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."
Hope your knee is okay.
Absolutely!! So why are the Discovery Institute and so many fundamentalists so intent on changing school curriculum with nonsense? Jeez, the US has already had to endure this stuff after the Scopes trial. It was only the USSR space stuff that the US system gathered its senses and followed true science. It would appear that Islam and creationists want to force the world back to the dark ages.
You are correct. Here is a nice transitional (I hope posting data in the Religion Forum is OK). Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):
Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
The National Center for Science Education gives teachers lessons on how to ‘reconcile’ science and religion. Think about that… The NCSE is against religious views in science if they include any intelligent design but yet they advocate the mixing of the two according to the rules they have established.
There are ‘scientists’ such as Richard Dawkins, William Provine, David Barash, Stephen Pinker, Jacob Weisberg, Sam Harris, and a many other people who use evolution to tear apart Judeo-Christian beliefs and replace them with atheistic beliefs from science. Where is the cry from the scientific community about this mixing of religion and politics?
What about Dick Dawkins latest book - - The God Delusion?
Where is the outcry about the ‘Bright Movement’ which has there own ‘wedge document’ that was established by leading evolutionists?
The movement's three major aims are:I am not a creationist but I am not blind.
A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
Your chart notes "This family tree is a best guess."
Keep guessing!
Keep guessing!
The "best guess" of an expert is worth considerably more than the uninformed opinions of a layman.
For a productive discussion on how modern man has abandoned rationality where it comes to the "upper story" (religious faith) you might want to consult the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer's writings.
You wrote: "Religious people should accept evolution for the simple reason that it is true." If you are referring to macroevolution, please produce proof of your assertions, not just disjointed fragments of mammalian skeletal remains from different parts of the globe cobbled together with educated guesses by some people more and some people less sincere.
The "tree" by coyoteman even acknowledges it is a "best guess", and has some very partial and sketchy fragments of skulls included.
What many don't realize is that sometimes these HUGE finds of "millions" of years old humans are usually only a partial skeleton, perhaps a few teeth, and some other bone fragments. The rest is speculation.
If you want to reconcile macroevolution and the Biblical record of the origin of man and be rational (logically consistent) you have a lot of explaining to do.
Would you consider the words of Jesus, the Creator of the universe, to be of significant weight as compared to the "best guess" of an expert?
After all, He said "I am the way, and the truth, and the life."
I am curious how you reconcile evolution with your faith?
I got the reference but I didn't think it was funny because I accepted it at face value. In retrospect, I think that makes me a huger dork than you.
:^)
/ = Many people do realize this. But, do you realize that with several decades of study, paleontologists and other experts get to be quite good at what they do?
When you have a lot of fossils, you can fill in for missing data on a particular specimen. Experts routinely do this in a lot of different fields.
Your are confusing your religious belief, which leads you to discount evolution no matter what the data may be, with scientific evidence. In the fields of science, your doubt does not constitute a scientific argument, and your opinions are those of an uninformed layman.
Huh? That makes as much sense as "Niceosity implies insultification qualification."
Sounds like a sound bite to me. Perhaps you can clear it up.
Not.
It changes the nature of God.
Is he a God who snaps His fingers and things get done, or is He a long-lived Gandalf who muddles around for a billion or more years accomplishing a plan?
Those are 2 different beings, imho.
Do you have scriptural examples of the views of Jesus on the historical accuracy of the Genesis account?
Note that Jesus did not treat these historical accounts as symblolic.
Jesus' statements:
1. Noah - book of Genesis
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe (Noah), so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
2. Moses - author of the first five books (Pentateuch/Torah) of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (most oft quoted by Jesus
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
There are many more references by Jesus to "Moses" basically referring to the first five books of the Bible.
3. Jesus teaching on divorce referring back to creation.
Matthew 19:3-8 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Other New Testament Writers
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Since it isn't a question that answers itself, it is NOT "begging the question." It is an introducing to the argument. Lesson: Learn your fallacies before citing them.
This is not only begging the question, but the author proceeds to bait-and-switch:
Again, the author is introducing his next argument. Lesson: Contextual comprehension is always a plus.
The "watchmaker" God is a deist notion. And creationism does not believe in "available parts" but that God created everything ex nihilo
Well, the Catholic Church believes in a "watchmaker" concept (as used in this context). Lesson: Don't make sweeping statements that can be punctured with one contrary example. But I will grant you the second part of your statement. Lesson: Even a blind squirrel finds an occasional nut.
No it does not. The author is completely unaware of what the doctrine of Original Sin is.
The author might not know what Extreme Unction is, either. Original Sin is a concept to a few branches of Christianity and CERTAINLY not all. Lesson: Don't assume facts that are not facts at all.
So does creationism (explain Family Values).
So what? It doesn't change the argument on point. Lesson: Don't make arguments that don't help your position.
(Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts) And excludes others.
You cannot possibly state one moral precept that Evolution excludes. Lesson: Don't substitute pith for argumentation.
It also explains complete despotism as well. Evolutionism, unlike Christianity, does not inherently favor liberty - in fact, it undermines the concept.
This is flat out disingenuous. It is also unreasoned and unsupported. Lesson: Don't make bald and specious assertions on a board where people work with logic like car mechanics work with carburetors.
School's out for the day. I won't quiz you unless you make statements that show you didn't understand the lessons.
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.