Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 70 percent of evangelical Christians believe that living beings have always existed in their present form, compared with 32 percent of Protestants and 31 percent of Catholics. Politically, 60 percent of Republicans are creationists, whereas only 11 percent accept evolution, compared with 29 percent of Democrats who are creationists and 44 percent who accept evolution. A 2005 Harris Poll found that 63 percent of liberals but only 37 percent of conservatives believe that humans and apes have a common ancestry. What these figures confirm for us is that there are religious and political reasons for rejecting evolution. Can one be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian? Yes. Here's how.
1. Evolution fits well with good theology. Christians believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God. What difference does it make when God created the universe--10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago? The glory of the creation commands reverence regardless of how many zeroes in the date. And what difference does it make how God created life--spoken word or natural forces? The grandeur of life's complexity elicits awe regardless of what creative processes were employed. Christians (indeed, all faiths) should embrace modern science for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divine in a depth and detail unmatched by ancient texts.
2. Creationism is bad theology. The watchmaker God of intelligent-design creationism is delimited to being a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts. This God is just a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than we are. An omniscient and omnipotent God must be above such humanlike constraints. As Protestant theologian Langdon Gilkey wrote, "The Christian idea, far from merely representing a primitive anthropomorphic projection of human art upon the cosmos, systematically repudiates all direct analogy from human art." Calling God a watchmaker is belittling.
3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature. As a social primate, we evolved within-group amity and between-group enmity. By nature, then, we are cooperative and competitive, altruistic and selfish, greedy and generous, peaceful and bellicose; in short, good and evil. Moral codes and a society based on the rule of law are necessary to accentuate the positive and attenuate the negative sides of our evolved nature.
4. Evolution explains family values. The following characteristics are the foundation of families and societies and are shared by humans and other social mammals: attachment and bonding, cooperation and reciprocity, sympathy and empathy, conflict resolution, community concern and reputation anxiety, and response to group social norms. As a social primate species, we evolved morality to enhance the survival of both family and community. Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures.
5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. Much of Christian morality has to do with human relationships, most notably truth telling and marital fidelity, because the violation of these principles causes a severe breakdown in trust, which is the foundation of family and community. Evolution describes how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. Likewise, truth telling is vital for trust in our society, so lying is a sin.
6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics. Charles Darwin's "natural selection" is precisely parallel to Adam Smith's "invisible hand." Darwin showed how complex design and ecological balance were unintended consequences of competition among individual organisms. Smith showed how national wealth and social harmony were unintended consequences of competition among individual people. Nature's economy mirrors society's economy. Both are designed from the bottom up, not the top down.
Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced. The senseless conflict between science and religion must end now, or else, as the Book of Proverbs (11:29) warned: "He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."
|
In today's world, we've got bigger fish to fry than the argument about evolution.
Why Christians and conservatives should NOT accept evolution.
If they accept macroevolution they believe God is a liar.
There is no conflict between Christianity and evolution.
There is a conflict between biblical literalists and evolution. Not much doubt about that.
This is actually a contradiction in conservative thought that I've been thinking about quite a bit. Conservatives normally have no problem accepting systemic logic, especially when it comes to economics. As far as I can tell, evolution versus ID is the sole exception to this. Of course, this explains why the evolution versus ID "debate" (I know that there are several who are opposed to even calling it a "debate") rages as fiercely as it does even at the epicenter of conservative thought on the Internet.
Yeah, I've been reading a lot of Thomas Sowell lately.
Oh, man this should be good....1-2-3 GO!
Be nice? Wonder why he didn't give us background on himself... From wikipedia
Michael Shermer made a guest appearance in a 2004 episode of Penn&Teller's: Bullshit!, in which he argued that the Christian sacred text was "mythic storytelling" and that literal interpretation of events described therein would be "to miss the point of the Bible."[1] His stance was supported by the show's hosts, whose fierce atheist positions are renowned. The episode in question, The Bible: Fact or Fiction?, sought to debunk the notion that the Holy Bible is an empirically reliable historical record. Opposing Shermer was Dr. Paul Maier, professor of ancient history at Western Michigan University.
"Honey, have you seen my razor?"
-- Occam
This should have been posted earlier.
Umm, although I think a case could be made for Christianity and evolution co-existing and perhaps even being consistent, this certainly isn't it.
Popcorn Placemarker
Not true, power = work/time.
Last I checked, despite having tossed Second Maccabees, the only explicit Scriptural support for creation ex nihilo, out of their canon, protestants don't believe in the eternal existence of matter, much less of living being in their present form.
If evolution is false then God is at best a practical joker, given all the evidence he had to fake.
Can any Christian who believes in evolution please explain one thing to me...at what point between apes and humans did God decide to give humans a soul? Was it a specific generation, ie. a mother and father weren't given souls, but their children were? Or did the soul evolve along with the ape-men?
"There is no conflict between Christianity and evolution."
.....here's a good place to start the debate.......
That's a classic example of begging the qwestion.
Creationism is bad theology.
This is not only begging the question, but the author proceeds to bait-and-switch:
The watchmaker God of intelligent-design creationism is delimited to being a garage tinkerer piecing together life out of available parts.
The "watchmaker" God is a deist notion. And creationism does not believe in "available parts" but that God created everything ex nihilo
Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature.
No it does not. The author is completely unaware of what the doctrine of Original Sin is.
Evolution explains family values.
So does creationism.
Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts.
