.
Well, ok. Campolo is, um, prone to hyperbole. But I think the Kansas piece was way to harsh in accusing him of lying. How about if we spin this a little differently: here's a public evangelical who is bold enough to acknowledge in writing that the science of evolution is sound! Would that have been possible even ten years ago? Why bash the guy?
Campolo's concern is about how some people use the facts of evolution to advance nihlistic, reductionist moral agendas. It's a valid concern.
You wouldn't deny, would you, that many anti-Christian intellectuals do indeed extrapolate a reductionist moral agenda from biology? Do we need to trot out Dawkins, Schermer, PZ, et all?
And this is certainly true: it's Constitutionally acceptable to suggest in a public school classroom that evolution supports a kind of random purposelessness that leaves people free to make their own morality. It's not Constitutionally acceptable, however, to suggest that evolution is consistent with and even supportive of the idea that God designed -- small "d" -- a world in which human beings have special moral and ethical responsibilities. The Kansas piece rightly notes that evolutionary science is consistent with the Christian idea of creation care -- but you could never hint at that in a public school! Nevertheless, you could float in the high school classroom or on PBS some froofy Gaia-like metaphysic about how the connectedness of all life makes us just another animal.
I'll trot out the "responsibility" card again: Christian intellectuals who want to integrate faith with evolutionary science need to be careful about having a dialogue with theology, including theological ethics.
BTW, as to the link between Nazism and Darwinism -- it's simply not true that this is just a ploy of creationist quacks, and the Kansas piece is naive to dismiss it out of hand. Let me quote here a comment by my favorite historian of science, Ted Davis, on the ASA list a couple of years ago (see here: http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200602/0429.html):
"I know this has come up before on this list, and it's a complex historical question to which there is no simple answer. However, I would say that to a considerable degree the excesses of Hitler were seen to be justified by evolution. That is, there is a clearly identifiable current of German "scientific" thinking in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thinking that Hitler fell heir to and adopted, thinking that explicitly linked evolution with both racism (ie, German "Aryan" supremacy) and militarism (ie, Germany *ought* to dominate the rest of the world, it's only the law of nature worked out). They aren't making this up... Now I'm not saying that other factors weren't operative here, such as old fashioned antisemitism as promoted by Christians and others (don't overlook "others"). But evolution, at least as it was presented by German intellectuals such as Haeckel, did seem to give "scientific" impetus and
respectability to it. If you don't believe this, have a look at the following article:
George J Stein, "Biological Evolution and the Roots of Nazism," American Scientist 76 (1988): 50-58, reprinted from a collection called The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism, ed. V. Reynolds et al (1987). It's a real
eye-opener, not for "holocaust denyers" but for what we might perhaps call "evolution as racism" denyers."
Sorry, not intending to comment spam, but I want to make sure I include all of Ted's comment from the ASA list, because he makes a very important concluding point. Here it is:
The best response to those who use this argument as yet another reason not to teach evolution (and this was one of Bryan's most compelling arguments 80
years ago, Henry Morris and company didn't invent it), is to do two things, IMO. (1) Do one's best to separate science as science from science as grand
metaphysical program, as one should do for folks like Dawkins. (2) Point out that lots of good Christian creationists (ignoring for the moment lots of libertines and other non-Christians at the same time) supported slavery,
and used the Bible to that end, indeed used the supposed separate creation of various "races" as support for slavery.
The history is complex, as usual, and a comment linking racism and
evolution can certainly mislead, if taken out of context. But the actual historical context does show that it isn't wildly off base, any more than linking Darwinism to scientific atheism would be wildly off base.
David--
Thanks for the comments and the excellent words from Ted Davis. I don't think "bash" is quite the right word for my criticism of Campolo, and I remain suspicious of the overall tone of his inaccurate piece. I note, moreover, that Ted is very careful to highlight the complexity of the "relationship" between Nazism and evolutionary ideas. Campolo was not so careful, and Thoughts from Kansas is not the only blog that has detailed his exasperating errors. (See Christopher Heard's article at Higgaion, also linked in a post here at QoD.)
I'm uncomfortable with the suggestion that I ought to go easy on Campolo because he's a "public evangelical who is bold enough to acknowledge in writing that the science of evolution is sound." For one thing, his voice will be a lot less credible if, being "prone to hyperbole," he regularly displays ignorance and credulity like the Inquirer piece manifests.
He should have been more careful, just like Jerry Coyne should have been more careful when he lit into Olivia Judson on the topic of macromutations. If you think I was hard on Campolo, check out my comment on Coyne's diatribe.
