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."

[RunningWolf]

I do not believe that I do ignore you. Standby for freepmail to put my belief into a daily content context for you.

[Quark2005]

This for starters. Ever visit the Natural History Museum in the Smithsonian? Lots of good exhibits to see there, too.

[Thatcherite]

Why are you banned and some of these gutter level **** around for years

You'd have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[SoldierDad]

"Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another."

Grand theory with absolutely no empirical evidence to support it. This is based on speculation because all life on Earth share genetics in common. They can't explain why that is, just that it is.

[Quark2005]

Grand theory with absolutely no empirical evidence to support it.

Except for genetics (including ERV insertions), biogeographical distribution patterns of living species, morphological evidence, thousands of transitional fossils, ring species, etc. - the list keeps going. I'm guessing you didn't read through very much of the link I provided (though I may be wrong).

Not only that, evolution makes specific, testable predictions, just like any other valid scientific theory.

[SoldierDad]

"Unfortunately, it's impossible to know that a scientific theory is right. The theory may agree beautifully with all the evidence - today. But science isn't like mathematics. There can be no guarantee about what evidence we will discover tomorrow.

So, we go for the next best thing, which is proving theories wrong. That's easy. You just find some evidence that contradicts what the theory says. The theory is then falsified and stays that way."

You should actually read what you are using for your support. When the evolutionists profer up a theory which they know cannot be disproven, then say it's valid because you cannot disprove it, that should say it all.

[Thatcherite]

You should actually read what you are using for your support. When the evolutionists profer up a theory which they know cannot be disproven, then say it's valid because you cannot disprove it, that should say it all.

Numerous observations could potentially falsify evolution. They just haven't happened yet, instead the predictions that scientists make using evolution are confirmed, again and again. No scientific theory is more soundly based in empirical evidence, observation, and successful prediction.

[SoldierDad]

Except that they never produce the empirical date which they claim supports the theory. They just provide more evidence that the theory hasn't been discredited. Read the information provided by Quark. When they actually produce the missing link, then I'll accept their theory.

[Quark2005]

You should actually read what you are using for your support. When the evolutionists profer up a theory which they know cannot be disproven, then say it's valid because you cannot disprove it, that should say it all.

Um, no.

I have no idea what "missing link" you are referring to, and I get the impression you don't really want to learn anything about the vast number of fossils we already have that show transitions between types of life. There's a lot of info in those links, but you have to read it and try to understand it for it to make sense.

[Thatcherite]

The essay provided by Quark contains links to a veritable avalanche of data that supports the theory, and suggestions for numerous potential observations that would falsify the theory but that never happen. Here's a hint though, you have to be prepared to read them.

What would convince you as filling the missing link? Did you examine the pre-historic hominid skull sequence in the article? Where in that sequence do you think the unbridgeable gap lies? Which of those skulls do you think are human, and which do you think are non-human ape? Did you read and understand the ERV evidence?

[Coyoteman]

When they actually produce the missing link, then I'll accept their theory.

That's easy. This is a transitional, what some call a missing link. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center). This specimen is about midway between very ape-like critters and modern humans (but its not missing):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[PatrickHenry]

When they actually produce the missing link, then I'll accept their theory.

Evidence for Evolution . Compilation of links.
Human Ancestors.
The Evidence for Human Evolution.
Comparison of all Hominid skulls.
Early Human Phylogeny. Relationships among early human species.
Man-chimp evolution. Ichneumon's post 29.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.

[Thatcherite]

You can't make me see! [/creationist mode]

[SoldierDad]

"Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists."

These are just words. They don't prove anything at all. It is just speculation brought about by genetic similarities found among difference species on Planet Earth (where all life is based on the same conditions - thus you would expect to find genetic similarities)

"The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another."

Again, another statement which has zero evidence. To claim that a phytoplankton shares the same genetic structure with a human as a twin shares with it's twin is ludicrous on its face. And, as far as fossil evidence, where has anyone demonstrtated definitively that one creature evolved from another. Again, just a theory with no link from one fossil to another (other than what the scientist who makes the claim is claiming) Just because two things show structural similarities doesn't prove one evolved into the other. It is just a theory.

[Coyoteman]

It is just a theory.

Of course its a theory. What else would it be?

From my list of definitions:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

[SoldierDad]

I do not see the evidence, just words that are used by scientists to claim what they claim is true. There are no "transitional" fossils which clearly link one species to another, only fossils which show similarities of structure -that doesn't prove their theory.

[Quark2005]

It is just a theory.

Heliocentrism is 'just a theory'. Relativity is 'just a theory'. The periodicity of elements is 'just a theory'. Radioactivity is 'just a theory'. (But all of them, including evolution, are working theories.)

I see you read a couple introductory paragraphs. That's a good start, but hardly enough to start running a reliable commentary on the substance of a theory that's been built over 150 years. Learning science takes a lot of time and work. If you're not willing to do the time and work, perhaps you should defer expertise to the scientists who actually do this research. They know much more about evolution and how it works than either you or I.

[SoldierDad]

I've studied enough of the theory of evolution while in college to understand what the theory proposes, and it's shortcomings. Just because some people make their living by "working" a theory doesn't provide evidence the theory holds water. 150 years of building means little when much that was theory for 2000+ years was thrown out in the 1700's 1800's and 1900's. Please don't try to prove something by saying that this has been studies for a long time. How many years ago did people claim the Earth was flat? For how long was that theory accepted? You don't know what the next 150 years will bring, and it could bring evidence which disputes this theory. I don't want claims that an animal species evolved from another one because of similarities in genes or bone structure. The fact that they live on this planet could explain the similarities without their having descended from earlier (supposedly)extinct animals (supposedly because previously believed extinct species have been found alive and well from time to time). We were all created from the same stuff, flora and fauna, and that could explain similarities.

[presently no screen name]

Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power, and motion.

Genesis 1:1,2 revealed such truths to the Hebrews in 1450 B.C.: “In the beginning [time] God created [power] the heaven [space] and the earth [matter] . . . And the Spirit of God moved [motion] upon the face of the waters.” The first thing God tells man is that He controls of all aspects
of the universe.

Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Scripture tells us in Hebrews 11:3 that the “things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

It is also interesting to note that scientists now understand the universe is expanding or stretching out.

Nine times in Scripture we are told that God stretches out the heavens like a curtain (e.g., Psalm 104:2).

At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: “He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing” (Job 26:7).

The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: “It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a
flat disk, as some skeptics maintain, but to a sphere.

Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, it was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world.