And excludes others.
Evolution explains conservative free-market economics.
It also explains complete despotism as well. Evolutionism, unlike Christianity, does not inherently favor liberty - in fact, it undermines the concept.
I'm a Southern Baptist, but I don't believe that evolution is inconsistent with the Bible. It's only inconsistent with some folk's INTERPRETATION of the Bible.
But I would point out that the Priests claimed that Jesus could not be the Christ because he was from Nazareth, and the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem.
There are lots of places in the Bible where people misinterpreted what was said in the scriptures. In order to be a Christian, you don't need to disbelieve evolution. You only need to believe that Christ is God, that He died on the cross for our sins, and that He rose again.
To be fair, the Bullshit! episode in question specifically addressed only selected stories from the Old Testament, not the Bible as a whole or even the New Testament at all.
Scientific American has slipped increasingly leftwards for many years.
Believing evolution is fine for those who reject God's revelation of Himself, create God in their own image, and thereby feel comfortable in worshipping their own creation.
Romans 1
Still waiting...
Gen 1:1 In the beginning G*D created the heaven and the earth.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
There are a lot of things the Bible doesn't discuss. That's one of them.
But there are others... Like where did Cain & Able get their wives?
There is not necessarily a conflict between Christianity and evolution as a matter of simple historical record. There is a conflict insofar as God has given us the Genesis account for a reason, and has not asked us to dwell on evolution. Therefore, regardless of whther evolution happened in history, God has asked us to reflect on the Genesis account, so that is what we should do.
Interesting article saw on this issue from the Orthodox Jewish perspective:
How does Judaism's claim that the world is roughly 5,700 years old coincide with science?
by Mrs. Sarah Levi
Torah and science can never contradict each other, because two truths cannot be contradictory. When we find an apparent contradiction between the two, it is generally due to a misunderstanding regarding what one is saying.
Science cannot really prove the age of the universe. All that scientists can do is speculate about the age of the universe by extrapolating from observed phenomena. No scientist alive today can say that he or she has first-hand information regarding the beginning of the universe.
The Torah tells us how old the universe is.
Science tells us how old the universe seems to be.
The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be To give a simple example: how old was Adam when he was first created? Was he a baby? Young man? Old man?
Our sages tell us that he had the body and maturity of a 20-year-old man. Now, let us imagine Adam going for a medical exam a day after he was created. The doctor asks for his age and he answers: “one day”. “You must be kidding me,” she would reply. “You seem to be at least 20 years old!”
They are both right. Adam is saying how old he really is, while the doctor is estimating his age based on “scientific proof.”
The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be. The one who believes in G-d, however, can perfectly accept the fact that the world was created in a mature state and therefore does not contradict the fact that it is really younger than it seems to be.
If they accept macroevolution they believe God is a liar.
Or alternatively they believe that the Bible isn't as easy to understand as the crystal-clear physical evidence of common descent.
This is a sectarian dispute between certain brands of Christianity, the scientific evidence being absolutely unambiguous.
...I'm waiting also.....Don't think there are any takers, though.......
Holy carp, that was funny. I feel like a huge dork for getting it, though.
God hasn't asked us to dwell on quantum mechanics or atomic theory either. Best throw that PC away, it is based on Godless scientific theories.
Very true:
The "Clergy Letter Project". 10,000 clergymen endorse evolution.
Faith and the Human Genome. By the director of the Human Genome Project, a Christian. Excerpt:
I think scientist-believers are the most fortunate. We have the opportunity to explore the natural world at a time in history where mysteries are being revealed almost on a daily basis. We have the opportunity to perceive the unraveling of those mysteries in a special perspective that is an uncovering of God's grandeur. This is a particularly wonderful form of worship.
Don't hold your breath.
Why can't God write in symbolic ways? (You seem to be boxing Him in by saying that either he is lying or he meant the Genesis account to be simple historical fact.)
As for Cain and Able, they weren't Adam and Eve's only children. They probably "married" their sisters.
"Therefore, regardless of whther evolution happened in history, God has asked us to reflect on the Genesis account, so that is what we should do."
Yes, but the Genesis account states that Adam was made from the dust (or dirt) and Eve was created from his rib. It doesn't state that we were created from apes.....
Bwaaaaaahaaahaaaa
You may think He is a practical joker based on your assumptions of what happened in time past. Assumptions that, by the way, cannot be scientifically substantiated or repeated in an experiment under controlled conditions.
Why do you care about the answer to that question?
It is as fruitful as pondering whether or not Adam had a navel.
"Honey, have you seen my razor?"
-- Occam
"They took it to the CSI lab. They want to know who shaves the barber."
--Mrs. Occam
"Item: Friar Guillaume's razor ne'er shaved the barber,
it is much too dull."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Glory Road
Evolutionism implies biological determinism.
A little defensive, aren't we?
I am simply making the point that, for evangelical Christians, the Bible is numero uno, and God included Creation, not evolution, in the Bible. What is the reason for this, other than he wanted us to reflect upon it?
If you don't believe the Bible is numero uno, then that's your prerogative.
Well, I'm Jewish, but I'll give it a shot: It was the point where Adam was born.
A little less glibly, the first human soul was the first along the line of human evolution, who realized "I am," thus becoming the image of God -- "I Am That I Am."
Saying otherwise is really just the flip side of "evolution leads to Naziism, yada yada..."
How do you know that God is responsible for the evidence?
Your point being...?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.