Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[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."

[Dimensio]

. The WHOLE CONTEXT says exactly what I said it says.

You claimed that the book contains
""Scientists generally describe the FORMATION of THE UNIVERSE as having occurred through evolution. The idea (MYTH) that living things developed fromNONliving MATTER and changed/evoled THROUGH THE AGES."

The words "myth", "NONliving" and "matter" do not occur in the entry. You have clearly fabricated those elements of the entry. Moreover, the encyclopaedia defines the theory of evolution as "The idea that all living things evolved from simple organisms and changed through the ages to produce millions of species..." The word "universe" does not appear in that definition. You are wrong when you claim that the theory of evolution addresses the origin of the universe. Darwin never wrote on the formation of the universe, and it is dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.

I don't want to reprint ENTIRE DICTIONARIES AND ENCYCLPEDIAS..

That is apparent. It is clear that you would rather fabricate claims instead.

I quote the relevant and pertinent parts that deal with the topic at ahnd.

The excerpt that you quoted, with the elements that you fabricated, was speaking of the word "evolution" in general, not the "theory of evolution". The encyclopaedia correctly defines the theory of evolution as explaining the diversification of life, but does not include any statements on the formation of the universe.

[Dimensio]

I didn't lie. It's word for word from BOTH the Dictionary AND Encyclopedia...I did add emphasis to certain points, nothing more.

Adding words to a definition that are not present in the original definition is dishonesty, it is not emphasis.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

The Bible is INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT

Perhaps. But the ability of man to translate and interpret it is not.

[King Prout]

since it is demonstrably factual, it needn't "become true"

[Dimensio]

There is reason to doubt the authenticity of the quote allegedly from Patrick Henry. Do you have an authoritative source for the quote? The website offers no reference to show that the quote is accurate.

The website that you reference offers no reference at all for the Washington quote. When and where did Washington make the statement?

The website that you reference offers a date, but no context or source for the Adams quote. Where did he write the statement or, if it was spoken, where did he say it? How was the quote recorded?

[Dimensio]

Uh, I never said I personally seen or handled carbo dating.

You claimed that carbon dating tests have yeilded dates of "millions" of years. Your claim is false, because no carbon dating test can possibly produce such an age.

.I HAVE personally seen and held sea-shells and fossils of sea-creatures on the tops of mountains and in the middle of deserts.

As has been explained, mountains are formed through the upheaval of landmasses. There is no reason to believe that the fossils that you have found arrived through any means other than undersea land being pushed upward.

[Dimensio]

Response Two. George Wasghington did say that.

When and where did he make the statement?

[Liberal Classic]

I believe you're incorrect. I've read several biographies of Franklin, and I am making no assumptions. Franklin was a rather unorthodox fellow, and believed in salvation through works. Furthermore, unlike many institutions in colonial New England, the Academy of Philadelphia was not established to be a seminary school.

[Dimensio]

- BOTH were/are word for word postings...you lie.

You said that the World Book Encyclopaedia stated

"Scientists generally describe the FORMATION of THE UNIVERSE as having occurred through evolution. The idea (MYTH) that living things developed fromNONliving MATTER and changed/evoled THROUGH THE AGES.""

The actual entry reads

"Evolution is a process of change over time. The word evolution may refer to various types of change. For example, scientists generally describe the formation of the universe as having occurred through evolution."

You have clearly fabricated portions of your excerpt.