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.
But in fact the world is governed by objective reality, and reality serves as the final, objective judge for which moral system is best for us to follow. (Otherwise, nobody could ever learn anything from history!)
"So how does this personal interpretation of yours demonstrate the existence of a uniform, discernible (and presumptively correct) "literal" interpretation?"
I think this is where you and I are missing each other. I meant to assert that the Bible is to be interpreted literally- not that all who interpret literally will reach the same conclusions. And for those who interpret Genesis literally - Creation of Man as a seperate act of God.
"I suppose you mean an indefinite duration longer than a 12 or 24 hour period"
Genesis 2:4 refers to the entire creation period as a "day." I believe that day can mean "period of time" either shorter (as in Genesis 2:17) or longer (as in Genesis 2:4).
Now here's one for you. I consider myself to be one who takes the Bible literally. Yet, I do not believe that God is covered with feathers (as in the Poetry books) and I do not believe that Satan will be bound from a chain like the ones atHome Depot (as in Revelation).
My literal view of Genesis is..
1) Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens and the earth
(Insert the dinosaurs and the ancient world)
2) Genesis 1:2 The earth degenerated into an uninhabitable state. The text "the earth was" can also be translated "the earth became" without form and void, or "chaotic and useless." Other texts (Jer.4:23, Is. 45:18) indicate that this was not how God originally made it, it degenerated into this state.
3) The re-creation process, involving man.
4) God did not need to create all forms of animals as we know them, micro-evolution within the various species has taken place. (a horse and a zebra make a "zorse".
http://www.spotsnstripes.com/ZorseInfo.htm
5) Adam sinned, and brought spiritual death (immediately) and physical death (eventually) to the human race.
6) Noah would not have had to take all forms on the ark, only the genetic prototypes.
This is my interpretation- I take the Bibel literally that man is a unique creation of God made in His image, yet micro-evolution does occur.
As far as Adam's death brining death to the "world" through sin (Romans 5:12) th eword world means "world of men" as in John 3:16, "for God so loved the world that He sent His Son." Obviously this did not mean dinosaurs and mosquitos.
While I have your attention- let me say that I never meant to infer that you are not a Christian if you do not take the Bible literally.
The Church's Founding Fathers spiritualized most of the Old Testament-yet were deeply committed Christians.
"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"
1) Assurance of Salvation.
2) To know the character of God.
3) To find comfort during duress.
4) Instruction for life and raising a family.
5) Cleansing of the inner man.
6) To find God's general will for life.
7) To see how Jesus reached out to the lost.
I am only slightly troubled when someone says a natural disaster is God's will. I am seriously troubled when someone says the killing of everyone in a city is god's will, or the stoning of unruly children, or witches. Or that it is God's will for slaves to obey their masters.
This is some seriously sick stuff.
This is true, which is why alleged Darwinists should stop bashing religion.
Okay, thanks
"I am seriously troubled when someone says the killing of everyone in a city is god's will."
Are you troubled about the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima? I hope not. Lives were taken, that many more could be spared.
What if God got tired of sending individuals from a people group to hell, and knew that the only way that they would turn is through a catostrophic event in which many died?
Man has a free will, and a terribly stubborn heart.
God never does anything for no reason. If he takes a life, it is either just punishment- or redemptive in nature- that many more would be saved.
And in His perfect knowledge, He sees where each one us will end up, anyway.
Perhaps you can explain how various literal interpretations can be literally different and still be literal.
What does your post have to do with what I said?
I suppose for convinced atheists any mention of God by government creates a theocracy. Most people probably don't see things in such a stark light. Mention of God doesn't necessarily imply a particular sectarian view of that God or mean that belief in God is compulsory.
I'm not saying that I'd personally want to see legislation about the teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design. I'm not crazy about adding new laws, and generally prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. But the alarmism of some secularists -- the idea that there's something wrong or unamerican about things that are very much in the American grain -- makes it hard for me to agree with them.
Those who sound the "science is under attack" alarm without an admission to their opponents that technology itself can have dire consequences when it's not guided by humane and moral values that give me the creeps. Perhaps those who give a more balanced view will win converts to their view.
"Perhaps you can explain how various literal interpretations can be literally different and still be literal."
When I speak to someone, I hope they take the words at face value. If they have trouble understanding, they ask, "what did he say."
When politicians speak, we hear what they say, but we often ask, "I wonder what he really mean by that?"
As this applies to Genesis, a literal interpretation believes in a real Adam and Eve, (as opposed to figurative) a real garden of Eden (as opposed to a spiritual) a real space time fall, and a real need for redemption.
