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."

[SoldierDad]

"Thinking people do not look to scientific texts for spiritual advice, and neither do they look to scripture for scientific facts."

I've met lots of "thinking people" who have developed their moral and (so called) spiritual facts based on scientific exploration while decrying scripture as a hoax.

[js1138]

You left out a key paragraph from your quote:

It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

[Liberal Classic]

One does not look in the Standard Handbook of Engineering Calculations for advice on how to deal with a difficult marriage. However, if you want to determine the propert pipe wall thickness for certain pressures and fluid velocties, then you'll be looking in the right place.

[Quark2005]

Any other possible explanation for this?

Of course, that's why the whole body of evidence must be considered together.

Science doesn't work in "proofs", in works with evidence to build working models - and that is exactly what evolution is. If enough evidence comes along that can't fit to the model's predictions, it's a sign something is wrong with the model - but that hasn't happened to evolution yet.

What would, in your mind, be convincing evidence that life evolved on earth? (With all due respect, I think there's a lot more evidence than you realize - a lot of it does take a while to learn to understand.)

[js1138]

Do you have any idea what is being argued in 1299?

I thought I did, but looking back I can't make any sense of it.

[SoldierDad]

And this means what to me re: one animal evolving into a different species? Again, more subterfuge clouding up the original question. Where is the proof of this animal becoming a different animal?

[js1138]

Where is the proof that the earth orbits the sun? There are vast quantities of data, self-consistent interpretations, but no proof. It's just the best available explanation of myriad data points. Same with common descent. It is a self-consistent umbrella concept for millions of data points. There isn't even an alternate hypothesis -- something acknowledged by the supporters of ID. Isaac Newton is often cited on these threads a Christian who had the correct attitude toward science. Here's what he said about scientific reasoning.

• Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
• Rule 2 Therefore the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign to the same causes
• Rule 3 The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies with the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
• Rule 4 In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

Take a look at these. No unnecessary causes. Causes are universal and constant. Causes observed in experiment are the same as those in nature. Established theories are considered true or nearly true until replaced by more comprehensive theories.

Every phenomenon required for evolution has been observed. Every piece of evidence gathered in the last 200 years is consistent with evolution. There are no competing theories.

[ml1954]

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

Since this is what you require, please define this 'missing link' in detail sufficient to potentially classify any future discovery as being 'your' missing link. Please be as detailed in your description as possible.

[ml1954]

All dose skulls are fakes'n frauds, just like that Piltdown Man. Yus scientists tinks you're all gonna pull one over on da' woofman. But I knows better and whens I gits round to it, I'll post all ma prufs here.

[js1138]

There appear to be many possible sources for your plagiarized post. This one may be the original.

http://www.livingwaters.com/downloads/Lesson61.pdf

So did you write it or did you plagiarize it?

[PatrickHenry]

Where is the proof of this animal becoming a different animal?

Yours is a common misunderstanding of evolution. In truth, the theory doesn't even remotely suggest that this happens. Individuals don't change. Populations change over generations. Please read this short essay. It may be helpful.

Evolution in Five Easy Steps.

[balrog666]

Swiss-cheese thread placemarker.

[js1138]

Pollyanna placemarker.

[js1138]

Lucky prime placemarker.

[Quark2005]

Cut-n-paste error in the last paragraph, that's all, I think.

[js1138]

I guess he clarified his question in 1302. Still, I find it interesting that those most violently opposed to evolution are those least able to talk about it.

I could name several FR anti-evolutionists who have significant education in biology and chemistry, who are much less hostile to common descent. It seems that people, like Behe, who know something, have trouble asserting the earth is flat.

[dread78645]

Nebraska Man placemark

[andysandmikesmom]

'very funny' placemarker

[SoldierDad]

I'm not impressed with superlatives, conjecture, and the language of science. Produce the evidence or not. If not, then we agree to disagree. Enough said.

[PatrickHenry]

Tagline change placemarker.