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."

[Liberal Classic]

Good heavens, man. Asking you to support your arguments is hardly a personal insult.

[SoldierDad]

At the start of this thread I asked a question regarding where the proof for this line of thinking lay. Then I was blasted when I disagreed that what was being profered up as "evidence" was actually evidence. I never made any claim of any kind, but then I was expected to provide "proof" for claims I never made. Is this not referred to as a strawman argument or red herring attack?

[Coyoteman]

At the start of this thread I asked a question regarding where the proof for this line of thinking lay. Then I was blasted when I disagreed that what was being profered up as "evidence" was actually evidence. I never made any claim of any kind, but then I was expected to provide "proof" for claims I never made. Is this not referred to as a strawman argument or red herring attack?

Sorry you are feeling insulted.

Your comments to me, unfortunately, had the same effect.

You asked for evidence for evolution. That's no problem; science deals in evidence.

I provided some evidence, both data (photographs and descriptions of several of the important fossil specimens) and interpretation (a chart showing the best guess at their relationships. If I remember correctly, I provided some information on my personal experience with the casts of these specimens. This represented my own study and learning, not something that was second hand.

Your answer was to wave it all away. No discussion, no evidence, nothing. That's not the way science works; if you have evidence, you should present it. If you have really good evidence you can overturn existing theories.

If your objections are based on religious belief, you should state that and that will suffice. But to many of us it is insulting to be told that after several years of grad school studying a science, and perhaps 10, or 20, or 30 years of additional learning, that we know nothing about the fields in which we work. Unfortunately, we are seeing a lot more of that on these threads lately.

[Dimensio]

Then I was blasted when I disagreed that what was being profered up as "evidence" was actually evidence.

This is because you did not actually explain any faults with the evidence, but instead dismissed it without even demonstrating that you had examined it.

[Liberal Classic]

Suggesting that evidence isn't actually evidence at all is a claim, and a significant one at that. It is not unreasonable at all for people to ask you to back up what you say with evidence of your own. If you're expressing an opinion instead of a statement of fact, then you don't really need to support it. However, be aware that the market is flooded with opinions and they are not worth very much.

In argumentation, a strawman and a red herring are two different things.

The strawman argument is best explained with an analogy. It is like building a scarecrow out of straw, dressing it in the livery of your opponent, and then beating it up. Making a strawman argument entails constructing a weak caricature of your opponent's argument so you may easily more destroy it.

Where the strawman is based on misrepresentation, the red herring is a diversion or distraction from the issue at hand. It is a means of making your point through irrelevancy. A common example is the "do it for the children" argument. Many times, "but what about the children" is a distraction from the issue at hand, and the issue of children is not relevant to the discussion.

[SoldierDad]

"I provided some evidence, both data (photographs and descriptions of several of the important fossil specimens) and interpretation (a chart showing the best guess at their relationships.

So, best guess is evidence? Photos of skulls which show structural similarities (along with many dis-similarities), but don't explain how one turned into another is evidence? I'm sorry that I cannot connect non-existant dots like those who profess to know these dots exist in the first place. Again, I'm unable to fathom where the actual evidence exists for the "theory" except to be told that the evidence does exist. No-one has demonstrated the connection from one skull to another other than they are marginally similar. No-one is looking at any other possible reasons for this either because they've become too convinced of their own evidence being all that is necessary. For religious, moral, and scientific reasons I cannot accept that some ape evolved into modern day humans. Especially in the absence of concrete date which shows the evolution from one into the other. If there is truth to this claim, and after the millions of years between then and now, you'd think that someone would identify/find evidence of other fossils closer to either one of the ones currently used to support the claim. That fossil evidence doesn't exist. so, conjecture and supposition is used in order to explain what has not been found. People cannot use extrapolation and interpolation as "proof" that what they say exists, exists. And, simply because someone doesn't agree to what someone else claims is, doesn't give someone the right to "put them down". As stated earlier, I asked a question, and was set upon when I didn't agree with the claims of evidence. As stated earlier, I made no claim of having any proof or disproof, but wanted the evidence that fully supports the theory. No-one provided, so I disagree.

[Coyoteman]

Abandoning thread for the evening ===> Placemarker <===

[Dimensio]

So, best guess is evidence?

Ultimately, all of science is the "best guess".

Photos of skulls which show structural similarities (along with many dis-similarities), but don't explain how one turned into another is evidence?

The explanation is the theory; descent with modification. The causes for descent with modification have also been well-established.

Again, I'm unable to fathom where the actual evidence exists for the "theory" except to be told that the evidence does exist.

Your inability to "fathom" information does not mean that information does not exist.

No-one has demonstrated the connection from one skull to another other than they are marginally similar.

There is also the layout of remains as seen in the fossil record. There also exists DNA evidence in extant primate species that strongly supports previously established lineages of common descent.

No-one is looking at any other possible reasons for this either because they've become too convinced of their own evidence being all that is necessary.

Please provide an alternative explanation for all relevant observations and explain a means by which this alternate explanation could be tested.

For religious, moral, and scientific reasons I cannot accept that some ape evolved into modern day humans.

How can "moral" reasons show that humans are not descended from non-human primate ancestors? Please be specific.

Especially in the absence of concrete date which shows the evolution from one into the other.

You are incorrect. Data does exist. You may be unaware of the data, or you may disagree with the conclusions drawn, but that does not negate the existence of the data.

