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."
Discovery Institute Prime.
You are correct. That is why I stay away from the Religion forum. Here, the Bible IS a valid source of facts (scientific and otherwise). It is a great place for theology and has some of the most erudite debates on FR.
But it is NOT a place for science.
A noble accomplishment.
We had to run Darwin Central's Babbage Analytical Engine for 2 days to confirm that 1500 is indeed prime. Another triumph for DC's crack mathematologists. We are now searching to see if there may exist yet higher primes, but some of the brass teeth are wearing out and will require replacement (including shipping from London to the Galapagos). The invoice for 900 guineas will be passed on to the Grandmaster's Counting House.
Thanks for this ping....
Not with these posters!?
The Hooker letter did not publicly surface until 1950. It is doubtful that Darwin took this speculation seriously, since he never put it in any of his published works. And from what he does include in his published works, it appears the origin of life was not a problem he engaged in his evolutionary theory.
Methinks you wish to keep the door open for abiogenesis, though as a Darwinist you aren't "required" to.
I'm sure most biologists expect abiogenesis to be solved. Personally, I think it's a tough problem, and I don't expect to live to see it solved. Science is not for the impatient.
But such problems are never solved by people who don't look.
Your assessment of Darwin's speculation is as trustworthy as your quotations.
Nobelist Francis Crick (of DNA fame) thinks not, because it requires things that are impossible.
Perhaps you'd care to be more specific about his thoughts. You imply he believed life resulted from a miracle. Is that what you intended?
I was taken by surprise considering how long you have been on the forum and all your posts which I have read, the major points of which are fairly summed up at 1493.
In your list, item 6 is the point I've been trying to underscore over and again in our little sidebar. You said:
It is a continuum. Darwin's presupposition, his very theory is built on "omne vivum ex vivo" which IS the Law of Biogenesis.
And yes, ahayes, I'm aware that individuals on either side of the debate have conflicting views with their own side - which is fine, except it "threw me" to see your position evidently embraced by an old-timer, js1138. Anytime a js1138, PatrickHenry or other oldtimer says something new, it gets my attention.
you: You lost me. Anyway, the answer to that last part is "no" because the answer to the premise was "no."
That is incorrect. The origin of life is outside the scope of the ToE.
Darwin's theory which indeed does not address abiogenesis v. biogenesis, is a continuum (evolutionary tree of life) based on the presumption that "life comes from life" (omne vivum ex vivo) which also happens to be the law of Biogenesis.
Sorry, but this is simply wrong in every possible way.
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.