Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[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."

[Celtjew Libertarian]

The misplacement of the creation of plants aside, Genesis 1 seems a very good overview of creation. Personally, it leads me to believe that the Bible is a divinely inspired document that was corrupted by human error, before reaching the earliest versions we have. Switch the second part of the 3rd day and 4th day around and you have.

Day 1: You don't need a sun for light. You need energy, like and explosion -- a big bang. Day one is the creation of a universe in a "Big Bang" of light.
Days 2 and First part of 3. Matter in its various forms is organized out of the energy that formed the Universe.

Day 4. Matter is organized further into the astronomical bodies.

The focus now moves from the universe in general to the Earth in particular.

Day 3 part 2. Plant life -- the simplest form of life -- is created.

Day 5. The early forms of animal life are created. Creatures of the water and things that creep.

Day 6 Part 1. Mammals are created.

Day 6 Part 2. Humans -- or, more significantly, intelligent, spiritual, creatures in God's image are created.

As for the second creation story, Talmudic teaching is that the two creation stories are the same creation told from two different points of view. The first being the God-centered, broad view; the latter being the narrower, human-centered view. I've covered earlier in this thread, why I think the second creation story also describes evolution.

In any case, the creation story was not written as a modern, scientific text. It was written as a broad overview for a primitive society. Read that way -- something that partisans of both side of this debate fail to do, IMO -- it is remarkably accurate.

[andysandmikesmom]

And there is another explantion for the seeming disparity between the two chapters concerning mans creation...

I have been lately watching a particular preacher on TV, name Arnold Murray...not saying that I believe what he teaches, but he teaches the following so far as I am able to make out...

That on the sixth day of creation, God created all the various human races...men and women...plural....

Then the seventh day God rested...

Then the next day, after the seventh day, which would be the eighth day, God then created the special Adam, the created the special Eve, from his rib...

Murray also will say, that this explains where Cain got his wife from...rather than buy into this oft offered explanation that Cain married his sister(thus committing incest), Murray maintains that Cain married a woman from one of these other pre-existing races....

He also uses this to explain how the diversity of races came to be after the flood...that altho Noah took on board his wife, his 3 sons, and his three daughters-in-law, he also took on board two of each specific human race...two blacks, two hispanics, two Native Americans, two Asians, and so on and so forth...Murray does say this explains the diverity of the races on earth today, as no one could possibly believe that all the races alive today, actually came from Noah and his family...

One can believe Murrays teachings or reject them...but they do present an interpretation quite contrary to mainstream Christian religions, and Murray does have a very large following in real life in his own church, and on his TV evangelical show...

So, there are various and quite differing interpretations in Genesis, all coming from different and varying Christian teachers...Murray does not appear to base any of his ideas on just pure whim...indeed he backs up everything he says, with Biblical Scriptures...

Each person can read, and decide for themselves...

[Celtjew Libertarian]

For that matter, this may still be God's sixth day.

[dread78645]

- "Neanderthal Man" was a 70 tear old man from France who suffered from crippling arthuritis who lived in the 1880's.

Which is rather surprising since the remains were found in 1856.
Not to mention the skulls found in Belgium and Gibraltar, in 1829 & 1848.

[VadeRetro]

Wow! Where do we send the Nobel Prize? Which one do you want, Literature or Peace?

[andysandmikesmom]

None of us know for sure, now, do we?...those who insist that their own personal interpretation is the one and only correct interpretation, and assert that no other interpretation is possible are folks I pay no attention to...they already have their minds absolutely made up and further discussion with them will prove to be useless...


I prefer to discuss with those who have an open mind..and since I already know, that no one is Gods own personal super secret representative on earth today, everyones own personal interpretation has the chance of being the correct interpretation...

[Dimensio]

I apologise, BUT it still was determined to be the skelatal remains of a man who had severely crippling arthuritis.

Please provide a reference to support this claim.

Also, lava at the top of one of Hawaii's volcanos was dated by carbon dating to be MILLIONS of YEARS old when the HISTORICAL record PROVED it to be from the 19th century!

This is impossible. It is not possible to derive an age greater than 60,000 years from carbon dating. Any dating beyond that limit could only be determined as "older than 60,000 years", with no distinction betweet 100,000 years and 20,000,000 years. You are clearly not recalling an event accurately.

