The most highly publicized conflict in recent years occurred in Kansas when the state Board of Education voted to remove fundamental elements of modern evolutionary theory from the Kansas educational standards. As a consequence, Kansas public schools were not required to teach the full modern theory of evolution to their students – though they also were not prohibited from doing so – and the door was opened to the teaching of “alternative” theories such as “intelligent design” creationism (this vote was later reversed by a school board whose membership had been changed by an election).

While many columnists have spilled ink over these conflicts, as far as I know no one's written about what I find most interesting in all this, so it's my turn. Here's my fascination: Just what is it about evolutionary theory that drives some (though by no means all) religionists to fits of frothing at the mouth?

The obvious answer doesn't quite satisfy. Sure, the literalists object to evolution because it doesn't jibe with the creation story in The Bible. They somehow manage to reconcile all of The Bible's internal contradictions, though, so it can't simply be a burning need for consistency. Besides, I don’t think there are enough Bible-literalists in the United States to account for all the resistance to the teaching of evolutionary theory we’ve seen. There must be something about evolution which bothers other people, too, not just folks who need every bit of The Bible to literally be true. Here's my hunch: What bugs the spit out of many people about evolutionary theory are the implications of two of its primary elements.

The first of the two is the idea that the evolutionary process is fundamentally unguided (yes, some people accept that evolution occurred and believe it was guided, but to me that’s like thinking both that the earth revolves around the sun and that the sun revolves around the earth, so I’m going to ignore that particular subset of this issue). In other words, no outcome was planned or guaranteed.

The second is the idea that our species, Homo sapiens, is as much a product of the evolutionary process as all other species are.

Well, so what? What difference does any of that make?

If evolution produces new species, and evolution is unguided, then there was no guarantee as to what species would evolve.

If there was no guarantee as to what species would evolve, and our species is a product of evolution, then there was no guarantee that we would ever evolve.

If there was no guarantee that we would ever evolve, then there's nothing special about us as a species. We're one of many, not singled out for special creation or treatment. If there's nothing special about us, then we aren't the culmination of the creation of life, or even the evolution of life. Put bluntly, if the process of evolution made us, then we're not the reason all this exists – and that is evolution's rub.

Evolution rubs because the belief that humans are the focus of creation is central to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That belief is clearly and unequivocally proclaimed in Genesis, and it's implicit throughout The Bible. Yahweh/God/Allah didn't create the world for jellyfish or chrysanthemums or beetles or gorillas, now did “He”? “He” created all the world as a place for us to live, and all the other life forms within it as a “kingdom” for us to have dominion over. “He” didn't send prophets to coerce and cajole the rattlesnakes or bumblebees or squid or ferrets to honor him properly, now did “He”? We're the only ones worthy of divine attention according to this worldview.

If, on the other hand, evolution produced the world we live in and our species, that anthropocentric explanation of how the world came to be this way has no basis in reality. We can hardly be the focus of life if there was no guarantee we would ever exist, now can we? And, if we're not the focus of life, if we're not divinely mandated to rule the world, how can we justify acting as if we're the rulers of the world? If we weren't anointed as rulers, the hierarchy through which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam organize the world is built on a delusion, and a very dangerous delusion at that.

Moreover, it is our culture’s conquest of the world (not humanity’s, mind you, because not all human cultures are – or ever have been – part of it) that has brought us to the edge of destroying it through the multiple threats of climate change, mass extinction, overpopulation, nuclear war and all the rest. And although our culture (in the sense I’m using the word) encompasses many people who don’t believe in The Bible at all, the impact that the biblical mandates of dominion and stewardship have had in bringing us to the edge of this precipice can hardly be overestimated.

Even if everyone repudiated The Bible, we could still choose to try to rule the world – simply because we have the power to do so. Atheists reject the existence of “God,” but I haven't seen any evidence that this forces them to also reject our assumed right to rule. Buddhists, Hindus, and agnostics have proven themselves more than willing to act as rulers of the world, too.

Belief in a creator doesn't make people world conquerors, either. Many - maybe all –tribal cultures have believed in creators of one sort or another without ever making war on the world. To this day, some of those cultures continue to live as part of the community of life, and not its would-be rulers.

I also know people who find much of value in The Bible but don’t believe it’s all “the word of God.” They’re able to discard the dominion business quite nicely while holding onto the parts that they like.

Still, there is a clear correlation between the Genesis explanation for how the world came to be this way and the way the people of our culture live. Though I am convinced the evidence supports the conclusion that our culture’s world conquest began before any of The Bible was written, the dominion mandate Genesis attributes to “God” has been used by a great many people as a powerful justification for continuing and intensifying our attempts to control the world and shape it to our desires. Stripped of the cover of divine dictate (“God” made us do it!), our culture’s lifestyle is exposed as a megalomaniacal war for power on the rest of the community of life instead of a holy mission to fulfill our “God”-given destiny. Take that vision away and you shatter the mythology that currently enables huge numbers of people to rationalize the way they’re living.

Once you look at it from this perspective, the creationists' obstinate refusal to accept evolutionary theory makes perfect sense. They aren't being hysterical or small-minded when they say they can't “believe” in both evolution and their religion of choice. Evolutionary theory does contradict The Bible, in the most profound way I can imagine. I understand why they don't want their children to learn it.

I don't see any reason their children should be forced to learn it, either. If they want to hang onto their beliefs despite conflicting scientific evidence, then what business does any individual, group or government have in trying to undermine that choice? There is no one right curriculum that everyone should learn. Besides, there’s no way to prove their beliefs are false. I certainly don’t claim to know the “true” nature of the universe.

It's a different matter, though, for religionists to try to force their beliefs on other people by altering public school curricula. Students in public schools come from a variety of religions and spiritual traditions, and some are atheists. Since public schools are arms of the government, as long as they exist (which, hopefully, won’t be long – but that’s another topic), teaching any religion there constitutes government oppression of everyone who isn’t part of that religion.

Which isn't to say that you can't both accept the evidence for evolutionary theory and be a creationist – you can. In my opinion, though, you'd have to be a different sort of creationist, one who believes there was/is a creative force of some kind, but what it created was the process that produced the community of life we are part of, not every individual species within that community.

That explanation makes a lot more sense to me than a micro-managing creator because of one simple, clear virtue: It jibes with the evidence.

Does evidence matter? We all have to decide that for ourselves.