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."
No determinism there.
Coyoteman,
Please reply to post 172.
And I am routinely reading where today's latest "find" will cause reexamination of previously held beliefs in the field (the beliefs can no longer be "true" because of the new discovery), which does not give me a lot of confidence in the guesses of experts. Even if they have integrity, and are not trying to just get grant money for their new "sensational" studies/discoveries, they don't have a lot of stability or longetivity in their theories.
I am discussing points of science, not religion.
And I am routinely reading where today's latest "find" will cause reexamination of previously held beliefs in the field (the beliefs can no longer be "true" because of the new discovery), which does not give me a lot of confidence in the guesses of experts. Even if they have integrity, and are not trying to just get grant money for their new "sensational" studies/discoveries, they don't have a lot of stability or longetivity in their theories.
The broad outline of evolution has not been changing. Most of these new discoveries are filling missing details, and perhaps changing a few small points. Example: Neanderthal's position in the scheme of things is increasingly clear because of new finds and improved dating techniques.
This is what science does; it seeks data and tries to explain that data. The fact that science can modify theories, if needs be, or can discard theories that are shown to be wrong is a strength not a weakness.
[Enjoy your faith. I doubt it will take you where you want to be on Judgment Day.]
If YOUR beliefs are in error, it would be more appropriate to say to you: Enjoy your life. Your faith won't help you on your death day.
But of course there is NO chance that YOUR beliefs are in error.
srweaver what is the prototype mammal, from which all others descended?
The theory of evolution is not tailored to provide a specific answer to those questions.
Why not? What good is a theory that can't be used to predict something like that?
Great question...
One concept I ponder is this:
Why has mandkind has gone from using animal bones as rough crude tools in the 4000s BC to the incredible technologies of today, but nothing of the sort happened in the 10 million years before that...NOTHING.
Weird huh?
But this is article provides the basis of morality via evolution:
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.
Do you believe human consciousness ultimately comes from mindlessness?
I thought that God was timeless?
So what would the difference be for him between 6 days and 4 billion years?
God created all the creatures. So some died and left fossil remains. How does that equate to God planting it and being a pratical joker?
And, No, I'm not attributing CREATION to Satan by any stretch of the imagination. I don't know where you got that from. God created. Satan can't create but he can change. There is evidence in Scripture that clearly indicates that Satan can manipulate the physical world. How do you know that Satan didn't manipulate stuff to make it appear that way?
A snap versus a long, long, long process.
The difference would be something like 3,999,999,994 days.
So God didn't create man, man created man by becoming "self aware"? sounds very 2010ish to me like Hal becoming self aware and he takes over the ship...
As I said, I thought that God was timeless, 4 billion years would be like a snap to him.
False. Google: Aurignacian, or even Olduvai. Read and learn.
Is it possible there is other theological positions? Of course. Here are some examples:
This one is taken from an article posted to FR recently: “By understanding the mechanics of this world, what one is really doing is praising and glorifying God.” This author is not alone. This is indeed the theological position of many within science, including the biological sciences. In fact, this sentiment is much more common than is portrayed on these threads.
For another example, the director of the Human Genome Project at the NIH, a man by the name of Francis Collins, has said, "I find my appreciation of science is greatly enriched by religion. When I discover something about the human genome, I experience a sense of awe at the mystery of life, and say to myself, 'Wow, only God knew before.' It is a profoundly beautiful and moving sensation, which helps me appreciate God and makes science even more rewarding for me."
Here is another one: "G-d the Creator and Lord of the Universe, which is the work of his goodness and wisdom; and Man, made in His image, who is to hallow his week-day labors by the blessedness of Sabbath-rest -- such are the teachings of the Creation chapter. It's purpose is to reveal these teachings to the children of man -- and not to serve as a text book of astronomy, geology, or anthropology. Its object is not to teach scientific facts; but to proclaim highest religious truths respecting G-d, Man, and the Universe. The "conflict" between the fundamental realities of Religion and the established facts of Science, is seen to be unreal as the soon as Religion and Science each recognizes the true border of its domain." This was written by the famous British Rabbi J. H. Hertz (1872-1946).
Anecdotally, most of the people that I have personally known from working in biology and geosciences fields are not atheists. Contrary to popular notions on these threads, many of them are church (or synagogue) going people, and most of them have some measure of religious faith. None of them believes that evolutionary theory, or other scientific theories such as plate tectonic theory, is necessarily in conflict with their religion.
Why all the fighting? What we are seeing in these threads, then, is not a conflict between science and religion. For most people, including most religious people, science and faith are not opposed to one another. What we are experiencing is a sectarian conflict. This conflict exists between those with a certain highly literal interpretation of the Genesis chapter and people who hold more mainstream viewpoints. The theological position of mainstream Judaism and Christianity (including conservative denominations such as the Southern Baptists) is that the Lord exists beyond scientific scrutiny. The creationism/intelligent design movement, on the other hand, seeks to validate the existence of the Creator by discovering forensic evidence that supports their theology. When the physical evidence does not square with their theological positions, it is the evidence and scientific method that become suspect. The result is the hostility demonstrated on these threads towards modern biology and science in general.
To reiterate, what we are seeing on these threads is a sectarian conflict. It is not "atheist science" versus Christianity at all. In actuality, this conflict is about the creationist/intelligent design movement seeking to elevate their theological position above the theological positions of others.
I'd like to take a stab at answering post 172.
Post 172: [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."]
If I were looking for the answer to a religious question such as "Should I forgive my neighbor who has stolen my gas grill if he returns it and says he's sorry?" I would grant the words of Jesus (or the ones translated as such in the Bible) to have significant weight. If I were looking for the answer to a scientific question such as "Why is the flame in my gas grill blue instead of green or some other color?" I would not give the words of Jesus significant weight because I WOULDN'T BE LOOKING IN THE BIBLE FOR SUCH INFORMATION TO BEGIN WITH.
What was the advent that made them humans?
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.