Posted on 09/17/2005 11:39:07 AM PDT by Arnhart
The continuing debate over Darwinian evolution versus "intelligent design" reminds us that many conservatives fear Charles Darwin.
That's a mistake. Conservatives should see Darwin as their friend and not their enemy. Darwin's evolutionary theory supports the conservative realist view of human nature as imperfectible, in contrast to the Left's utopian view of human nature as perfectible.
Many conservatives fear Darwinism because they think it promotes an atheistic materialism. That too is a mistake. There is no necessary conflict between Darwinian science and religious belief. And far from being morally degrading, Darwinism supports the idea of a natural moral sense as part of the evolved nature of human beings.
More specifically, Darwinism sustains the conservative belief in ordered liberty as rooted in the social order of the family, the economic order of private property, and the political order of limited government.
I have elaborated my reasoning for these conclusions in a new book--DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM.
By 'these people' presumably you mean Christians, yes? By 'in the minority' presumably you mean Christians are a minority of the total population of US citizens, yes?
References, please.
I've been told by some at work and on FR that a true conservative must be a Christian who hold the Bible as the innerrant Word of God. Some have even go as far as to say that to be American, you must be solidly Christian. These people, as heart felt as they are, are in the minority.... doc30's meaning appears to be that those people who say that to be American you must be solidly Christian are in the minority. Or, to re-arrange it a little, a minority of people believe you must be solidly Christian to be American.
He's no "magic man," and you haven't even begun to weep.
Karl Marx (1818-1883) It was with his work Das Capital first published in 1867, that we find a connection, and the contact was initiated by Marx. Marx wrote Darwin, expressing his admiration for Darwin's work and requesting a forward be written by Darwin for the second edition of Das Capital.
Darwin politely declined, pleading an inadequate knowledge of economics. However, he took considerable care not to give offense, because at the time Marx was a respected academic colleague. It was decades later before it became clear to the majority that Marx was a total dweed.
It may be that many Marxists regarded Darwin's ToE to be a God-send (if you'll pardon the expression) because it gave them an excuse to declare God dead scientifically (non-existent), but it's fairly clear to me that Darwin wanted nothing to do with Marx or Marxist economics. Marx did maintain his admiration for Darwin and did send him a copy of his second edition of Das Capital. After his death (Darwin's), the book was found in his library with most of its pages uncut, indicating Darwin did little more than open the book, if even that.
You may.
However you re-arrange it, I think you're right, and if I had 'rearranged it,' I might have perceived that. Sure enough, I took doc30's experience to be anecdotal, but it was on my mind just what proportion of our population is actually Christian. I believe that number to be 65% to 80%, church-going and non-church-going, not including 'nominals.' That sort of vagueness starts arguments.
Well, Stalin and his people executed people for advocating Darwin's ideas. Such procedure still didn't improve agricultural production.
References, please
Look up Trofim Lysenko.
OK, post #144 by YHAOS provides the real answer, but I want to have a go at addressing your point here using some 'logic' of the type which some of the hardened Creationists have used in these threads:
[ID argument mode]
Ahh ha! You admit there is indeed something "wrong" with your "picture"! So, you can't explain EVERYTHING! Clearly, we need to TEACH THE CONTROVERSY! Now, to demolish your totally bogus claims, let's take them apart one by one:
1. Darwin's book on evolution ("Origin of Species"): 1859
This is a TOTALLY unfounded assertion, using man-made dating methods (i.e. reading the publication date on the frontispiece) which are completely unreliable, like bogus carbon-dating (which has been *completely* discredited on many, many websites by people with letters after their names). Can you PROVE to me that Darwin's book was published in 1859? You were not there to witness the publication, so how can you really know? Are you DENYING that printers sometimes make mistakes? Can you PROVE your ridiculous assertion by producing some *reliable* film footage showing Darwin delivering his manuscript to John Murray for publication, then strolling on down to Paternoster Square to pick up a fresh copy of an 1859 edition of The Times as it rolls hot of the press? No, of course you can't, because your absurd claim is completely false and you must retract it immediately.It is a total LIE!
