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."
yes, I agree...evolution goes against our common sense. But so much of the public school system tends to try and break down kids common sense. The wrote learning and unatural memorization of alot of uneeded information gets them wrapped up in their thoughts.
Why indeed?
In this thread, I have tried to be polite and rational. However, faced with words such as those, I am at a loss. I have been around for years, and I don't consider myself a "gutter" poster. But when faced with sentiments such as the above, I question the value of posting here. This may very well be the intended effect of rudeness and breaking the spirit of the rules while adhering to the letter.
Is this opinion truly representative of the religion forum? Of FR at large?
The reason I post in evo thread is twofold. One, I do not believe science stands in opposition to faith. And two, I believe the future of national competitiveness rests on modern conservatism re-embracing science.
That's true. That's when their good parents come in and, hopefully, their friends who either go to private school or are home schooled bring them back to normalcy.
Thanks. We need more like Warrior of Justice. He walks the talk. A true conservative banned from an evolution thread on a conservative site.
For some reason, it reminds me of voter fraud.
Good Night!
I can't imagine how someone could say such a thing without knowing it would tar a whole host of people with the same brush.
People who can't follow the rules? People who smear other long-time posters?
Others have received warnings and have had posts pulled. In this thread I have received warnings have had posts pulled.
I didn't see any smear on his part.
I strongly disagree with this assertion.
Furthermore, EVERYONE deserves respect - whether they are new or long-time posters. Do we discriminate here?
Actually, to some degree the answer is 'yes'. What you have written is an admirable notion, but the practicality of the situation is a new poster who is mouthing off and ignoring the mods is going to get zotted.
"Rabid frothing gay atheist liberals" didit placemark
Impersonal, non-judgmental placemarker.
Although, not as clear as it is now, IMPOSTORS, have used satellit cephalics to compell thinking, and al laggregated thinking of Police Officers, Federal Officers, and Military Officers, as well as that of the Secret Service in it self their way.
The last man in America who doesn't know to line his cap with tinfoil.
He was "nuked" because he ignored my repeated warnings to discuss the issues and not make it personal. The result was a flame war.
I will not be ignored.
He states that evolution explains (fill in the blank), but then provides zilch as evidence for his position. Just making the claim isn't proof.
"It should be accepted because the evidence points toward it, not because of its consequences."
Which evidence is that exactly?
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.