So rather than immediately ask "what does it mean" we ask, "what does the text say." Real people, real places, real events.
I will admit interpretation can sometimes be tricky, in that the Bible is a spiritual book about spiritual events.
So what of a talking snake? Are we really to believe that a snake spoke to Eve?
This is where we would look to the rest of Scripture for clues. Can an evil spirit enter an animal? According to the gospels, they can (a herd of swine). So this "serpent" many commentators believe, was none other than the devil himself. A literal snake, with the voice of the devil. Yet, in Revelation the devil is called a serpent, and when Moses wanted to represent sin he put a serpent on a pole in the wilderness.
My rule of literal interpretation (and not just mine, many others as well) is when at all possible- take the text literally. If the text is in a book of prophecy, or poetry be ready for a spititual interpretation.
Back to my original post- Jesus when asked about marriage said that God "created them male and female." Paul referred to Jesus as "the last Adam" one who took away the sin of "the first Adam." There is every indication that Jesus and Paul believed in a literal creation of man as distinct from the animals.
One post said, "maybe they were unaware of evolution."
That's a problem. I have no problem with someone saying, "while Jesus was on this earth he was unaware of nanotechnology." He never spoke on nanotechnology. He did, however, refer to the creation account as a literal event, as did the apostle Paul.
That being said, as a board member of the California Republican Assembly- I am glad that within the Conservative movement we have the diversity I have seen in this post. Conservativism is a political movement-by man for man, and Christianity is a religious movement, from God to man.
I am in very full accord with your point here, and thank you for an excellent posting, which gave me much to ponder
As we have both said, the application of technology must be guided by humane and moral values--and under our democracy, this guidance must ultimately derive from the people, in which sovreignty finally resides. For me (if I may digress a little about my own opinion, which I admit is of no particular weight or concern!), democracy grants each of us as citizens well-defined rights and responsibilities, and it is a cornerstone of my conservative philosophy that these are deeply interdependent (liberals, it seems to me, are forever talking personal 'rights,' very rarely about personal 'responsibility'--but never mind, that's all beside my point!). Cut to the chase: we all of us as citizens have a right to influence matters of public concern, but that right entails a responsibility to inform ourselves of the relevent issues (I am oversimplifying, I know).
I think the alarm you have noted in these threads is, at bottom, a genuine and growing concern at the level of profound ignorance about the nature and methods of science, which is our tool of empirical knowledge of the natural world. We are the most technologically advanced (and thus, the most technologically dependent) nation in history, we boast the greatest number of world-class instituitions of learning, and claim to value education--but just look at some of the appalling ignorance on display even on these threads. When a number of fellow citizens--on whom we rely for influencing public policy--are taken by some obvious charlatans (you can guess the names), you really do have to worry about the state of education in our nation!
...A partial response (no time left) to your many excellent points; thanks again for your posting
Even someone like me (who believes himself a Christian, though is told by many Christians he is not!) can only agree with your final point here--and with a hearty 'Amen'!
As long as I'm willing to accept that the Bible is a pack of lies metaphors, right? Like the creation story. It's a just a metaphor. It represents, uh, that God - no wait - that creation - no, um, er - it teaches us that ... the world was created even though it wasn't.
Hey, I have a solution. Let's switch things around, leaving the Bible alone, and regarding Darwin's writings as metaphorical. No necessary conflict, right? What's that screaming sound?
"And far from being morally degrading, Darwinism supports the idea of a natural moral sense as part of the evolved nature of human beings."
An evolved natural moral sense - that's rich. How do you explain the common thug? Is he acting out "survival of the fittest", or just not as evolved as the rest of us? Maybe he just needs a little more science class?
I see. For example, those stupid creationists believe that homosexuality is wrong, only because some old dusty book says so.
The elightened scientific community, however, after much study guided by Darwinian principles, has decided that homosexuality is probably hereditary, and pretending that a rectum serves the same purpose as a vagina is perfectly natural. It's obvious, of course, that homosexuals would be the "fittest" among society, and therefore reproduce and, oh nevermind.
The liberal view of morality is the predictable result of morality by politicized science. Purely objective science is an elusive ideal.
I am not sure what you are suggesting.
Are you arguing for an absolutely literal 6-days-of-creation? In that case, you would be opposed to everyone from William Jennings Bryan to the proponents of "intelligent design theory." Is that your position?