2. Marx's book on communism ("Communist Manifesto"): 1848
Hey, this is LIE number two, exactly like LIE number one. With all the falsehoods that Marx wrote, do you really believe him when he put '1848' in the frontispiece of his book? Is Marx the kind of 'authority' that you accept? What other things that Marx wrote do you believe to be *true*? Hah! Now your transparent attempts at world domination and the corruption of civilization stand exposed for all to see! Gotch'a!
[/ID argument mode]
How was that? Can I talk the talk?
I agree with your main point here, and I believe an overwhelming number of scientists would as well: that is, while science does not by itself have a 'moral' dimension, how we apply the knowledge revealed by science most assuredly is a profoundly moral issue. No one is absolved from basic human moral responsibility in the name of pursuing science; the Nazi 'doctors' who performed 'experiments' on inmates in the concentration camps abdicated their basic human moral responsibility and were butchers and murderers, not scientists.
Fortunately, in our Western societies, the application of scientific knowledge is not determined by scientists in isolation but is open for debate in the public domain and--if necessary--subject to legislation enacted by our elected representatives. Granted, this is an imperfect and often fractious system, but superior, in my view, to any proposed alternative.
And it is my view that one of the most dangerous 'alternatives' to the above is in fact the proposal of the Creationists, which seems to state that science must only reveal knowledge that is consistent with a particularly narrow and sectarian definition of religious truth. It is an attempt to 'control' science by crippling knowledge and undermining basic and rational empirical methods. And--in the case of a small number of individuals, I do believe it can be demonstrated that this is part of a theocratic agenda, as much at odds with our Constitution as it is with basic science.
Summary of my point: your concerns about the use of, say, cloning technology, are widely shared (not least of all by me), these concerns are indeed moral ones, but it is both foolish and dangerous to believe we can protect ourselves from the consequences of knowledge by either not pursuing knowledge or (worse) to pollute our own well-established methodology for the pursuit of that knowledge
Cordially
The overall point I was making was what gumlegs was stating. There is a subset of conservatives that believe a true conservative must be Christian. There is another subset of Christians that believe you must be a fundamentalist type of Christian to be American. I deliberately left it vague because, as I mentioned above, who is considered a Christian depends on who you ask. I also wanted to avoid charged words and terms like "religious right," "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" since these terms are used very liberally and, in many instances, without heed to the specific meaning behind these terms. YHAOS, I believe you are right when you say 65-80% of people here in the U.S. go to church. But that covers a very, very broad range of denominations and beliefs, some of which are diametrically opposite in their outlook on Christianity. I believe only a fraction of those people would fall into the groups I described in my original post to this thread.
Thank you for your post.
The Bible does not say that the sun orbits the earth.
It says, "the sun rose." We use this same language today.
It was the Church's interpretation that was off, not the Bible.
Points well taken. And I do understand basic Hebrew and Greek well enough to consider myself a literalist.
Biblical Theology was my major, after 6 years of in class study, every supposed "contradiction" was easily reconciled.
You wrote,
"it is perfect nonsense to claim that there even is a literal interpretation of the Bible that can be uniformly discerned"
What you neglect to realize, is that the Bible is composed of history, poetry, prophecy, and instructions for living.
Genesis is a history book. So taking it literally is no more nonsense than any other history book. The New Testament are also history books. However, within the teachings of Jesus are parabable, metaphor, analogy, and hyperbole. Also, we have false statements (made by the devil, for example) that are accurately recorded.
If one follows basic rules of interpretation (without a presupposition of anti-supernaturalsim) it is really not that difficult.
Now regarding the Hebrew word "day," it is used both ways in the Bible, so we must look to the context to determine the authors intent.
We do the same thing in English. When I say "It ran" did I mean a car, a dog, or my nose? The context would determine.
But to say that English is therefore unknowable would be self-refuting. The statement itself, "we can't take words literally" would cancel itself out.
Maybe it is those who take the Theory of Evolution literally who are the real ones to watch out for!
Of course it is. Why would you suggest that I "neglect to realize" this? This is a part of the very problem with declaring that there exists a uniform, discernible "literal" translation.
