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."

[Alamo-Girl]

Sorry, but this is simply wrong in every possible way.

No, js1138. It is dead-on accurate.

Because Darwin's theory did not include a theory of abiogenesis, there is no inception - no bootstrap - to the evolutionary tree of life. But from the inception point forward, it is an unbroken continuum, a chain of common descent - life from life.

If he thought otherwise, the tree of life would look like a field of grass.

[js1138]

No, js1138. It is dead-on accurate.

Ignoring, for the moment, what Darwin actually put down in writing, and substituting your fantasies.

[Alamo-Girl]

Reason it through! I must leave now, but will check back in this evening.

[PatrickHenry]

Darwin's presupposition, his very theory is built on "omne vivum ex vivo" which IS the Law of Biogenesis.

AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

[balrog666]

Trolls will be trolls.

[PatrickHenry]

Nah. It's just a bit of confusion.

[PatrickHenry]

You said:
Darwin's presupposition, his very theory is built on "omne vivum ex vivo" which IS the Law of Biogenesis.

I said:
AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

I think I should expand on that cry of anguish.

What you called "Darwin's presupposition," that "his very theory is built on" which is supposed to be "omne vivum ex vivo" and "which IS the Law of Biogenesis" is actually not his presupposition. Nor is it what his theory is built on.

Darwin never said "omne vivum ex vivo," either in Latin or in English. Betty Boop said it, and in post 299 of a different thread she explained that it came -- not from Darwin -- but from someone named Yockey. In that post, BB also said:

Of Darwin's view of the matter, Yockey writes: "[Darwin] believed that life appeared by some wholly unknown process, and therefore [its origin] is undecideable."

[snip]

Darwin essentially takes the "origin" or "essence" of life for granted. He is saying his scientific theory is independent of it; which is a very good thing, because it is "undecideable" or "unknowable" anyway.

That's a fair statement of Darwin's position. But it's very far indeed from "omne vivum ex vivo." Yokey doesn't attribute the concept of "omne vivum ex vivo" to Darwin, nor does he attribute those words to Darwin. Nor should you (in my always humble opinion).

That said, it's clear -- at least to me -- that "omne vivum ex vivo" isn't, as you stated "Darwin's presupposition," nor is it the case that Darwin's "very theory is built on 'omne vivum ex vivo' "

One further point. The "Law of Biogenesis" is not a law recognized by biologists. It appears primarily in the literature of creation "science," and as far as I know it has no scientific standing at all. I suspect that if you took a poll of biologists, it would show that most of them believe that life does indeed originate from non-living material, but in some way not yet discovered. This is, of course, the exact opposite of "omne vivum ex vivo."

So before you incorporate that erroneous tidbit into your superb archives of scientific information, from which it might appear in future threads, I hope you will reconsider the accuracy of that statement.

[Coyoteman]

From a post by Dimensio:

I submit five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.

a) Natural processes occuring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.

b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.

c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.

d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.

e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.

From a post by Dimensio here.

After some combination of a) through e), the theory of evolution works just fine.

[PatrickHenry]

After some combination of a) through e), the theory of evolution works just fine.

True. Evolution requires reproduction, variation, and selection. Those don't kick in until reproducing life exists. No life; no evolution.

Side point: were there life that didn't reproduce, like some kind of immortal crystals or something ("100 quatloos on the newcomers!") there would be life, but no evolution.

[King Prout]

this thread continues to slouch along?!?

Jinkies!
I mean
Zoiks!
er... make that
Jeepers!

PLACEMARKER

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply! However, your arguments are completely beside the point.

We all agree that Darwin did not address abiogenesis v biogenesis.

The term omne vivum ex vivo literally means "no life without antecedent life."

It was coined by William Harvey (1578-1657) who believed animals and plants to spring from what he terms a "primordium vegetale," a phrase which may nowadays be rendered "a vegetative germ" "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis" (1870) by Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) from Nature vol. 2: 400-406

Darwin’s theory takes life as a given and then proceeds to explain speciation in a continuum of life descending from a common ancestor. It is visualized as a tree of life.

Think about it – that literally is “life from antecedent life” - omne vivum ex vivo. He obviously presumed “life from life” from the get-go.

Again, think about it, if he had theorized life springing from non-life, his theory would not have been a continuum, an evolutionary tree of life, explaining speciation from a common ancestor. There would not be common descent and the tree would look like a field of grass.

I am astonished when others do not acknowledge this blatant irony. “Life from life” is the necessary presupposition for Darwin’s entire theory and it also happens to be the law of Biogenesis.

[Coyoteman]

Again, think about it, if he had theorized life springing from non-life, his theory would not have been a continuum, an evolutionary tree of life, explaining speciation from a common ancestor. There would not be common descent and the tree would look like a field of grass.

You keep citing this "field of grass." This reminds me of the creation "science" baraminology approach, with everything divided into separate "kinds."

But you say, "if he had theorized life springing from non-life, his theory would not have been a continuum, an evolutionary tree of life."

Why not?

