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."

[Coyoteman]

Religion Moderator, does not this kind of deliberate TEXTUAL misrepresentation constitute mendacity? If not, exactly WHAT does it represent?

Apologetics?

[balrog666]

I notice that everyone not on the rational side has now left.

I suggest we abandon this thread to the rats and trolls.

[js1138]

Religion Moderator, does not this kind of deliberate TEXTUAL misrepresentation constitute mendacity? If not, exactly WHAT does it represent?

It's OK, because this is the religion forum, and he has faith that that's what the dictionary says.

[Dimensio]

There does exist a World Book entry on evolution that contains the text that Warrior of Justice has quoted. However, he has neglected to note the following sentence: "Most commonly, however, evolution refers to the formation and development of life on Earth. The idea that all living things evolved from simple organisms and changed through the ages to produce millions of species is known as the theory of organic evolution. Most people call it simply the theory of evolution." That statement clearly shows that the claim that the theory of evolution addresses the origin of the universe itself is false. Warrior of Justice is employing a logical fallacy in claiming otherwise.

[VadeRetro]

So, I have a better encyclopedia than he has--a World Book at that--and you have a better version of his dictionary. The funniest thing is that his "quotes" look mightily like his own bizarre writing "style," to use a word loosely.

This looks incredibly bad.

[js1138]

There does exist a World Book entry on evolution that contains the text that Warrior of Justice has quoted.

Except for the parts he made up. I'd say he has libeled Webster's and subjected FR to legal action. I wonder what Webster's will think of being misquoted on a public forum in a way that will bring ridicule?

[King Prout]

it looks incredibly like a parody, actually.

fuggeddabouddid - it's beer-thirty. MGD beckons.

[js1138]

Nor does lying about what the dictionary says=right.

[Dimensio]

Except for the parts he made up.

Upon examining his original "excerpt" and comparing it to the original source, it appears that you are correct. It seems that Warrior of Justice has fabricated claims regarding the text of that particular entry. I am now uncertain as to whether his false attribution would be considered abuse, or if instead that the act of pointing out his act of fabrication is itself abuse.

[Liberal Classic]

Franklin believed in salvation through works.

[js1138]

Apparently justice=lying.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Actually, we've a friend of the family who had incurable cancer, went to Lourdes, and came back cured... Not even any of the scarring that had been there. But I've also known people without religious faith -- or at least not a faith of the Judeo-Christian tradition -- who suddenly healed, seemingly because they willed themselves to heal.

There are stories of small women who suddenly lifted heavy objects in order to save their children. Such things were once miracles, unexplainable except by faith. We now know they are the result of incredible rushes of adrenaline.

In that light it is conceivable that there is some hormone we have not yet isolated that can trigger sudden healing. I simply do not know. But I am familiar of similar healing that did and did not involve Christian prayer.

In any case, care to comment on my post #619 with regard to the Hebrew word, "Yom," not always meaning a single day of 24 hours?

[King Prout]

The use of big words and hollow ideas does NOT= "right".

perhaps, but irrelevant - that assertion does not debunk what you criticise.

on the other hand, deliberately misrepresenting the text of what you claim to be quoting does equal WRONG.

[VadeRetro]

I notice that everyone not on the rational side has now left.

Indeed. WOJ has done a fine job of silencing his creationist friends by being buffoonish to a caricature level. No matter how he stinks up the thread, WOJ is immune to criticism from the very side he is discrediting. Some people think there are no bad bullets fired at the Great Satan. (But obviously there are.)

[VadeRetro]

I am now uncertain as to whether his false attribution would be considered abuse, or if instead that the act of pointing out his act of fabrication is itself abuse.

In most parts of the world in the 21st century that would not be a question. Sad that we're at such a point here.