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."

[js1138]

I am not asserting the arrow of time reverses. I am saying evolution occasionally backtracks and reverses changes.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/uouh-sre073106.php

Among many possible links.

Please don't get into monkeys changing into fish. That Hollywood caricature is so tiresome.

[js1138]

PatrickHenry at 1539: 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.

js1138 at 1570 common descent is just the current best interpretation of evidence. It is unrelated to biogenesis or to the dynamics of evolution.

I'm willing to start over on this point, if you are willing to tell me what the point is.

[js1138]

I think the quote was in post 249 rather than 238. The kind of typo I'm good at. But I have it covered.

I'm glad you linked to 238 however. It contains a wish to have Yockey studied in high school.

Yockey turns out to be the Brier patch. Since the anti-evolutionists have been touting him for as long as I have been following these threads, I assumed he was a Behe/Dembski clone.

Imagine my surprise when I find he is a vocal anti-creationist who believes abiogenesis happened in a completely naturalistic way. Not only that, but he has written peer reviewed articles from the standpoint of information theory, arguing that "Darwinism" has been proved beyond doubt.

[dread78645]

YockeyDidn'tDoit placemark

(Nothing personal)

[.30Carbine]

Jesus came to make ALL religion obsolete

Amen, Christ Jesus came and died and rose again to establish relationship not religion.

"But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
~Jesus, John 4:23-24

"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
~Jesus, John 17:3

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
~1 John 5:20

[.30Carbine]

.. its back to the "observer" problem..

I agree, Pipe; the study called Science ought to be unbiased and completely factual, but as all can see now, it is not; it has become a my-science-right-or-wrong belief system for some and a barometer of belief to others.

[.30Carbine]

I get the distinct impression that not only do some people want life to be the spontaneous product of physics and chemistry exclusively, but they absolutely insist on it.

What is not at all clear is the origin of the genetic code itself.

Good points and exposition all, dear betty boop, as always; these I've copied above were my favorites!

[Senator Bedfellow]

I think you're going about this all wrong. I mean, surely you remember when Jesus said "Verily, amongst you shall come a man who has sailed on a boat named after a dog, and he shall have traveled to the island of the tortoises. Yea, and he shall come up with a cracking good theory on life, which I command thine future generations to learn as My own gospel, for it is like unto the truth."

We all remember that quote, right? And if you happen to not remember it because there's no documentary evidence that he said such a thing, it doesn't really matter - what's important is that none of us can honestly testify about what he didn't say, and so therefore you can attribute anything to anyone you like, and nobody can ever accuse you of making it up. Have fun!

[ahayes]

Do you mind not shotgun pinging me to posts that are not replies to my posts, are not about me, and are not about something I've been talking about?

[LibertarianSchmoe]

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....

Can you be specific about which reactions warrant your characterization? I think you've asked some interesting questions, and I hardly expected the "Darwinism is just a religion" from you.

[betty boop]

I hardly expected the "Darwinism is just a religion" from you.

I didn't say or mean to imply that Darwinism is "just a religion." It is a scientific theory that appears to have "good legs." There are other scientific theories that also seem to have "good legs," such as the big bang/inflationary universe model. But I don't "worship" either theory. And if subsequent investigation should undermine either one, I wouldn't be "upset."

However, it is clear to me that for some other people, the attachment to Darwinist evolutionary theory has become a sort of passionate faith commitment that bears all the signs of belief in the religious sense.

Thanks for writing LibertarianSchmoe!

[Alamo-Girl]

Once again for clarity – I cannot say and I doubt any mortal other than Darwin himself could ever have said that he didn’t say a particular phrase, i.e. that “life can only come from life.”

I can say, and have repeatedly said on this thread that “life from life” or “life begets life” or “omne vivum ex vivo” is the necessary presupposition for the theory of evolution which Darwin did say (many times and in many ways) – and also, ironically, is the Law of Biogenesis though he did not posit a theory of biogensis v abiogenesis.

Darwin envisioned the evolutionary tree of life as a continuum – as these sentences sourced to him at post 1609 attest (emphasis mine):

As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary progression by generation has never once been broken and no cataclysm has devastated the world. …from so simple a beginning [i.e., pre-Cambrian life forms] endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. [Origin of Species, Chapter XV.]

