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."
What was the advent that made them a human?
Well, I've never heard of the "Bright Movement". But there is a huge difference between it and the Discovery Institute. The DI is the leader in creationism (sorry, I mean ID, or Critical analysis of evolution or wait, I don't know what it's calling it now). It fooled Dover into following its "teachings" and then abandoned it when it came to litigation. Cost the Dover School District over a million $'s. And while I don't like Dawkins, I would note that the "attorneys" on the DI website are shockingly legally ignorant. Since DI is willing to publish legal ignorance, I take what their "scientists" say with a huge grain of salt. Granted, as a Christian, I don't think much of Dawkins and several others that you list. But, please, don't compare whatever the Bright movement is to DI.
Thankfully, you're not blind. But I would recommend that you become informed.
Metmom -- I think you like the debate more than anything. I *know* you are more intelligent and learned than that. You have tipped your hand in the past.
A theory is not evaluated on its usefulness. It is evaluated on its ability to explain phenomenon.
Once you have a workable explanation that fits all the proper criteria of a theory, you can begin to formulate ways to utilize it. But you build the foundation, then figure out its practical applicability later.
TToE can predict some general behavior. But even with the super computers of today we can't predict the path of evolution. Just like they have great theories of meteorology and can't predict a single hurricane more than a week or so in advance. And the number of variables in Evolution DWARF the number of variables in meteorology/climatology.
Did this start in Religion or evolve to Religion???
srweaver was not asking for that kind of specifics. The question he asked was quite reasonable. If you have some fossils from before the proto-mammal or proto-insect and some, or many, after, there should be some way of determining what characteristics it should have had, what it could have looked like.
If you don't know what to expect, how would you recognize it when you find it? So we don't know what to expect, but we'll know it when we see it?
sorry, it's what 3 million? Even if it's 400k same point.
wow...they used rocks...amazing.
So, is there a fossil that connects all mammals? Or all insects?
To coin a phrase.
How do you know that the specimens you and srweaver are seeking are not already known?
I don't know the answer, but it is possible that it is known to some reasonable certainty. Did either of you do a google, or did some creationist website pose the question?
(You should be very careful of the "science" you find on creationist websites. They do not do real science; they have all the answers figured out and they are bending facts every which way to make things come out the way they want. That is not science!)
And the Aurignacian also used bone for tools. In either case, your original point is refuted. You should study a little science before making broad and easily-refuted pronouncements.
You are talking about speciation -- Ichneumon and others have posted extensively about this Ichneumon's is Here
Courtesy Ping to you, Ichneumon.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal. Attributing motives, reading the other poster's mind are instances of "making it personal."
Click on my profile page for more guidelines concerning the Religion Forum.
I am not sure what Mainstream protestant churches have no problem with evolution, but I suspect it would be the same ones that have no problem with homosexuality and other ilk.
Your statement is like saying most doctors have no problem with Dr. Kevorkian.... that is how off target your comment is. No problem ending it hear, but be mindful peoples personal commitment of faith drives their lives ( or it should) on a moment by moment basis. It is easy to assume many things if you do not have your own personal commitment, and to those that do, those that don't tend to have a flagerant blind spot. All the Best, Walkingfeather
Is it possible to put this thread back in News/Activism where it started?
No.
But I thought it strange this was in Religion -- we usually keep these out of the Religion forum since the rules here allow/require theological approaches that constrain us who wish to keep things on a more pure scientific level.
And as you know, a small subset of us have evolved to the point where we CAN read others' minds (but we generally keep it a secret and certainly don't flaunt it) -- ;)
I am out of here.
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.