Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution
Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

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."


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dontfeedthetrolls; housetrolls; jerklist; onetrickpony; religionisobsolete
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 2,001-2,015 next last
To: js1138
You'd have the same effect if it was local. Occam's Razor.

But I don't think you'd have quite the consistency across legends.

Besides, one huge disaster is fewer "entities" if you will than many small ones.

921 posted on 09/21/2006 6:16:48 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian ("Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive." -- Bugs Bunny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

PH, you are such a sweet guy...


922 posted on 09/21/2006 6:16:49 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
PH, you are such a sweet guy...

That's why everybody on FR loves me.

923 posted on 09/21/2006 6:18:37 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and it's unhealthy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 922 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Thanks for that..a huge number of websites popped up, lots of reading for me to do...appreciate this, King...


924 posted on 09/21/2006 6:19:47 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 919 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
There is little possibility of reconciling these two styles of argumentation.

Sure there is. Science does not make proclamations regarding ultimate truth, the afterlife, and so forth, and religion accepts that there is a kind of useful knowledge that can be accumulated through the methods of science. St. Augustine recognized centuries ago, even before Galileo, that it is folly for religion to make proclamations about the visible world that are patently false. And the New Testament distinguishes between that which can be seen and that which cannot.

925 posted on 09/21/2006 6:20:56 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

just passing it on - the big dogs introduced me to the cargo cult phenom about 2 years back


926 posted on 09/21/2006 6:21:36 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Just keep those bodily fluids pure. Plenty of vodka.


927 posted on 09/21/2006 6:22:07 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
But I don't think you'd have quite the consistency across legends.

I suggest you read lots of legends if you think they are consistent. A few flood stories, cherry picked for consistency, do not make consistency. Bear in mind that there was significant trade between the middle east and asia.

Now if you want to speculate on an ancient worldwide flood that actually happened just a millennium or so before the earliest known writing, try the melting of the glaciers at the end of the ice age. Sea levels rising 200 feet, possibly flooding everything coastal.

928 posted on 09/21/2006 6:27:29 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I did not mean to imply that science and faith cannot be reconciled. I personally believe they can, and I have worked with people in scientific research, in the applied sciences, and in engineering who are also devout and observant.

However, for the purposes of this particular sub-forum, I am of the opinion there is little chance of reconciliation because, frankly, there are some people who will not be reconciled. Therefore, scientific topics should be considered toxic to the religion forum.
929 posted on 09/21/2006 6:37:29 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

Comment #930 Removed by Moderator

To: King Prout

Cargo cult placemarker...


931 posted on 09/21/2006 6:39:39 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 926 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

No disagreement. The ability to reconcile surface contradictions does not appear to be something you can learn. Scientist know from their work that they will never answere the deep questions, and do not try.

They can, however, tell when observable facts conflict with literal interpretations of religious texts. St. Augustine had the answer.


932 posted on 09/21/2006 6:43:05 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]

Comment #933 Removed by Moderator

To: Liberal Classic
I did not mean to imply that science and faith cannot be reconciled. I personally believe they can ...

Certainly. But one must be willing to accept that some prior understanding of scripture may have been mistaken. Favorite example: the solar system, which conflicts with earlier reading of scripture. But when one insists on a word-for-word literal reading of scripture, there can't be any reconciliation with science. That's why some denominations have no problem with science, while others have nothing but problems. It's a denominational issue, not a science issue.

934 posted on 09/21/2006 6:44:58 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Science-denial is not conservative. It's reality-denial and it's unhealthy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]

To: Warrior of Justice
- Because we have WORLD-WIDE EVIDENCE of a WORLD-WIDE FLOOD...

Sorry to have to break this to you but that is incorrect.

Archaeology in the western US has not found EVIDENCE of a global flood, and no amount of protests to the contrary can change what the EVIDENCE has shown.

Now if you had prefaced your statement with, "I believe" that would be one thing. You of course are free to believe as you wish.

But for a layman to tell working archaeologists what they have or have not found is another.

935 posted on 09/21/2006 6:46:37 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 930 | View Replies]

To: js1138

We're going around in circles. The point is, the flood stories could be, at least partially, a memory of a disaster that resulted in the genetic bottleneck.

I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm saying it's plausible.


936 posted on 09/21/2006 6:52:02 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian ("Don't take life so seriously. You'll never get out of it alive." -- Bugs Bunny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 928 | View Replies]

~ AN ~
APPARENT PARODY
~ PLACEMARKER ~

937 posted on 09/21/2006 6:53:26 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 933 | View Replies]

To: Warrior of Justice
- Because we have WORLD-WIDE EVIDENCE of a WORLD-WIDE FLOOD...

Sorry to have to break this to you but that is incorrect.

Archaeology in the western US has not found EVIDENCE of a global flood, and no amount of protests to the contrary can change what the EVIDENCE has shown.

Now if you had prefaced your statement with, "I believe" that would be one thing. You of course are free to believe as you wish.

But for a layman to tell working archaeologists what they have or have not found is another.

938 posted on 09/21/2006 6:53:37 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 930 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Not sure why I got two versions of the abobe post, nor why EVIDENCE was in caps. It was not in caps in my working version or my preview. I despise the use of all caps to emphasize points.

Software is flaky tonight?

939 posted on 09/21/2006 6:55:48 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 938 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

infectious CAPLSLOKitis?


940 posted on 09/21/2006 6:57:38 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 939 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 2,001-2,015 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson