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."
They are entirely anti-science. They reject science as a method; they reject the findings of physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry — the works. When one of them asserts the sun revolves around the earth, not one of them has the guts to step in. When one of them says slavery is morally OK, not one of them has the guts to step in. When one of them says you cannot start an evolving colony of bacteria with a single organism, not one of them has the guts to step in.
They are clueless, gutless, completely ignorant of the methods and findings of the entire spectrum of science.
We know that the theory of evolution is false and that creationism is true because biologists are constantly changing the theory whenever they find new evidence, but the book of Genesis never changes.
We also know that evolution is false and "nothing but a religion" because evolutionary biologists are so dogmatic, and this entrenched dogmatism is an insult to science.
And around we go.
Don't confuse theory with practice.
They are entirely anti-science. They reject science as a method; they reject the findings of physics, astronomy, geology, chemistry — the works....
They are clueless, gutless, completely ignorant of the methods and findings of the entire spectrum of science.
And then, to top it all off and completely insult everyone else's intelligence, they deny all of this.
But his word is in Hebrew, not in English. I am dependent on translators and commentators, who may or may not be guided by God's wisdom.
However, inasmuch as God may or may not have granted me insight, I have learned that the word for "formed" in Genesis 2:7, as in "The Lord formed man from the dust of the earth," means to shape as a potter does. My understanding of pottery is that it is not created by the material instantly taking form, but that it is shaped and molded over time.
My understanding of that passage is, therefore, that God did not create man in an instant, but did so over a period of time, in which man had earlier, cruder forms. To me, this is an excellent metaphor for evolution. Better: To me, this is God's word declaring that evolution was the method He used to create man.
A potter's wheel. The lathe of heaven. Evolution.
Interesting.
False. Since there are a number of religions that worship multiple deities, the term deity is the correct term. Just because you believe there is only one God, does not make your belief any more pertinent than a theology that believes in multiple deities.
If evolution doesn't address God either for or against, it mostly certainly is alienating GOD when it speaks about HIS creation.
I do not address God when I am describing soil erosion. So is an epitome on soil erosion alienating God when it does not address God?
Who is the potter, and who the Pot?
(Fitzgerald, after Khayam)
assuming is seldom the wiser course. no problem - just puzzled. thank you for clearing that up
Which of the fields of science that contribute to the SToE do you consider to be pseudoscience?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Evolution depends solely on the nature and properties inherent in the physics. There is no chance, no accident and their is no designer.
Evolution is a subject contained within biological science, for the most part. It includes biochemistry in paritcular. In no way is it a religion, nor does it belong in the class of religion.
And yet you take the word of men over the creation itself. Science studies the word of God directly. You worship an icon, one of hundreds of conflicting stories that have, in the course of history, been responsible for genocides, wars, murders, and torture in the name of God.
Unless God has spoken the text of the bible directly toy, you are reading the word of men.
I take it you are denying that modern Cetaceans have evolved from land animals despite the number of transitional fossils, genome comparisons and the occasional whale with hind legs?
How about Archaeopteryx? Most creationists tend to place Archaeopteryx in with all birds. If this is the case then the change from the archaic bird 'Archaeopteryx' to modern birds must be nothing but micro evolution. Is this what you believe? If not where do you place Archy?
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.