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."

[VadeRetro]

At least you're honest about it.

[Ducking]

[js1138]

"Why doesn't this happen now, everywhere, all the time?" is, if not a silly question, one that reflects naivety in the person posing it.

A question answered by Darwin in 1870, in the very letter that contradicts the claim he said live comes only from life.

Without being personal, it should really be embarrassing to repeat questions that were well answered in 1870.

[VadeRetro]

Without being personal, it should really be embarrassing to repeat questions that were well answered in 1870.

Not to mention the last twenty times the same person asked them.

[betty boop]

It would not be realistic to expect an abiotic but chemically organic soup to form in a world where cellular life has adapted to seemingly every possible niche and condition, including extreme temperatures and the eating of oil spills, nylon, etc.

What stipulates, or governs, the "seemingly every possible niche and condition," VadeRetro? You seem to indicate on these grounds that some things aren't "possible." By what criterion (or criteria) do you discriminate between the possible and the impossible?

At the very least, it seems you admit there may be a problem of impossible vs. possible here.

Plus you are leaving out the time problem. And evolution itself -- in order to BE evolution -- needs not just time, but a direction for time. After all, evolution is not temporally reversible.

Such are the problems that interest me.

Just wondering what you really think.

Thanks for writing!

[js1138]

Plus you are leaving out the time problem. And evolution itself -- in order to BE evolution -- needs not just time, but a direction for time. After all, evolution is not temporally reversible.

Specifically, what part of evolution is not reversible, and why?

The question regarding niches is rather easy. You just have to realize that regardless of where or how or how many times life came from non-life (even if one or more miracles) there would be a dominant microbe culture for the simple reason that bacteria eat each other. We are talking about an era of single celled organisms that lasted six times as long as the "modern" era of multi-celled organisms.

We often cite elements of DNA as a demonstration of common descent, but your pal Yocky has an even more interesting argument for common descent. The cellular machinery is reproduced intact from one generation to another, even in microbes. It is the "boot sector" of life, to borrow a phrase from computerise.

The cellular machinery is nearly identical in all living things. Microbes are nearly as complex as humans, except for a few parameters in their DNA. But their cellular machinery is the same.

[js1138]

By the way, you advised me to "take it up with Yockey," and this is what I found. (boldface mine)

---

DATE: 13 Nov 2000 From: Hubert P. Yockey

Subject: Your Review of Information Theory and Molecular Biology Dear Gert: Thank for your review of my book Information Theory and Molecular Biology. This book is now out of print but I am working on the second edition. You seem puzzled by my quotations of the Bible. Please note that I also quote Robert Frost, Homer's Iliad, the Mikado, Charles Darwin, Machiavelli''s The Prince, Plato, The Rubaiyat and other sources. When something was said 2000 years ago, it is plagiarism to say it again without quotation. It is a viscous circle indeed! (*) But that is what we find by experiment. We are the product of nature not its judge. As Hamlet said to his friend: "There are many things, Horatio, between Heaven and Earth unknown in your philosophy." See Gregory Chaitin's books "The Limits of Mathematics",1998 and "The Unknowable",1999 both Springer-Verlag. See also my comments on unknowability in Epilogue. We will never know what caused the Big Bang and we will never know what caused life. By the way, I am indeed an anti-creationist becaue I believe that the origin of life is, like the Big Bang, a part of nature but is unknowable to man. Taken all in all, especially for those who finished reading the review, it is very favorable. Here is a list of my recent publications. If you send me your postal address I shall send you the Computers & Chemistry paper. That will explain why the recent data on the genomes of human and other organisms provide a mathematical proof of "Darwinism" beyond a reasonable doubt. (**) I suggest you read the paper in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. Perhaps you would then like to read some of Walther Löb's papers. Stanley Miller was not the first to find amino acids in the silent electrical discharge. Yours very sincerely, Hubert P. Yockey

[betty boop]

I suggested that abiogenesis is theoretically possible in two ways. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, if I'm following you, cornelis. You suggest that ultimate causation for life could be either homogeneous or heterogeneous. If by "homogeneous" you mean fully specified by the physico-chemical laws, that would be one thing. If, on the other hand, you mean the physico-chemical laws as aided by another "heterogeneous" cause (which as you say we might expect would be a noncorporeal cause), that would be another.

But I'm not sure I have correctly grasped your meaning in this. So would be very glad to be corrected if I misunderstood you!

There is biogenesis, and then there is abiogenesis. My understanding of the latter term comprehends the idea of a sui generis cause for life, of the ability of "dumb" matter to "bootstrap" itself into a living condition, on the strength of the physico-chemical laws alone.

Yet my problem with the latter supposition (which I have reason to doubt is your own) is this: Absolutely everything that exists in the universe, living or non-living, is composed of exactly the same particles and fields. And yet living beings exhibit "behaviors" that we never see in non-living phenomena, such as for instance crystals. One supposes that the latter are fully specified by the physico-chemical laws. But it seems to me we cannot say the same thing about living organisms: Their behavior is not limited to what can be predicted on the basis of initial conditions and the operation of the physical laws. Indeed, they seem to be in total rebellion against the second law of thermodynamics, as the late, great Harvard biologist Gaylord Simpson pointed out. They can "change their course," they can heal themselves, they can coordinate all the various subsystems that compose their total organism, governing the macroscopic integrity of the organism. And so forth.

So what accounts for the difference between animate and inanimate systems in nature? This, to me, is the greatest question confronting the life sciences today. And yet to raise it, one must seemingly get used to the idea that such an honest question will be answered by somebody throwing "received doctrine" in one's face.

That sort of thing goes absolutely nowhere. Plus I am made to feel that I have transgressed against somebody's holy writ -- when science ought not to have anything to do with holy writ.