This same carbon dating was used on a LIVE, i.e. LIVING mullusk and the mullusk was dated to have been DEAD OVER 100,000 years!!! Someone must have forgot to tell the mullusk!

Carbon dating is not used on ocean-dwelling organisms. Moreover you are again claiming a calculated age that cannot be obtained through carbon dating.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Actually the phrase is "There was evening and there was morning." Which is why Jewish holidays start at sunset.

In any case, Genesis 1 is not written from a human standpoint. How can it be, when there are no humans -- or even an Earth or a universe -- at the start of it? It is written from God's standpoint and from His experience of "day" and "hour."

[Dimensio]

I neglected to mention in my previous posting that carbon dating is also not usable on living organisms. As such, an "invalid" date taken from a living organism cannot be used as evidence that carbon dating is inaccurate.

[jude24]

If you have to argue semantics, it doesn't do a whole lot to support the notion that "every word must be interpreted literally," does it?

I never advanced nor supported that argument. That hermaneutic is not my own.

[Dimensio]

Evolution as is popularly taught is that there is NO Creaor, so there is NO creation. ALL "somehow" came from NOTHING, or next to nothing. Precise ORDER ACCIDENTALLY sprang "somehow"- over a loooooooooooot of time- out of UTTER CHAOS and/or NOTHINGNESS.

Please provide a reference for the theory of evolution being taught in this way. Such a teaching is incorrect, as the theory of evolution does not claim that there exists "NO Creator", nor does it postulate that 'Precise ORDER ACCIDENTALLY sprang "somehow"- over a loooooooooooot of time- out of UTTER CHAOS and/or NOTHINGNESS.', and it is not honest to claim that the theory makes such statements.

[Coyoteman]

- Also, lava at the top of one of Hawaii's volcanos was dated by carbon dating to be MILLIONS of YEARS old when the HISTORICAL record PROVED it to be from the 19th century!

- This same carbon dating was used on a LIVE, i.e. LIVING mullusk and the mullusk was dated to have been DEAD OVER 100,000 years!!! Someone must have forgot to tell the mullusk!

I have to correct you here, as you have some additional factual errors.

Radiocarbon dating cannot be applied to rock (lava), and it cannot be reliably used much past 50,000 years.

So, there is no way -- and I mean absolutely no way -- for a radiocarbon date to come back with a measured age a million or more years ago. What you often get with "dead" specimens is a figure like >50,000. What this is actually saying is that the specimen contains no C14 within the limits of measurement of the laboratory. Some labs with poor shielding may top out a bit under 50,000 years, while some of the new AMS machines might extend the range a bit past 50,000. But take my word for it, radiocarbon dating does not go back into the MILLIONS of years.

Radiocarbon dating works only with objects what were once alive, and which contain carbon. Lava and other rocks do not contain carbon except for slight traces from groundwater or other contamination.

A living mollusk can give an exceptionally old date if it is absorbing old carbon. This can be done in marine (ocean) environments where old carbon can be stockpiled in the depths and be brought to the surface through upwelling. There are well-established calibrations to account for this.

A living mollusk in a stream or lake which is heavily exposed to limestone runoff can also date exceptionally old. I think the sample you are partially remembering was one of this type. The creationist websites make a big deal out of this, but this is a well known phenomenon and has not fooled archaeologists for several decades. (Once again, the creationist websites are misrepresenting science.)

It might be wise for you to check the original creationist websites and find their references (if they even have them). Most will probably be to Radiocarbon. Then check and see what the original articles say. (Many issues of Radiocarbon are on line through the University of Arizona library.)

And please, do just a little research before you post completely unsubstantiated and erroneous material in the future. It helps your cause not at all to continually post misinformation.

[unspun]

yawn

And the gospel of Evolution is supposed to do what for us?

[jude24]

Bats are mammals

Once again, because we define mammals as those creatures which bear live young and can nurse them. But to expect the precision of Linnean taxonomy from a pre-Linnnean society is ridiculous.

The quote from Leviticus specifically mentions locusts and/or grasshoppers. All known species of locust or grasshopper have six legs, as do all other insects.

Now, that is a fair objection.