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."
So then, you have a problem with hyperbole?..
I do not.. as long as its creative..
When the four of you collectively have a year’s worth of experience in successfully moderating debates - between learned Catholics, Calvinists, Arminians, Scientologists, Muslims, Baptists, Charismatics, Islamists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, Agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists and so on – many of whom find all the other confessions and venerated beings either accursed or fatally in error - most of whom are driven to correct those errors – and who only share a common belief in one or the other or both, social or fiscal conservatism – then get back to me about which is and is not conducive to civil debate of theological and philosophical issues in a town hall format.
Meanwhile, I have work to do…
I would like to go on record with the fact that I filed no abuse report on the current topic, nor did I ping any moderators.
I asked a poster to voluntarily correct an error.
In my eight year history I have filed only a tiny handful of abuse reports -- mostly because of racism, and almost never on crevo threads.
This is not one of those threads. I have not taken the time of anyone who is not engaged in the current debate.
Science is/are people(scientists).. People (scientists) can easily be in a 2nd reality.. and will/can adjust their "science" to that reality.. its back to the "observer" problem.. Some scientists are SoupNazis.. others are George Costanza's.. yet others are Kramers..
Too flippant about this(me)?... Maybe... Discussing science can be FUN..
And so why is this thread in the Religion forum?
LoL...
You invited this scrutiny of your actions by putting this thread here in the Religion Forum.
That is a false statement. I did not put this thread in the Religion Forum.
The reason science differs from all other methods of acquiring knowledge is that the process of doing science and arguing science weeds out individual prejudices.
Science is driven by what works, and that is beyond the control of philosophy, religion, politics and ambition. Frauds are weeded out with a vengeance. Those who falsify data are never taken seriously again.
There are huge personal incentives to find errors in other people's work. The raw data collected by researchers is reanalyzed by others. Statistical tests are done to detect fudged data.
Because of this, the number of hoaxes and frauds in science can be listed on a page -- most detected within a few years -- while hucksters in religion and politics enjoy lifetimes of personal success.
Yes, I've noticed people often have an extremely hard time remaining civil when discussing conflicting religious beliefs. I guess veiled incivility is the best we can expect, although we should always strive for improvement.
Since we're suddenly responsive today, perhaps you'd like to return to my objection in post 543 and address it now.
Because science officially conforms to the philosophy of "methodological naturalism" it is therefore treated with an equal hand to all other philosophies and theologies discussed on the Religion Forum.
It's been cool here the last couple of weeks. Had to start wearing clothes again. I miss summer.
Apparently whenever any discussion concerning science and evolution even ever so slightly bumps into religion, it is automatically a candidate for a move into the Religion forum, at the whim of whichever mods are on duty at the time. Of course, if a thread goes on long enough, all mods will get a shot at moving it into the Religion forum and no other mod will countermand that action.
Blargh? So all science threads will now automatically go into the Religion forum? Whee!
Missing out on FUN thread discussing absolutely perfect 'observer' scientists, who of course never have any presuppositions, bookmark. Never ever in my entire life have I ever been sarcastic about anything.
Mostly true I suspect..
Must be why Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete... and did..
Religion and politics are reciprocals both quantify and police morality..
The Big Bang is yet to be rendered silly though..
Putting them in the Smokey Backroom gets them out of our hair but then others do not see all the interesting posts. Chat and bloggers are useful for the bizarre - and there is a science topic in chat.
It remains an open debate at this time so we usually (but not always) try to leave them where they were originally posted.
This is a false statement. "Methodological naturalism" is a process, not a philosophy. Declaring it to be a philosophy is standard creationist fare, however, and I notice that you do not even bother to address the point that you are now, de facto, declaring that the position of FR and the Religion Moderator is in agreement with the creationist position.
So it would seem. Presumably, since most objections tend to be based on the objector's religious beliefs, all evolution threads are inevitably going to bump into religion somewhat. Some will be moved. Some won't. Who knows which will be which?
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.