I strongly aver that the phrase “life can only come from life” is a legitimate paraphrase of the above.

Frankly, the manner in which you and js1138 have prosecuted this issue suggests that the subject is not the substance of the matter but rather a goal to tarnish another Freeper, an activity which is expressly disallowed on this Religion Forum.

I further assert that it has been a common “technique” on the evolutionist side of the debate to call their opponents “liars.” That such a technique would be used at all suggests there is weakness on your side of the debate, i.e. a person doesn't throw spitwads if he has ammunition.

The Religion Moderator has set the tone twice concerning two different Freepers. Both at post 456 and 1648, the term “false statement” was used to describe the same error by posters on your side of the debate. In neither case was the evolutionist Freeper who made the false statement tarnished - neither was an apology sought nor was one offered in either case.

Going any further than the substance of the statement - true or false - is an attempt to attribute motive and/or tarnish the poster, which is clearly "making it personal" - also expressly disallowed on this Religion Forum.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

However, it is clear to me that for some other people, the attachment to Darwinist evolutionary theory has become a sort of passionate faith commitment that bears all the signs of belief in the religious sense.

I disagree. I think that the passion you see is attached to the scientific method, which has resulted in the formation and refinement of the SToE, one of the most, if not the most, validated theory in science. I've never seen one on this side of the debate say that the SToE is beyond questioning. But when a (legitimate) question is answered, and the answer is ignored, or the goalposts are moved, it becomes frustrating. When the questions aren't born of curiosity, but malice and hostility, the issue is no longer about the validity of the SToE; it becomes about that thing that gives birth to the malice and hostility.

I hope that you'll consider this point. And, again, thanks back!

[Alamo-Girl]

You have strongly implied that Yockey has said abiogenesis is impossible.

I have implied or perhaps said that Yockey, Bohr and others have suggested that abiogenesis is unknowable or even impossible without an essential cause. I have personally asserted that it takes both faith and reason to approach "first cause" of either the universe(s) or life.

Much like wave/particle duality, position/momentum in the uncertainty principle and the ilk - faith and reason are complementary (reason cannot substitute for faith).

[Senator Bedfellow]

Bury the truth all you want, but it is the truth and you damn well know it.

[js1138]

I strongly aver that the phrase “life can only come from life” is a legitimate paraphrase of the above.

No it isn't. You are simply wrong.

As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Cambrian epoch... refers to a specific period of time, the era of single celled organisms (long before the Cambrian -- a period encompassing approximately 3.3 billion years).

If you want to participate in this debate, you simply have to wrap your mind around what common descent actually means. It means that all multi-celled organisms on earth are descended from the population of pre-cambrian single-celled organisms. That's what the Darwin quote says, and that's pretty close to the modern theory.

Furthermore, there is strong evidence from the identical cell machinery in all cellular organisms, that all cellular life is related.

The statement that “life can only come from life” is a statement about the impossibility of abiognesis. Both Darwin and Yockey are on record in the clearest possible terms supporting abiogenesis as either a possibility or, in Yockey's case, a near certainty.

The facts are quite plain here. Someone has made a false statement on this forum and attributed a quote to Darwin that Darwin's writings contradict.

[Religion Moderator]

The next Freeper to make it personal on this thread will be suspended.

[Virginia-American]

I further assert that it has been a common “technique” on the evolutionist side of the debate to call their opponents “liars.” That such a technique would be used at all suggests there is weakness on your side of the debate, i.e. a person doesn't throw spitwads if he has ammunition.

Excuse me? Within the last day I've seen the fake "Darwin recanted on his Deathbed" yarn, and I've seen false claims that there are no transitional fossils. It would behoove the creationists and ID-ists to police their own, tell their compatriots that by making claims that even AiG has disowned they are lowering the credibility of all anti-evolution activists.

[js1138]

I have implied or perhaps said that Yockey, Bohr and others have suggested that abiogenesis is unknowable or even impossible without an essential cause.

Scratch Yockey off the list. He is on record saying the origin of life is natural.

He also says we cannot reconstruct the exact history of abiogenesis. This is equivalent to saying we cannot reconstruct any complex historical event in perfect detail. We do not, however, say battle of Hastings was impossible without an "essential" cause.