Darwin speaks of those who lack the natural moral sense as "unnatural monsters," who respond only to fear of punishment. What alternative explanation do you have? The Bible teaches that psychopathic children should be brought to the elders of the tribe to be stoned to death. What else do you suggest we should do with such people?
Are you suggesting that God was unable or unwilling to work his creative power through natural evolution? What would be your Biblical support for this? I can see in the Bible that God intervenes for the purposes of salvational history. But I don't see any clear indication that He has to intervene miraculously to create every "irreducibly complex" living mechanism.
Can you cite any biblical authority for your view that God is unable to work through evolutionary processes?
And the Bible speaks of sin.
Someone Darwin would have considered an "unnatural monster" in his day can today participate in the SF gay pride parade, wearing a leather g-string, dry humping and whipping his handcuffed boyfriend on a festive float, while families stroll along, police do nothing, and the TV anchorman celebrates them.
Someone Darwin would have considered an "unnatural monster" in his day can today chant about raping women and murdering policemen. He can record this sludge, and market it to millions of people, and get rich doing so. He will be considered a hero of free speech.
Someone Darwin would have considered an "unnatural monster" in his day can today slaughter an infant in the birth canal, in the name of women's rights. The same evolutionists who protest for this right will also protest to protect endangered slugs and sand fleas.
Therein lies the obvious failure of evolutionary morality. If enough people "do it", then what was wrong last year can be considered "average", and then somehow "normal". What was unthinkable and unnatural yesterday is natural today, and those who were against it yesterday are the new villians today.
The evolution of morality is the rationale for most of our social ills. Sin has always been part of the human equation, but evolution has provided a mechanism for normalizing and accepting it. It is not a conservative value, but rather the foundation of the liberal agenda, providing the rationalization for abortion, eugenics, homosexuality, euthanasia, and a host of other democrat platform planks.
Are you suggesting that God was unable or unwilling to work his creative power through natural evolution?
I am suggesting neither. Rather, I am pointing out the logical inconsistency between the concept of "creating" and "evolving". One requires a designer, the other rejects a designer. To say that God created through the process of evolution either denies that He created anything except chaos, or replaces the mechanisms of evolution with a designer. You cannot randomly design something. If it is random, there is no design. If it is designed, it is not random.
You will no doubt tell me that evolution is not about randomness, but about design through natural selection. Fine. I would point out first, that this natural selection chooses the best option from among random mutations. Second, the theory does not state that it is God, but instead the "survival of the fittest" natural seletion process at work. Where exactly is God needed or even allowed in the process?
The Bible teaches that death and sin entered the world through man. Evolution teaches that man entered the world through a long process involving the death/extinction of millions before him, and morality is whatever is popular at the time.
You are trying to mix oil and water, and it won't work. Theistic evolution is an effort to bring creation and evolution together by asking creationists to deny any actual creation, and asking evolutionists to allow God a role in natural selection.
Every verse in the Bible containing the word "create" is a rejection of evolution. The word, whether in the Hebrew Old Testament or the Greek New Testament, is reserved for God alone. The Bible never once refers to man "creating" anything, only "making" or "building". The distinction is clear - man needs material to work with, while God alone is capable of creating out of nothing. Theistic evolution asserts that God is builder, rather than creator. Evolution as typically presented does not even give Him that credit, but denies the need for His existence altogether.
An interesting yet twisted view of reality. A fascinating attempt to turn the tables, much like the dems wailing about conservative judicial activists.
The truth, of course, is that "the left-postmodernist view of reality, where truth is merely a social construction" has tossed aside all traditional authority structures, and is based squarely on the "fundamental premise is that the natural world," rather than any religion or <gasp> "god," does in fact "give us objective criteria by which to decide an act is "good" or "bad"".
Predictably, as we "discover" these criteria, society contructs new definitions for "good" and "bad", and the two gradually switch places. The baby killer, the foul-mouthed thug, and the sexually perverse become "courageous moral trailblazers." Those who would dare point out the immorality of it all are "self-righteous, intolerant bigots."
Here's why I say it's predictable - it is, and always will be, the way of sinful man:
Isaiah 5:20-21The moral mess we are in today has been built by liberals boldly acting on the foundation of evolution and the denial of any God/lawgiver.
20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.
There are a great many creationists who have only a vague knowledge of Darwin and what he wrote.
By concentrating soley on the Bible and works by people who write about the bible or people who have theological theories about the Bible, they don't read widely on any other subject.
What you have described is the foundation of Christian evolution.
That is, the forces of history have modified and molded and changed Christianity. This evolutionary process results in a greatly modified Roman church and myraids of Protestant sects.
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.