Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by 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."
This thread never should have been moved into the religion forum. After it had been, it should have been moved out of here and into the SBR as soon as the posts needed to be pulled and accounts suspended/locked. FR is no stranger to toxic evolution/creation threads therefore I am surprised that it was moved here, given the poisonous nature of the topic.
This is not to say that there aren't questions related to this topic that couldn't have a productive run in the religion forum, but this article wasn't one of them. I don't think the article was particularly well-written. In that sense, it was an easy strawman for some people to knock down. That makes arguing from my postion even harder to do that usual.
So, in my opinion, I think the mods screwed up twice. Once for putting it in here, and twice for not kicking it out. I honestly don't know what they were thinking. I don't post in here much, but I read in this religion forum sometimes, and this article is far removed in character from anything else I see in here.
The phrase "showing its utility" fascinates me. The days of the big thinkers (Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg etc.) are long gone. Riemann's geometry had no "utility" when he discovered it - and yet Einstein was able to pull it off the shelf to describe General Relativity.
IMHO, funding of math and science investigations should not require a current application for the result.
those who believe in fluffy pink unicorns can believe whatever they want, philosophize however they want, without need for corrupting empirical science to suit their fancy.
that is the point: they already have their own little stomping grounds.
empirical science is rooted in rigidly following the evidence. that is its central definitional axiom. Another is that a specific chain of events will produce consistent results through repeated iterations. A corollary of that second axiom is that if a specific chain of events produces an anomalous result, that anomaly is evidence of a cause which can be empirically ferreted out and brought into scientific understanding.
These defining axioms lead to little things like "an object at rest or in motion remains at rest or in motion unless acted upon by an external force" and "energy output never exceeds energy input", and a myriad other such little things like that which allow us to understand how physical systems work in an applicable manner. Things which neither philosophy nor theology have never managed to accomplish.
and that is ALL that science aspires to do: explain the function of physical systems.
"Miracles" of the sort to which Lewontin refers, if they ever occur, are by their nature not vulnerable to empirical study. There'd be no point in attempting to explain them because -again, assuming they happen- they'd be in direct violation of the second naturalistic axiom listed above.
And, dismissing the charitable assumption, there is no evidence that such miracles in fact occur.
Plenty of testimony and apocrypha, sure.
Much of which is sincere. A lot of it faked. A lot of it contradictory.
Roswell with a halo, if you will.
Unless and until there is *evidence*, science must treat miracles as unsubstantiated assertions. What science must NOT do is allow anyone to get lazy, to insert "and then, some unknown event of unknown character at an unknown location and time caused untraceable and unevidenced effects which led to such-and-such observed result" any time the empirical process stumps them.
Philosophers, theologians, and navel-fetishists have that luxury.
Scientists do not, and must not.
Cewrtainly not just to make anempiricists all snug and comfy in their respective fantasies.
The insistence that empirical science abandon its essential nature to suit their sport is not simply stupid, but rude, vain, and greedy.
correction: "Things which neither philosophy nor theology have EVER managed to accomplish."
Consider these words you wrote:
On this forum - and among conservatives, the far majority to which I belong, believe that God exists...
I'm sure you're aware of the poll that's running. Even if people like me who oppose creationism being taught in science class as a competing "theory" are a minority, we're a significant minority, at approximately 30%. The number of people who hold religions views here is much higher. To me this imples the majority of those 30% who oppose creationism/ID being taught in science class are themselves religious.
Something like this might be a better topic. It recognizes that people on both sides have religious faith. From there, sectarian arguments can begin.
This miserable article started as an atheist/evolutionist bashing thread and went downhill.
At bottom, the difference between us is how we know what we know and how sure we are that we know it (epistemology.)
Some, for instance, only value knowledge which derives from sensory experience, a trusted mentor, a consensus of a group of experts and reasoning.
But my greatest source of knowledge is spiritual. I’m more certain of that knowledge than any other kind of knowledge, including reasoning and sensory perception. And trusting mentors is waaay down on my list - #8 as I recall.
You ask for evidence of God. He lives in me and I live in Him – I’ve known him for nigh onto a half century. He brings the Scriptures alive in me as my eyes scan the words. And that’s not counting all the personal miracles. Evidence?! Jeepers, anyone in my shoes for only a second, would never again ask for evidence. LOL!
But that is the way God made it – so that no one could boast. No signs, no finding him by reason alone.
And I'm not asking science to go looking for Him (which would be silly IMHO) - but rather to keep an "open mind" - not start with a philosophy, unnecessary presuppositions, reduced boundaries, blueprints into which the conclusion must fit, etc.
It didn't start in the religion forum, but sooner than post #5 did someone say evolution makes the Lord a liar. Oh well. Whatever.
Furthermore, there are people who are so contrarian, they'll say nearly anything. So, no bet.
I'd like to find something positive to say about this steaming pile of a thread, but I just can't.
great: I ask for evidence as opposed to testimony, and am given testimony.
scienTISTS (and those who support science) should keep open minds, certainly.
I do.
science ITSELF should remain unsullied by pink unicornism and other poofery. pink unicornism and other pooferies are different from science and already exist in their own pastures.
those who hold poofery dear should quit urinating over the fence onto science's pasture.
simple courtesy.
This sentence implies that somewhere in the hominid skull sequences you've already been shown you think there is at least one gap that evolution didn't cross. I would me most grateful if you would point out where that gap lies wherein you require more "missing links" to be found for you to accept the theory of evolution. (and even more grateful if you will explain your reasons for your choice, though that isn't strictly necessary). The row of skulls is arranged top to bottom, and left to right in each row, with the bottom left skull being that of a modern human being. Where in that sequence is the unbridgeable gap?
Oops, I can't tell my left from my right any more. I meant bottom right is a modern human, of course.
I don't consider that knowledge of anything other than the way my mind works. Reasoning (ie math) I consider as reliable as its axioms, ie 100%. Sensory perception is right up there too. Why? among aother things, I can compare notes with other people, and get a sense that we're sharing the same reasoning and reality.
But "spiritual knowledge" strikes me as completely undisciplined, a product of the imagination. There are as many flavors of it as there are mystically-inclined people. No real conssensus.
You ask for evidence of God. He lives in me and I live in Him – I’ve known him for nigh onto a half century. He brings the Scriptures alive in me as my eyes scan the words. And that’s not counting all the personal miracles. Evidence?! Jeepers, anyone in my shoes for only a second, would never again ask for evidence. LOL!
That's one fundamental way we differ, AG. If something like that happened to me, I'd hope I had enough rationality left to voluntarily make an appointment with a neurologist. I'd be worried that I'd had a stroke, or come down with temporal lobe epilepsy or somesuch thing, or that someone had slipped a psychedelic agent into my coffee. Although the sensation of a visit from the Spirit World might be overwhelming, I'm sure that part of me would "know" that it's not real.
It's that good ol' observer problem again: I've seen people on hallucinogens "experiencing oneness with the universe", and after they came down, they said it was a really interesting and emotionally-charged experience, isn't it amazing the tricks the mind can play on itself.
BTW, I don't think you're "crazy" or anything like that; all I'm saying is that we have really different ways of looking at things.
Excellent reply, sister.
Why would I deny my King who saved me? There is no reason to...certainly not from the likes of Lewontin. (What a great quote; another of those that shows clearly that there is a group that sees science as antithetical to faith.) I realize that most do no see such a disconnect, but it is important to note the radical materialists when they show themselves.
Soon ...
1400
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.