Evolution's Trap

Crucial presidential debates are coming soon. For Republicans they can be a problem, especially when it comes to evolution. Often reporters ask questions designed to do irreparable harm to conservative candidates. That was exactly the intent of the evolution question in the first GOP candidate forum on MSNBC on May 3.

On that occasion, Senator McCain was asked if he believed in evolution. He said he did, then added he sees the hand of God in the beauty of the Grand Canyon.

Standing at the Grand Canyon is certainly an awe-inspiring experience. Senator McCain is not the first person to be inspired by such a sight and think of God. That has nothing to do with biological evolution, however. But that's okay, because the question was not about biological evolution either.

The other candidates were asked to raise their hand if they did not believe in evolution.

Three hands were raised. Seven candidates kept their hands down.

The problem is this: The evolution question is not a yes or no question. Before those of you on the Left start to object, consider another scenario.

What if the request had been, "Please raise your hand if you don't believe in abortion"?

The reaction from liberals would have been swift and geared to paint the question and questioner as unfair. Here's a not-to-hard-to-imagine response from the Left:

"What does the question mean? Some people believe in abortion on demand, and some that abortion should never, ever be legal. But most people don't fall into either camp. What about someone who is generally pro-life, but believes abortion should be available in cases of rape or incest? Some people believe abortions should be legal early in a pregnancy, but oppose late-term and partial-birth abortion.

A yes or no question on abortion is unfair. It doesn't give the candidates a chance to explain or defend their positions. When they raise or don't raise their hand, viewers have no idea what they mean. All this does is create confusion, resulting in the exact opposite of what public debates are supposed to achieve."

Left-leaning intellectuals and pro-abortion apologists would have high-fived each other on their brilliant objection to the question and their request.

Here's what I believe the best answer would have been to the evolution trap:

"I can't answer until I understand your question. Are you asking about microevolution or macroevolution?"

This forces an airing of the issue. The moderator can only proceed by saying to the candidate, "Can you explain what you mean?" in which case the candidate should continue:

"Well, if you mean microevolution, where an organism adapts to its environment with the flexibility already built into its existing DNA, then yes I believe in that; we see it every day in nature. But if you mean macroevolution, where mutations stack on one another to create entirely new organ systems and transform one species into a totally different species, then I, along with many well-credentialed scientists, have serious problems with that theory."

That answer advances public debate and you can say it in thirty seconds. When someone says they do not believe in "evolution," the common attack is to point to scientifically-provable microevolution and charge the candidate with being an anti-science religious zealot.

But when people say "evolution," most are referring to macroevolution. By forcing the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" into the answer, one confronts the danger and properly frames the issue. Noting that plenty of serious thinkers have problems with theories of macroevolution shows the candidate to be informed, and not a member of the lunatic fringe.

A series of polls from the Gallup poll to the Newsweek poll show that about half of Americans have problems with Darwinian macroevolution. Such a position may be out of step with the majority of the press, but it's not out of step with a majority of Americans.

And there are scientists who express such concerns. Models like the doctrine of irreducible complexity simply explain that certain organs like the eye require dozens of different component parts, each made of millions or billions of complex cells, all working together to function. It argues such organs cannot evolve over time because even if such an organ is 99% complete, it still has 0% function, and thus does not do anything to help the species. This model suggests organs must be entirely present and perfectly placed together or they do not work. Modern theories of macroevolution have no explanation for how such organs can come about. Regardless of what you believe, it's a fair point for a rational person to make and that does not rely on any religious belief. It's a scientific objection, not a religious one.

"Yes" or "no" questions on evolution only serve to make Republican candidates appeal to one part of the electorate by alienating others. It's gotcha politics, pure and simple. They serve no purpose other than helping Democrats get elected.

I'd like to give the questioners the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they didn't realize how unfair the question was. It's possible they don't understand this issue themselves.

Some on the Left can still be so blinded by their political ideology and opposition to conservative Christian beliefs that they ask such unproductive questions in order to promote a clearly secular agenda.

Televised forums of presidential candidates should be about more. The country deserves better.

Mr. Blackwell is a contributing editor of Townhall.comand a senior fellow at both the Family Research Council and the Buckeye Institute.