If there is truth to this claim, and after the millions of years between then and now, you'd think that someone would identify/find evidence of other fossils closer to either one of the ones currently used to support the claim.

What, exactly, do you believe that the fossil record should yeild?

That fossil evidence doesn't exist. so, conjecture and supposition is used in order to explain what has not been found.

You are mistaken. The "fossil record" does indeed exist, and has been known since the 1800s. Moreover, recent studies in DNA has yeilded even more evidnce establishing greater confidence in common descent.

People cannot use extrapolation and interpolation as "proof" that what they say exists, exists.

As you have already been told, "proof" is not used in any field of scientific study. All scientific claims are supported by data. Note are "proven", all are the most confidently held explanation that fits all available data and is subject to objective testing.

[cornelis]

Thanks for the ping, A-G!

[cornelis]

As you have already been told, "proof" is not used in any field of scientific study.

Technically proof is a term that is used for reasoning. But there is some overlap and a colloquial sense of proof arises out of the demand to prove it. That is to say, where is the evidence? --or, to substantiate something a scientific fact. We love educated guesses, but we also know that natural science is nothing without reasoning. Plus, nobody can deny that the scientific method was born in the cradle of Mother Certainty.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the encouragement!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

then science would no longer be science - it'd be philosophy and/or theology and/or navel-lint contemplation.

Exactly my point, King! I suspect the far majority of scientists just want to do their work and have no motive to do politics, ideology, philosophy or theology under the color of science.

But then there are the Pinkers, Singers, Dawkins and Lewontins who press the philosophy of naturalism beyond methods to metaphysics:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. - Lewontin On this forum - and among conservatives, the far majority to which I belong, believe that God exists, that His only begotten son - by whom and for Him everything was made - was enfleshed, died on a Cross and was resurrected on the third day and even now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven - that all of this heaven and earth will be replaced by the new heaven and earth.

We also mostly all believe He turned water into wine, made the blind see, healed the sick, raised the dead, was born of a virgin, walked on water and so on.

Considering all of these miracles which we believe, why we we doubt other miracles recorded in Scripture?

Moreover, in my case, since I have walked with the Lord for nearly 50 years now and know Him personally - why would I ever entertain a philosophy which denies His existence on "practical" grounds?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

And we've been utterly correct so far.

Well sure, after all, nature is the only place certain disciplines of science have looked for answers. Even so, I wouldn't say methodological naturalism has been "utterly" correct. If it were, there'd be nothing left to do for mathematics including information theory, physics, et al wrt biological systems.

Show us your pixie, your leprechaun, your Invisible, Pink Unicorn; dazzle us with your repeatable and measurable phenomena and we will change our minds.

The mathematicians and physicists who were invited to the table are already investigating such things as autonomy, self-organizing complexity, information theory and molecular biology, semiosis, qualia and so forth. They will continue to change minds IMHO.

Why is encouraging scientists to abandon the only guaranteed knowledge-producing process in the history of mankind is a good thing in your mind?

It expands the intellectual space by not making any presuppositions which do not have a direct bearing on the investigation. Mathematicians and physicists do this all the time - they begin with only the necessary axioms and postulates, they don't declare a "philosophy" to control their investigation, layout a blueprint into which their conclusions must "fit" - or write "here there be dragons" along the boundaries of where they presume the answers must lie.

Oh, and it is not "the only guaranteed knowledge-producing process". Knowledge accrued long before the philosophy of "methodological naturalism" - e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Galileo to name a few.

Refusing to look beyond naturalism shoves half of the Aristotlean causes right off the table - it is a reduced view of reality, an illusion.

[Alamo-Girl]

You're quite welcome. Thanks for the encouragement!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the chuckle.

[Alamo-Girl]

Hi cornelis! I'm tickled pink you dropped by. I confess to hoping the philosophy discussion would interest you.

[SoldierDad]

Keep pounding away, maybe reason will win out.

[Virginia-American]

Your average creationist hasn't got the brains God gave small rodents.

Or the moral character of the medium sized ones.

[Alamo-Girl]

One way or the other, I'm sure it will. We see through a glass, darkly - but it is only temporary.

[Virginia-American]

AG: It is a choice, a philosophy and nothing more. When a discipline declines to look at the non-spatial, non-temporal, non-corporeals (such as God, spirit, soul, conscience, mind, information or successful communication, autonomy, forms, geometry and other mathematical structures, qualia such as likes and dislikes) - it should not then be declaring that "all that exists" is all that it considers (microscope to telescope, matter in all its motions.)

I said the same thing to BB yesterday: There is absolutely nothing preventing the DI, or Templeton, or Penrose & Yockey, or anyone else who's interested, from sponsoring such research and showing its utility.

AG: After all, encouraging science to abandon the presupposition of "methodological naturalism" was the original goal of the intelligent design movement.

B666: Why is encouraging scientists to abandon the only guaranteed knowledge-producing process in the history of mankind is a good thing in your mind?

Good point, Balrog. LIke I said above, they're free to explore the non-material stuff, and if it pans out, they might be able to interest scientists. That is, it will need to make interesting predictions, research programs, survive review by skeptics, and so on.

However, the ID movement's real purpose has always been to be a Trojan Horse for creationism, Christian here, Muslim in Turkey. Dembski said "ID the the Logos of John's Gospel and information theory" (paraphrasing, too lazy to check the exact words)