The origin of species, and Everything Else: coping with evolution and religion

National Review via The Free Library ^ | October 8, 2007 | Jim Manzi

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL!

You and I and Betty (and I assume Alamo-Girl) and GKC all agree on this -- we cannot abandon tradition and history without losing something of our humanity. No matter how "scientific" the temptation is ;-)

Indeed. Thank you so much for your post!

[betty boop]

we cannot abandon tradition and history without losing something of our humanity.

Indeed, grey_whiskers. But why would anybody want to dump 5 or so millennia of accumulated human intellectual capital, the product of much trial and error, and the copious blood, sweat, and tears of innumerable generations of human beings?

truly it has been observed that if a society forgets its past, its present is chaos, and its future nonexistent.

Thanks so much for the wonderful excerpt from Chesterton! And for writing!

[ChessExpert]

Kevmo,

Congratulations on maintaining a proper demeanor despite insults from Internet thugs residing at freerepublic.

Thanks for excellent content also. It seems obvious that good science and good religion do not need insults, intimidation, or coercion to prosper. I like a good intellectual discussion or debate. What I find offensive are attempts to "win" based upon insults, disparagement, claims of consensus, denial of tenure, denial of good work through the "peer review" process, firing, faking data, and using public moneys for presenting one side. All these have been done in the United States in the 20th and 21st centuries. Many of these practices been defended by some here at freerepublic.

I think the main culprits in recent years have been advocates of global warming and some advocates of evolutionary theory. My assessment is that the complexity of climate and the complexity of life on earth, over vast expanses of time, is such that no dogmatism is warranted. Simply saying "we don't know" seems like good science and forbidden words at one and the same time.

[Kevmo]

Thank you for your kind words.

You bring up an interesting point about good science and good religion. I suppose that my little inductive triangle would support a basis/filter for good religion, but I’ve never been comfortable with that term.

The way I see it, I’ve made a rational decision to accept that Jesus was Who He says He is — God Himself — because His resume fits the claim. I can see how that line of reasoning wanders into the realms of religion (my preference: spirituality) but I shy away from religious discussions on FR and elsewhere. I don’t care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, nor will I go back & forth with catholics on whether Mary was assumed to Heaven nor with Calvinists on 5 point Calvinism and I don’t know what armenianism is. I like to stick to easily verifiable signposts such as the best attested event in history: the crucifixion of Jesus for claiming equality with God.

A person who says that Jesus was an evil man or a lunatic is actually closer to the truth than someone who claims He was just a great man like any other, along the same lines as Buddha or George Washington or Plato.