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."
Have there been any experiments since then to make his observation obsolete?
As far as Darwin is concerned, he had misgivings about it, allowing for theism in his Origin of Species, admitting laws as being "impressed on matter by the Creator" and that biotic powers were "breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one."
"You are wise to accept the findings of science, and not to let it interfere with your faith."
Thanks much and there is no reason science should interfere with anyone's faith.
"You are wise to accept the findings of science, and not to let it interfere with your faith."
Thanks much and there is no reason science should interfere with anyone's faith.
"welcome to FR."
Thank you.
"Spontaneous generation" as Pasteur defined it was known species (flies, mice, etc.) suddenly within a short time frame popping into existence on appropriate substrate. Some of Pasteur's original experimental apparatuses remain at the Pasteur Institute where they still have not spontaneously produced modern bacteria. I believe it is universally accepted that such a thing does not occur.
All of this says nothing about the possibility of abiogenesis as we would define it, being a completely different creature. Using Pasteur's experiments to forbid prebiotic evolution and abiogenesis would be like stubbornly continuing to be puzzled by the massive heat output of the sun--we now know that the heat is due to fusion, which no one before 1920 would have dreamed about.
I find this statement to be vaguely racist in nature.
I am not aware of anybody making claims of such a sort since I joined the thread.
You want abiogenesis?
If you think Pasteur's experiments are irrelevant to the origin of life, why are we discussing them? *scratches head*
He, he. Because the claim that life only comes from life was attributed to Darwin.
I guess we can't be expected to read the entire thread!
It's hard to when it's been so gutted by various deletions.
Since we all seem to agree Pasteur's experiments are irrelevant to the origin of life, I trust we can move on! Until the next time someone tries to make this claim. :-D
Brother in pondscum placemarker. LOL
The Pasteur thing was a red herring, a tactic not prohibited by the site. Calling attention to plagiarism or manufactured quotations apparently is grounds for having your posts pulled.
What's next?
"Thanks for sharing" is a polite way of saying "kiss off". Don't thank me for sharing my concerns. Talk to some of your friends about painting people with a broad bush. If someone says something like "evolutionists believe the Lord is a liar" take the time to explain to them that while you share their view of Creation there are ample number of devout folks who don't deserve to be thusly smeared. If someone says something like "you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution" tell them that there are people of good will who disagree. When someone such as yourself desires to cultivate a reputation for fair-mindedness, such a person could do no less.
It appears to me you can say anything you want so long as you phrase it in the third person.
Thanks, Sherlock, now you've blown it for the rest of us!
;^)
There is such a thing as a person having the opinion that another unnamed person is an ass, but one would never express such an opinion in the polite presence of polite people while they are discussing lofty matters of monkeys and music.
Donno. The rules are different here. Not just the behavior rules, which don't trouble me as long as they're applied even-handedly, but the intellectual rules seem to be different here. I prefer the tradition of having science news threads in the news forum -- where they belong. I suspect that the religion mod would like that too.
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.