(And btw, you seem to be under the impression that, because I view the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for biological diversification, I am neither a Christian nor knowledgeable about the contents of the Bible. I am rather tired of this presumption, and even more tired of the gall of those who persistently make it.)
Genesis is a history book. So taking it literally is no more nonsense than any other history book.
The first three chapters of Genesis are about as far from a "history book" as you are likely to get. And this sort of facile labeling is not in the least helpful in understanding the intent of those chapters.
If one follows basic rules of interpretation (without a presupposition of anti-supernaturalsim) it is really not that difficult.
My, how casual of you. And I suppose this pretty simple process of just following the "basic rules of interpretation" explains the multitude of dramatically differing interpretations proffered since the Bible's inception, and the fracturing of the Christian Church into a multitude of doctrinally warring factions.
Now regarding the Hebrew word "day," it is used both ways in the Bible, so we must look to the context to determine the authors intent.
Easy as that, eh? On another thread I asked for the proper interpretation of the word "die" in Genesis 2:17. A very strange discussion ensued, with no discernible agreement amongst the "literalists" who responded. Perhaps you can tell me the easily discernible meaning of the word "day" in that passage?
Maybe it is those who take the Theory of Evolution literally who are the real ones to watch out for!
The theory of evolution is not a religious concept. It does not address or pretend to address the preservation of the human soul, and it does not entail a presumption of the supernatural. Furthermore, it is not metaphoric in intent or content, and it does not purport in any way to be a moral or metaphysical guide to human inter-relations or human relations with God. This sentence of yours is therefore nonsensical.
"Perhaps you can tell me the easily discernible meaning of the word "day" in that passage?"
I would say that day means "time". The death is spiritual. This is the New Testament definition of death- not spiritually alive. God blew his breathe into Adam- and Adam was alive spiritually. From Adam to Jesus, the Spirit of God came upon the prophets, but did not dwell "in" them. Jesus blew on the dsciples and said, "receive the Holy Spirit."
The logical deduction from this is that when reality conflicts with interpretation, interpretation is wrong. The track record for religion being right about factual matters in science is pretty bleak.
And a great many others disagree with you. So how does this personal interpretation of yours demonstrate the existence of a uniform, discernible (and presumptively correct) "literal" interpretation?
As for your simple statement that the word "die" was intended to mean a "spiritual" death, how does that comport with your interpretation of the word "day" as "time" (by which I suppose you mean an indefinite duration longer than a 12 or 24 hour period)? Was God threatening in Gen. 2:17 that Adam would "surely" experience a "spiritual death" at some vague, indefinite point in the future if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
And please note that you are in complete disagreement with the "literalists" who argue the Bible's incompatibility with the theory of evolution. One of their favorite canards is that evolution and the Bible cannot be compatible precisely because, according to Gen. 2:17, physical death did not exist prior to Adam's sin.
So where is this uniform, discernible "literal" interpretation?
Churches have been wrong in their interpretation of the the Bible when they believed the sun orbits the earth, or the mechanism that keeps the stars in the sky, when they believed smallpox is God's will, when they believed lightning strikes are God's will, and when they believe drinking stimulants is against God's will or not against God's will depending on the church, but no church can possibly be wrong when it claims the theory of evolution conflicts with the Bible.
I am often surprised at the number of people who mistake OUTCOMES for STRATEGY AND DESIGN by the democratic Socialists that call themselves democrats.
The fact is that the power hungry leaders of the democratic party, and of the International Socialist movement WANT people in chaos, turmoil, and war. It then allows them to rise to dictatorial power and control.
The reason that leftist leaders salivate at the opportunity to create a "welfare state" is that it centralizes government power. It has NOTHING to do with helping people. That's merely an excuse to tax more and create more dependency.
In the end, the Democrats are the most cunning of all of the Darwinists. They use deception, guile, manipulation, and destruction to achieve their ends. Power is all that matters to them and many of their leaders would (if they haven't already) sell their souls to Satan for that power.
Well said. But those who adhere to the fictional notion that there is a simplistic, literal, and inerrant interpretation of the Bible will, of course, never agree (although one wonders why they continue to read the Bible if it just "says what it says, no more or less").
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.