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."

[andysandmikesmom]

Tricky...

[Doctor Stochastic]

One may make a simple mathematical transform from a heliocentric to a geocentric system. Mathematically, these are equilivant. The heliocentric system has nicer laws that the geocentric system. (The law that things further from the center of rotation move more slowly than those closer in, for example.)

And you seem to be quoting a notorious anti-trinitarian.

[Coyoteman]

Produce the evidence or not. If not, then we agree to disagree. Enough said.

I produced evidence in post #1,272. You have been ignoring it.

[SoldierDad]

No, you posted more blather that is trump up to look like evidence. Using the language of science does not prove a thing. You can talk circles around the issue all you want, but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. You've used pretty language, but nothing which could be described as parimonious to the discussion.

[Coyoteman]

No, you posted more blather that is trump up to look like evidence. Using the language of science does not prove a thing. You can talk circles around the issue all you want, but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. You've used pretty language, but nothing which could be described as parimonious to the discussion.

I posted data and theory, that is, photographs and summary descriptions of actual fossils hominids, along with an interpretive chart.

You have countered with hand waving and verbiage, but no data, theory, or even an attempt at a rebuttal. Your argument comes down to "It ain't so and you can't make me believe it nohow 'cuz I says so."

Well, you'll be waving half the night over this next one (watch out you don't reach V1).

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[SoldierDad]

OOOh, a bunch of pretty pictures which mean exactly jack. Where in all those skulls is the proof of your theory?

[Coyoteman]

OOOh, a bunch of pretty pictures which mean exactly jack. Where in all those skulls is the proof of your theory?

With all this handwaving, have you reached V1 yet?

You really should just admit it: no amount of evidence will be convincing because your mind is made up.

With that, good night to you.

[SoldierDad]

I'm still waiting for evidence to be produced as opposed to conjecture and supposition. So far all that's been given is language wrapped up as evidence where one says this is proof because I say it is proof.

[RunningWolf]

The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470, a transitory into some mens fancy. The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470

In late 1972, an enigmatic fossilized skull was unearthed near Lake Turkana, Kenya. The skull, which was subsequently accessioned as East Rudolf specimen 1470 (or KNM–ER 1470 in abbreviated form), was unearthed by Bernard Ngeneo — a field worker for renowned paleoanthropologist, Richard E. Leakey.

original reconstruction of Skull KNM–ER 1470

The discovery was greeted with much enthusiasm by evolutionists the world over because it appeared to bridge the gap between the putative hominid line of ancestors (including the australopithecines and Homo habilis) and the decidedly more humanlike fossils designated Homo erectus

Leakey himself ended up back pedaling on this one..,

profile of 1470. Based on new bone-scanning techniques, typical australopithecine prognathicity is evident in this 1992 drawing

There is precious little evidence to show otherwise. For the present it should be quietly packed away and added to the long list of abandoned or downgraded hominid specimens, which once adorned our natural history textbooks.

[jennyp]

So, are you saying that you believe that KNM-ER 1470 is just a member of the ape baramin and not a transitional between ape & human?

[Thatcherite]

I call, "Shennanigans!" Loki Troll, right?

[PatrickHenry]

All I see is some dots on my monitor. No debate, no conversation, no nuthin'! Only dots on a screen. I don't see nuttin' else! No evidence, no proof! I don't care what you say, I'll never see nuttin'!

[Junior]

Do what I did the last time some creationist idiot tried to pass off another author's work as his own -- I notified the author and provided him with a link to the stolen passage. Said passage was gone in minutes.

Your average creationist hasn't got the brains God gave small rodents. He or she cannot understand enough of what an author is saying to paraphrase that author, so instead he or she steals the words of those smarter than him or her and hopes no one will find out. But, this is the Age of Google, and it is relatively simple to find the source of the passage.

Plagiarism should be a bannable offense. It subjects Free Republic to possible legal action. And the bad part is, if the idiot in question had just attributed the passage, none of this would be a big deal; he knows enough HTML to format a post, he should know enough to include a link to the original.

[js1138]

Using the language of science does not prove a thing.

Ask us if we really care what you think.

You have provided an oportunity to post arguments, and we thank you for it.

[js1138]

I agree that plagiarism should be bannable, particularly when the offender refuses to request removal of the post, but I think that by standing unopposed, it shines a light into the rathole of the anti-evolutionists. Not one of them has the integrity to call the offender out.

Some witness to religion, huh?

[Thatcherite]

"anti-evolutionists" "integrity".

Don't make me laugh.

[PatrickHenry]

Some witness to religion, huh?

Except for Islamic jihadists, religion is fine. It makes people and society better. But not always. There's one very peculiar bunch going around screaming that if you don't believe in the pure, absolute, word-for-word scientific reality of [fill in the blank], then you're eeeeeeevvviiillll and you can't possibly be a conservative. Not only that, but you must be a liberal, a commie, an atheist, a homo, a kiddy-porn freak, etc.

But they're the exception. At least I pray that they are.

[SoldierDad]

Sticks and stones, gentlemen; sticks and stones. Sounds like none of you have grown up quite yet. Or perhaps your advanced degrees have caused you to de-evolutionize.

[SoldierDad]

Arguements which hold no water.

[dread78645]

Unitarian baramin placemark