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."
I hate to break it to you, but 99% of all scientists understand that evolution is science, so I hope you will forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt, and some 80 proof alchohol.
Another good example of how not to be personal would be:
Right: "You did not understand me."
Wrong: "You do not understand."
The first case implies ineffective communication, while the second case implies the person who received the message is a complete moron.
Unless you ask a scientist.
I prefer: "Alas, it seems I failed to express my point to you clearly enough."
It *denotes* poor communication, but quietly implies the recipient is a moron.
With emphasis on "clearly enough," or it will denote that you failed in communicating your thoughts.
Do you mind if I plagiarize it?
it isn't mine. it is a family traditional, and an old english theme. do with it as you will.
OK, just let me know if you change your mind, and you require Coyote's claim to be backed up. Just for going on with you can start with this list, a tiny sample of the vast amount of creationist misrepresentation. There's nothing odd about asking for claims to be backed up with evidence. Rational people do it all the time.
I also believe that those wishing me to back up my claim have studied the subject enough to know that my claim is equally valid.
I have studied the subject, and I am unaware of evolutionary scientists who "do not do real science; they have all the answers figured out and they are bending facts every which way to make things come out the way they want." Any scientist caught doing this is finished, no second chances. Kindly cite some examples please, (how about 5 in the last 50 years) or withdraw the claim. Come on, if evolutionary scientists' twisting of data and fraud is as common as you claim this should be easy for you to achieve.
Or is it only permitted to True Believers to aggressively and profligately call all who accept the validity of the SToE liars and morons in a general, broad-brush manner.
It does seem that general broad brush statements that categorise all biologists/scientists whether Christian or not as liars and fools are permitted. Likewise similar insults against non-Christians as a group appear to be permitted.
Supposing, as a hypothetical example, someone were to post along the lines that "CHRISTIANITY is a LIE", "ALL Christians are FOOLS trying to destroy America and the Western World". Would such statements be permitted or are blanket insults applied to particular groups only permitted when they come from Christian fundamentalists and are directed at those who disagree with certain tenets of Christian fundamentalism?
Not so. You're just ignoring the reptile-to-mammal sequence, and the eohippus-to-horse sequence, both of which are quite smooth. And there are a lot more than those.
Who would expect a part-frog and part-rabbit? Certainly no biologist! In fact, the absence of fossils of that sort is yet more evidence of standard biology, since the ToE says there shouldn't be any such thing. And, of course, the discovery of fossils like Tiktaalik, which was found by using the ToE, is even more evidence that Darwin was basically right.
Using creationism or ID, has anyone ever predicted the existence of a fossil? No! Until creationism or ID can do so, they're not nearly as useful as normal science
Using ID or creationism, has anyone ever predicted a DNA sequence? No!
Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society.
Dr. Shermer received his B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University, M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate School. He worked as a college professor for 20 years (19791998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College, California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College. Since his creation of the Skeptics Society, Skeptic magazine, and the Skeptics Distinguished Lecture Series at Caltech, he has appeared on such shows as 20/20, Dateline, Charlie Rose, Tom Snyder, Donahue, Oprah, Sally, Lezza, Unsolved Mysteries, and more as a skeptic of weird and extraordinary claims. source: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/meet_michael_shermer.html
Well, maybe it's his experience on Sally or Lezza that qualifies him in theology...although for what sort of religion I can only speculate...but it isn't Christianity.
So, when was the last time you heard a myth changing?
Find some examples [of scientists recently falsifying data, or misinterpreting it because of preconceptions] or withdraw the claim.
You: In the first sentence you agree with me and in the second you still want proof?
I said every subset of people will have liars and frauds in it. I also said that that is much more common among anti-evolution activists than it is among scientists. Where's the contradiction?
Where's the evidence?
No. it would be based on a natural world bearing the evidence of evolution over hundreds of millions of years.
Either that is a reflection of reality, or you are worshipping Loki.
The prohibition against this came much later...
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.