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."
get back here, grasshopper!
the Battle of Hastings PRIME is imminent!
Since when is opinion necessarily religion? Furthermore, it wasn't the opinion of the poster, but the opinion of the author, which was printed in the news. It was news, and it was about science. It should never have been moved.
ah, RW, thanks for setting up the Hastings Prime.
Now, now, that wasn't personal, it was directed at a large group of people. Making fun of, or insulting large groups of people is OK in the religion forums, as long as you don't direct it at one particular person.
Single bullet theory bad, cluster bomb ok. That's how I understand the rules. From what I can determine, it isn't what is real or true, but what you believe to be real and true that matters in the religion forums.
You MISSED!
Ann Coulter does make some excellent commentary. I love watching liberals squirm, and she is one of the best at doing it. She should just stay away from science, and stick with what she actually knows.
Honestly I think you guys set up accounts over there at DC.
Yes, RW, I am a retread. I used to be "demosthenes the elder". I was banned for being a bit too harsh on a Border-issue thread. Jim Robinson is well aware of these facts, as I fessed up some two years ago when I requested his permission to rejoin the ranks of the monthly donors.
Subsequent to that, during the Terri mess, I was Odin-ZOTted by Jim Robinson himself. The next day, JimRob allowed me back in. These above events are alluded to in the text heading the top of my profile page.
All of the above is just the mildest rebuke of your comment, quoted above. Moreover, a thorough perusal of my profile and posting history renders any accusation of affiliation with DU or other Leftist infiltration patently ludicrous. One has but to observe. I heartily endorse the practice.
Now...
An Aug 16, 2006 sign up date. At least 10 'placemarkers' and then jumps right into evo threads & sides up with the evo ping list... whaddya think honestly??
I assume you refer to "jaguarbhzrd"
(courtesy ping)
My opinion? Could be a retread. Could instead be a long-time lurker. Could instead be someone who is relatively well-learned in the field who had FR's Luddite War pointed out to him(?) and who decided to sign up and join in for that purpose alone. I have seen nothing in his writings on this thread, or on any thread on this site (or over at Darwin Central), to indicate a Leftist political persuasion, and nothing at all to justify an insinuation that he is an infiltrator from DU.
Indeed, the only speculation I can make is that perhaps this poster is not fond of the floridian football team... or perhaps is an avid fan. Very hard to make any firm speculation from that screen name.
Did what you posted have some meaning -aside from what I have addressed above- some relevance to the topic and issues under discussion, that I have missed?
I plead fatigue!
I apologize - I *must* be tired - I misread "over at DC" as "over at DU"
I am more mortified by that error than you can know.
again, my apologies.
If Ann Coulter understood that, I would understand your argument. She doesn't. That is only part of her problem with science. The other problem that she has with science, is, well, science. She doesn't understand the most basic of concepts. She should stick with punditry. It's what she's good at.
Thanks for that. "Parables" are called that for a reason. They are allegorical rather than factual.
The ReligionModeratorDidn't do it placemark
Placemarker of universal respect for all opinions.
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.