It was telling that even science-positive Republican candidate Jon Huntsman said that he "believed" in evolution, rather than, say, that he accepted it or appreciated its power to explain life's diversity. Then he qualified his statement with "Call me crazy," acknowledging that to accept mainstream science puts him outside the mainstream of his party.
Why should this debate rage in the political sphere when there's near universal acceptance among scientists that Darwin had the basic idea right 150 years ago? Political candidates don't get points in any party by denying atomic theory, or germ theory, relativity, or plate tectonics. Nor do people refer to these ideas as something that requires belief.
For one thing, evolution is personal. It offers a natural explanation for our own origins that's wildly different from the biblical story. And even more jarring for some, evolution showed we were molded from the same process that led to fish, frogs, and monkeys.
The rancor makes more sense in the context of its deep history, said Swarthmore biology professor Scott Gilbert. The roots of this disagreement go back to 19th-century Europe, where state-sponsored religions were taught as science, said Gilbert, who has degrees in both biology and religion.
After On the Origin of Species was first published in 1859, British scientist Thomas Huxley used it as a club to try to shatter the intellectual monopoly of the Anglican Church.
Back then, to teach at the prestigious Oxford or Cambridge Universities, a professor had to become a member of the Anglican clergy.
No Catholics, Jews, Muslims, or atheists need apply.
"You had to agree that nature was God's creation," Gilbert said, and the only people thought worthy of interpreting God's creation were those in the official state religion.
