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."
Well, the ToE is presented as truth; and that is what 'gospel' is.
(Ok; if you want to pick at a nit - gospel is Good News; and the 'good news' of the ToE is that we don't have to believe any 'unsupported by scientific fact' creation stories of ANY stripe, any more.)
For it is on the same side of the slope as 1.5 million abortions yearly in the good, 'ol, USofA!
You do the math....
Kinda like 500 9/11's a year!
And we're upset at Islamofascists?? gimme a break!!!
Then, would that not indicate that the poster is a LIAR???
"We report; you decide"?
For it is only 1/500th as bad as what happens yearly in our Cathedrals of Choice in the USA.
What evil lurks in the heart of men.
This is what happens when dating outside yer own race is allowed to occur... ;^)
The crevo debate is like “child’s play” compared to some of the deadly serious hostilities held among the various confessions. It is not at all unusual for a member of one to consider the practice, belief or roots of another to be anathema, damnable, cursed, demonic, satanic, the very source of evil in the world.
So the posters argue as if the differences are a matter of life and death for everyone – because in their minds, it is. Many if not most of them believe it is their commission in life to spread their particular doctrine. And none of them are likely to change beliefs. After all, if they believed there was anything faulty with their own confession, why would they embrace it in the first place – much less prosecute all other beliefs?
This forum has no “official” doctrine. Therefore, it is tolerable for all sides to air their grievances, poke fun at each other, dispute beliefs and so on – but when the discussion turns personal, even slightly, a flame war is apt to quickly follow. Thus the guideline of ”discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal” is strictly enforced here.
Despite all of this, still there are some who take affronts to their confession as a personal affront. But there is nothing I can do to help the particularly thin-skinned among us.
Nevertheless, it has been evidenced quite clearly that it is possible for posters of various confessions to air their differences frankly but respectfully to the benefit of all lurkers. My “shining example” of this is the Luther and Erasmus thread.
Now that this crevo thread is on the Religion Forum, all participants must comply with the guidelines. Philosophical beliefs (methodological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, scientism, scientific materialism, realism, idealism, etc.) will be treated here with the same equal hand as theological beliefs.
It's just a wedge issue.
-- Screwtape
;^)
Thank you.
The difference between a club and a rapier perhaps?
Alas; I fail to understand.
A frog with fur would be a good starting point....
On a similar vein: "No one expects the Inquisition."
For instance, a false statement was made at post 454 which I corrected at post 456.
To characterize the original statement as a "lie" or the poster as a "liar" would have been inflammatory and since I cannot read his mind, also false.
Thanks you for explaining these things!
It seems sometimes that the Mods are above it all, applying judgement with having to explain themselves.
Ah....
Thanks.
Isn't it amazing? This Shermer guy, who believes in the "correct," non-ID form of Theistic evolutionism, basically comes right out and states that morality is a gradually evolving utilitarian social construct (a Divine Lawgiver being thus completely unnecessary), and the only people who object are "simple minded rednecks?" No one else is offended? No one else hears any warning bells whatsoever? And anti-ID Theistic evolutionists continue to prattle about their "lxrd and savior" who incarnated himself into a world in which G-d never interferes. "Rationalists" can be so irrational!
Anyone who insists that G-d created the universe via evolution (while attacking IDers for saying the exact same thing) and then insists that same creation is "unintended" and finally that all morality is the product of human experience (rather than Divine Revelation) has no business accusing anyone else of "bad theology."
"Britons are all pinko queers" would actually upset me more than "You are a pinko queer" which I find easy to laugh off. If that makes me too thin-skinned for the religion forums then I guess I shall take my leave. I don't suppose anyone will miss me. :)
No, I don't.
My "problem" is with the lightweight "thesis" proposed by the author, then duly propped up by the original poster as part of an old, worn out agenda.
My fellow FReepers skillfully disposed of the issue. FR deserves better than this.
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.