In an evolutionary tree of life you have the tree, and below that the roots, then...dirt. It is a continuum from the roots up! It ignores origins. Darwin's analogy holds.

Footnote: Baraminology is based on scripture, not science.

Here is one bit of baraminology lore:

Various methods can be used to divide larger groups into smaller ones. One would be to consider Biblical evidence. Here, for example, organisms created on different days would not be related to one another. This reasoning leaves us with the following groups: 1) Day 3 organisms (land plants); 2) Day 5 organisms (sea creatures and birds); and 3) Day 6 organisms (land animals and man). Separate listings of organismal groups “after their kind” in Genesis One would indicate further division of these groups (KJV translation): 1a) “trees bearing fruit”; 1b) “herbs bearing fruit”; 1c) “grass”; 2a) “great whales”; 2b) ”every living creature” in the sea; 2c) “fowl”; 3a) “cattle”; 3b) “creeping things” on the land; 3c) “beasts of the earth”; and 3d) man. Other methods of dividing groups of organisms would include fundamental differences in genetic code, chromosomes, cell structure, metabolism, cell organization, and development. As research continues many more methods will probably be discovered. [Source]

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm sure someone must care about this Baraminology stuff - but it's not me. I couldn't care less.

I'm talking about Darwin - the irony of omne vivum ex vivo.

The evolutionary tree of life is a continuum, common descent, life from life, omne vivum ex vivo - which happens to also be the law of Biogenesis.

[RunningWolf]

Well DC' (and all they know) says that it looks like this

(Evo Tree of Life)



as in more like AG said it did "Darwin - the irony of omne vivum ex vivo"

W.

[Coyoteman]

I'm sure someone must care about this Baraminology stuff - but it's not me. I couldn't care less.

Baraminology is standard lore for YEC creation "science."

Glad you can see through the attempted deception.

[js1138]

Again, think about it, if he had theorized life springing from non-life, his theory would not have been a continuum, an evolutionary tree of life, explaining speciation from a common ancestor.

Books could be written about the logical errors in this statement. First, there is the possible case that first life was zapped into existence by a deity. This is, in fact, the scenario presented in Darwin's Origin. Note that the miraculous nature of the zapping does not change the fact that it is life from non-life.

Second, there is the possible case that a single non-miraculous abiogenic event occurred, in which case all life is descended from it. Notice that this scenario involves life coming from non-life.

Third, there is the possibility that the first reproducing molecules developed as a community, leading eventually to cellular life. Single celled organisms are promiscuous, sharing DNA through infection, conjugation and ingestion. The community of single celled organisms is, in fact, the currently hypothesized common ancestor of all life on earth.

Fourth, any of these scenarios could be complicated by spores or deliberate seeding from space. The origin of these spores would, if taken back in history, be non-living matter for the same reasons cited above.

All of these scenarios require at least one abiogenic event, whether natural or miraculous. None of them are inconsistent with evolution.

All evidence at hand is consistent with the descent of all multicellular organisms from a common population. But evolution would still happen if this were not the case.

Now the nitty-gritty: Darwin anticipated both the miraculous and the non-miraculous possibilities, and wrote about both. He made no judgement as to which was correct. He understood that people with pitchforks waited in the wings for people who questioned the literal reading of Genesis. He didn't speak in public about these things. But his letters are unambiguous on his religious doubts. He even confessed them to his wife before marriage. There is every reason to believe that Darwin thought abiogenesis was the correct view.

But once again, the origin of life matters not to how evolution works.

[js1138]

The evolutionary tree of life is a continuum, common descent, life from life, omne vivum ex vivo - which happens to also be the law of Biogenesis.

Consider this: assume that one and only one aboigenic event happened in the history of the universe. All subsequent life would be descended from this singular event.

Common descent is logically unrelated to biogenesis.

But wait, there's more. Darwin and subsequent biologists have believed in common descent -- and with very good evidence. But common descent, if true, is an accident of history. It has no bearing on whether the process of evolution works by variation and selection. Life on earth could include alien spores from space. It could include miraculous entities cooked up by God. Evolution still works the same way.

Your assertions are falsified by Darwin's own writings. You are saying things that are completly inconsistent with the writings of the only person relevant to this discussion -- darwin.

[PatrickHenry]

I am astonished when others do not acknowledge this blatant irony. “Life from life” is the necessary presupposition for Darwin’s entire theory and it also happens to be the law of Biogenesis.

Life certainly does beget life. In that limited sense your “Life from life” statement is true. There's not much question that Darwin understood the concept of reproduction.

But -- this is where we differ -- it's not a demonstrated fact, and it's not a pillar of Darwin's theory, that all life (including the first life) must come from pre-existing life.

A more accurate statement would be "evolution from life," which implies two things: (1) Where there is no life, there is no evolution; and (2) Where there is reproducing life, with variation and selection, the inevitable result is evolution.

And -- one more time -- in science (as opposed to creation "science") there is no "law of biogenesis."

[ahayes]

I'm aware that individuals on either side of the debate have conflicting views with their own side

So confused. . . How are we conflicting?