And that, to me, is the fundamental problem of "disputes" like the one we are having here, in the Religion Forum, no less.

Still many respondents are scratching their heads and expressing perplexity that such topical matter should find itself in the Religion Forum in the first place.

To which I have to say to such people: You've got to be kidding! Just look at yourselves! Your reaction to the things I've said reminds me of the reactions that Christians had to Serrano's photograph of the crucifix suspended in a glass of urine. Such a response, in my view, is not exactly rational....

I much admire your essay/post at #1553. Thank you so much for writing, cornelis!

[VadeRetro]

What stipulates, or governs, the "seemingly every possible niche and condition," VadeRetro? You seem to indicate on these grounds that some things aren't "possible." By what criterion (or criteria) do you discriminate between the possible and the impossible?

I'm pretty sure there are place on Earth that are really, really, too hot to contain any sort of life at all. There may even be conditions which are in one way or another too toxic, although I'm guessing here. Thus, I hedge my language a little, trying to be as accurate as possible. It doesn't mean I'm not saying what I'm saying, or that it doesn't need to be addressed.

At the very least, it seems you admit there may be a problem of impossible vs. possible here.

If I have made an admission that undercuts my point, I don't see it myself. (Not that I wouldn't as I said make every effort to be strictly accurate.)

Plus you are leaving out the time problem.

I was making a specific point. I wasn't anticipating every objection ever thought up on the spur of a moment to abiogenesis.

And evolution itself -- in order to BE evolution -- needs not just time, but a direction for time. After all, evolution is not temporally reversible.

If time ever backed up, how would we know, and why does the process of evolution depend more than any other on it not happening? When I reverse a VCR tape or CD, the characters in the movie don't realize I'm doing it. Furthermore, the movie still ends the same way when I let it go forward. OK, the characters aren't really present on my recorded media, just some visual and auditory impressions. Doesn't matter. We are trapped in time the way those movie events are trapped on the media. Backing up just results in replaying the same old history the same way again and again.

However, all this is utterly off point from what I said. The abiotic soup can only happen once. You have life and it's a different world. Anybody can understand that who isn't militantly trying not to. It doesn't take a genius. It just takes not having certain very specific fish to fry. When a question like that is being discussed, anyone who doesn't have those particular fish to fry can see the people who behaving bizarrely.

[betty boop]

You flashed on the "anti-creationist" statement. Beyond that, you should know (and let me be the first to clue you in) Yockey is also nominally "anti-ID."

Reasons: Yockey knows in the first case that the origin of life and the universe are either unknowable or undecideable according to scientific methodology -- though perfectly consistent with the physico-chemical laws. In the latter case, he has bought into the idea widely current these days that ID is synonymous with "special creation." I agree with him on the first point, but disagree on the second.

Still, Yockey is transfixed by the mathematical problems involved in the genetic code; just to speak of a code is to speak of an intelligence.... (Codes don't construct themselves.)

WRT anything else he says in these passages (regarding an earlier work, not the 2005 work that I've been citing), I have no disagreement at all.

[VadeRetro]

When a question like that is being discussed, anyone who doesn't have those particular fish to fry can see the people who behaving bizarrely.

"... people who DO ..."

[Virginia-American]

I realize you are veterans of the crevo wars. But crevo debates are nowhere near as emotionally charged as religious debates.

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 ..

The difference between science and religion in a nutshell. Science appeals to experiment and observation as the final authority; relligion has none.

[PatrickHenry]

"... people who DO ..."

Far less inan-ia
Than landlocked Romania

[js1138]

I think his email speaks for itself, without interpretation. Sorry about the boldface. Some people might not otherwise read past the first sentence.

I do not personally consider myself smarter than Yockey, so I find nothing wrong with his characterization of the origin of life as completely natural.

And I think he is correct that recent DNA studies have put "Darwinian" evolution beyond doubt.

He's a good man. Thank you for convincing me to check him out.

[js1138]

...just to speak of a code is to speak of an intelligence.... (Codes don't construct themselves.)

He's a bright man, and honest. I trust his judgement that the origin of life is natural.

[cornelis]

Thank you for your reply. It is important to clarify. It often happens that disputes arise because two people are using terms correctly but meaning different things.

The question you ask about the difference between things animate and inanimate intersects with VadeRetro's comment about the origin of life being a one-time event. We are trying to discover the conditions that caused this transition to occur. In assuming that such a transition occurs homogeneously, we would wonder what you are wondering: could this not happen again to inaminate matter and why not? Of course the event has occurred once already, but why not again?

However, if this event occurred heterogeneously, our supposed conditions may imitate the event, but we would not have a handle on what actually happened.

These may be the reasons why Darwin admitted his agnosticism: "the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect . . . the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us."

I'll check in later.

[VadeRetro]

So I've made like one misteak! Do I ever get a brake on it?

[balrog666]

He's a bright man, and honest. I trust his judgement that the origin of life is natural.

Sounds reasonable to me.

[hosepipe]

[ Still, Yockey is transfixed by the mathematical problems involved in the genetic code; just to speak of a code is to speak of an intelligence.... (Codes don't construct themselves.) ]

A heavy(weighty) statement that(above) except for crystals.. Crystals have "a" "code".. Many things crystalize according to their "code".. An almost "intelligent" code.. Crystalography is extremely interesting.. Un-intelligent "matter/energy" that displays a code.. How this relates to this conversation I dunno but it somehow seems resonant to me.. I "feel" it relates.. Something about crystals intriques me spiritually.. Totally inanimate matter/energy crystals are, but as you say, "codes don't construct themselves"

[freedumb2003]

So I've made like one misteak! Do I ever get a brake on it?

Not if you are an armature.

[Alamo-Girl]

My reponse to your quote from 1537 is not the excerpt shown with that excerpt on your post 1603, but rather post 1558