Whether they're public apologists like Hugh Ross, or public scientists like Jerry Coyne, or public evangelicals like Tony Campolo, those who have a prominent public voice must be held to a solid standard of integrity. Rosenau does not, as you assert, accuse Campolo of lying (the Thoughts from Kansas post refers to "lies" and accuses Campolo of repeating lies, which he clearly does), but the implication that he has been less than adequately honest is fair precisely because Campolo is a "public evangelical" of prominent stature.
But Steve, you said this: It's not just that he's wrong; his claims about Darwin's racism – and Darwin's alleged influence on (of course) the Nazis – are very nicely dispatched in a piece by Joshua Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas.
Should I now blog about how you are "repeating lies?" Because, as the info from Ted Davis clearly shows, Rosenau is dead wrong in denying any link between Darwinism and Naziism, and he ought to know better. Or would that really be an unfair characterization of your post -- the reality of which seems to be that you haven't really thought that deeply for yourself about the actual historical links between Darwinism and Naziism, just as Campolo probably didn't think his op-ed through well enough.
If you want to promote the science of evolution in evangelical circles, you need to address the legitimate aspects Campolo's concerns, not just dismiss them as "lies."
And.... I'm not suggesting you refrain from critiquing the parts of Campolo's op-ed that don't work. But I don't see you critiquing here -- I see you reacting. That's what I meant about recognizing the positive aspect of a public evangelical readily acknowleding the science of evolution.
David, I've made it a habit on this blog of correcting my mistakes, and I would do that here if I could find one.
Rosenau did not, in fact, "deny any link between Darwinism and Nazism"; that would have been irresponsible. I'm surprised that you read his post that way; I see it very differently. Rosenau is excoriating Campolo for making an error that is logically comparable to the Nazis' distortions. He writes, "The Nazis misrepresented and misconstrued Darwin's work because, like Campolo, they failed to see the moral significance of our shared family tree." I don't think Campolo is unaware of that significance, but the Inquirer piece invites that conclusion.
I know you don't like my emphasis on scientific explanation, and my focus on scientific and public integrity. Perhaps it's true that a differently-phrased post on Quintessence of Dust would facilitate more of the dialogue you seek between my hard science and the theology that (I gather) Campolo represents. And it's good to have you and others persistently pointing to the theological questions that we evangelicals need to address together. But I'm not going to go easy on public voices who behave irresponsibly, and Campolo's piece was a big mistake.
As for whether I'm ignorant of the historical relationship between Nazism – or any other form of eugenics – and Darwinism, I'm a bit annoyed by your presumption of cluelessness on my part. If it helps, I'll reveal that my favorite essay by Stephen Jay Gould is "The Most Unkindest Cut Of All" in Dinosaur in a Haystack. If you don't know it, I'll be happy to post some excerpts and comments sometime.
Steve, here is what Rosenau said:
The lies and misrepresentations continue for several paragraphs, claiming that Nazi abuse of Darwin's ideas somehow shifts responsibility from the shoulders of the leaders of the Third Reich onto Darwin. I've commented before that such claims verge on Holocaust denial, and I stand by that claim here.
Now, here is what Campolo said:
In case you think Darwin sounds like a Nazi, there is a connection. Darwin's ideas were complicit in the rise of Nazi ideas. Pulitzer Prize winner Marilynne Robinson, in her insightful essay on Darwin, points out that the German nationalist and anti-Semitic writer Heinrich von Treitschke and the biologist Ernst Haeckel also drew on Darwin's writings to justify racism, nationalism and harsh policies toward the poor and less privileged. Although these men's lives much predated Hitler's rise to power, their ideas were very influential as he developed the racist ideas that led to the Holocaust. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who belonged to the Nazi Office for Race Policy and whose work supported Nazi theories of "racial hygiene," made Darwin's theories the basis for his reasoning.
So, you are partly right -- Rosenau doesn't completely deny the link. But do you really think Rosenau is justified in accusing Campolo of "lies?" Is it really true that in the above-quoted paragraph Campolo claims "that Nazi abuse of Darwin's ideas somehow shifts responsibility from the shoulders of the leaders of the Third Reich onto Darwin?"
C'mon -- Rosenau's piece is a hack job dripping with ideological bias. Campolo overstates his case, true, and actually it's hard to tell exactly what his point is about public schools. However, Campolo did not lie, did not suggest the blame for the Holocaust shifts "from the shoulders of the leaders of the Third Reich onto Darwin," and is hardly in league with Holocaust deniers.
Post a Comment