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]

Liberal Classic...thanks so much for your last couple of posts, and for all of your other posts concerning matter...

[PatrickHenry]

It appears to me you can say anything you want so long as you phrase it in the third person.

It's better if you also use the passive voice. For example: It is said that you are a poop-head.

[wea]

Should consider the new notion, which is explored in greater detail on catholicfundamentalism.com that God can program in three dimensions. He programmed the world, and us, in such a way that we'd have free will. He did it in six days, a few thousand years ago. It's one of those intriguing concepts that it's hard to get around.

[Dimensio]

Should consider the new notion, which is explored in greater detail on catholicfundamentalism.com that God can program in three dimensions. He programmed the world, and us, in such a way that we'd have free will. He did it in six days, a few thousand years ago. It's one of those intriguing concepts that it's hard to get around.

What evidence exists for this explanation?

[PatrickHenry]

Should consider the new notion, which is explored in greater detail on catholicfundamentalism.com that God can program in three dimensions. He programmed the world, and us, in such a way that we'd have free will. He did it in six days, a few thousand years ago. It's one of those intriguing concepts that it's hard to get around.

This sounds like the same six-day creationism we all know about, but it's jazzed up with a few terms like "programmed" and "three dimensions." Otherwise, I see nothing new here.

[jennyp]

placemarker

[Coyoteman]

My placemarker is better than your placemarker ==> Placemarker <===

[Alamo-Girl]

Fascinating positions at posts 1451 and 1452.

For years around here the evolutionist side of the debate insisted that abiogenesis was NOT part of the theory of evolution. The source information and analysis backed up the assertion quite well.

Darwin neither asked nor answered the question "what is life v non-life/death in nature". He didn't offer a theory of abiogenesis. He took life as a "given" and addressed the speciation. As I summed it up earlier:

The theory of evolution is a continuum, the tree of life, common descent, life from life, omne vivum ex vivo. It doesn't allow for life to pop-up other than on the tree.

That is the same position taken in the article linked above, i.e. The Nature of Evolution

What's the deal, PatrickHenry? Has the evolutionist side of the debate now switched horses and accepted the assertion of the numerous (and now banned) posters who argued too passionately that abiogenesis was part and parcel of the Darwin's theory of evolution (and therefore theologically speaking, completely unacceptable to every Abrahamic religion?)

[Coyoteman]

It doesn't allow for life to pop-up other than on the tree.

What tree? I've seen this in several posts and it does not ring any bells.

[Alamo-Girl]

Actually, years ago, we tried to negotiate an agreement between the sides of the debate. I was the mediator. PatrickHenry represented the evolutionist side.

We hammered out an agreement, but the creationist side felt I had betrayed them - though I was never the representative for that side. My "function" was to mediate which requires treating both sides the same.

Both sides leaned on us to enforce the agreement. In the end, many on the creationist side wound up banned or left in a fit of indignation. A number on the evolutionist side ended up banned as well. And the agreement went to crickets.

So no thanks, Liberal Classic. Been there, done that. Let the moderators and individual posters take care of the behavior problems.

[Alamo-Girl]

The "tree of life" which is the visualization of the theory of common descent, i.e. the theory of evolution.

[Coyoteman]

The "tree of life" which is the visualization of the theory of common descent, i.e. the theory of evolution.

OK. I think I understand. I had visions of:

Or is that the tree of "Knowledge of good and evil?" I never could keep them all straight.

But if you are thinking of the evolutionary tree of life:

vs. the baraminology "trees" of life, sorry; I can't really agree with that for the evidence we have here on earth.

I really do have a hard time following what you post. You and BettyBoop seem to be talking more in "philosophy" than science, and for me to understand what you are saying is like wrestling with a mound of jello. Every time I think I grasp what you are saying, it slips away into a gooey mess. (Sorry.)

[js1138]

What's the deal, PatrickHenry? Has the evolutionist side of the debate now switched horses and accepted the assertion of the numerous (and now banned) posters who argued too passionately that abiogenesis was part and parcel of the Darwin's theory of evolution

Wow. You walk away for a while, and look what happens. Are you referring to this paragraph?

The modern science of abiogenesis addresses a fundamentally different question: the ultimate origin of life itself. Pasteur had proved that abiogenesis was impossible for complex organisms. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution put forward a mechanism whereby such organisms might evolve over millennia from simple forms, but it did not address the original spark, from which even simple organisms might have arisen. Darwin was aware of the problem. In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, he made the suggestion that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words the presence of life itself prevents the spontaneous generation of simple organic compounds from occurring on Earth today - a circumstance which makes the search for the first life dependent on the laboratory.

What is it about this concept that switches off so many brains?

Let's review some simple concepts, one at a time.

1. Evolution is about change in living populations over time.
2. Evolution can occur regardless of the origin of life.
3. Evolution can occur even if life originates multiple times.
4. Evolution can occur even if an outside agency intervenes.
5. We have strong evidence that all living things on earth are related by common descent.
6. We have good reason to believe that once life exists, the conditions for abiogenesis are unlikely to exist.
7. Nothing about evolution excludes or requires abiogenesis.
8. Nothing about evolution excludes or requires the direct creation of life.
9. Darwin speculated about both scenerios. He did not say one or the other was correct.
10. There is nothing about evolution that requires only one of these conjectures to be correct.

I hope separating these concepts into short declatative sentences will at least provide the basis for discussing where your confusion arises.

[.30Carbine]

So grateful for your post, bringing truth to light!

[.30Carbine]

Survival of the fittest has implications..

Many thanks, Pipe!

[PatrickHenry]

For years around here the evolutionist side of the debate insisted that abiogenesis was NOT part of the theory of evolution. The source information and analysis backed up the assertion quite well.

Nothing's changed that I'm aware of. People can do research into that topic, but it's not evolution. As you know, evolution is what happens when there is reproduction, variation, and selection. I suppose it can apply to some kind of precursor to life, perhaps non-living but self-replicating organic molecules (if that makes sense), but as to how the first self-replicating molecule appeared, that's probably rooted in organic chemistry.

Darwin neither asked nor answered the question "what is life v non-life/death in nature". He didn't offer a theory of abiogenesis. He took life as a "given" and addressed the speciation.

True.

What's the deal, PatrickHenry? Has the evolutionist side of the debate now switched horses and accepted the assertion of the numerous (and now banned) posters who argued too passionately that abiogenesis was part and parcel of the Darwin's theory of evolution ...

Not that I'm aware of. Occasional rhetorical flourishes by a freeper, or even a biologist, don't change the basic nature of a science.

... (and therefore theologically speaking, completely unacceptable to every Abrahamic religion?)

You lost me. Anyway, the answer to that last part is "no" because the answer to the premise was "no."

[js1138]

... (and therefore theologically speaking, completely unacceptable to every Abrahamic religion?)

I missed that part. I don't get the "therefore". If every fact of science that conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis threatens the foundations of religion, then religion and science really are at war.

[ahayes]

Are you under the impression that there's some supervisor who dictates to me what I may and may not talk about regarding science? The theory of evolution does not require abiogenesis, but it's an interesting topic in its own right.

[ahayes]

:-P "You're not the boss of me!" Placemarker ;-)

[Thatcherite]

1500!