Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Does anyone see the irony of asking me to post examples backing my claim and not asking ......

Of course, it happens all the time. That's their mantra!

Once again, the burden of proof belongs with those who posit their hypotheses, not with those who point out the standards such dealers of hypothetics fail to attain.

My responses have been to show how Evolution is just what it is: too lacking in testability, testing, and test results, to be called scientific theory. Also, to point out how human beings (and animals) have abilities that are simply not addressable by the vain materialist philosophy at the heart of Darwinism. Prove that, and you could be the next nobel prize winner. The problem is that the whole statement is nonsense, and you would be laughed out of any scientific conference.

Argh, this html thing is tricky.

The world didn't begin 10,000 years ago. Evidence abounds but then who believes creation has ceased?

Be careful to keep the discussion on the issues and not make it personal.

Christians and conservatives should NOT accept evolution as evolution is simply anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture.

Have you seen this thread?

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.

Of course, ID doesn't dispute evolution or an ancient age of the universe (that's why IDers aren't creationists). It merely says that some intelligent guidance of fifteen billion years of evolution is a demonstrable fact. But anti-ID evolutionists reject this apparently because they regard religion as philosophical speculation which should not be mixed with demonstrable fact. It isn't very honest to portray this little intra-evolutionist tiff as a "fight against creationism."

We know where evolutionists stand on the first eleven chapters of Genesis. I'm wondering where they stand on, say, Exodus, chapters three and four, and chapter 20 and following? It is my understanding that evolutionists claim they only want creationists to give up the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Surely they don't want to add the accounts of Divine Revelation to that, do they? But if they refuse to consider the very possibility of the objective facticity of revelation (since they regard religion as subjective philosophical speculation), then aren't they wanting to do away with the literal interpretation of a lot more than just Genesis 1-11?

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.

So Mr. Shermer says that believing that G-d created the universe by somehow taking a personal hand in it is belittling, but he nevertheless believes that G-d created the world? Granted this latter is only his personal opinion, since all religion is (of course) subjective philosophical speculation and there is no such thing as objective Revelation (which is why Mr. Shermer attacks other evolutionists who believe that G-d created the universe through evolution even though that is what he himself claims to believe).

Very well. G-d used evolution to create the universe (according to Mr. Shermer). This is not "intelligent design." Michael Behe says that G-d used evolution to create the universe. This is. I get it. [/sarcasm]

But let us say that G-d guided evolution without "interfering with the creation" (as opposed to guiding evolution by "directly interfering with creation"). The non-ID Theistic evolutionists assure us (do they not?) that they have no quarrel with anything else in the Bible. Why would a G-d who had not interfered with the evolutionary process (by which He created the world according to Mr. Shermer) suddenly begin interfering constantly once that non-interfered-with creation process was complete? Why would Eve have to be removed from Adam's side (by "direct Divine interference," no less)? Why would a talking snake suddenly waddle in (before its legs were taken away)? Why would Adam and Eve conceive and give birth to five children within a matter of minutes? Why would angels call down fire and brimstone on Sedom? Why would a bush burn and not be consumed (in violation of natural laws that G-d refused to interfere with while the universe and its laws were evolving, even though He was using this process in order to create)? What about the three million people who heard the voice of the invisible, incorporeal, non-incarnated G-d with their own ears?

Why would G-d interfere and open a donkey's mouth so that it would speak? Why cause an ax to float on water? Why see to it that every Jew could come into the various courtyards of the Beit HaMiqdash and yet there would be room for everyone, and that everyone could pray aloud yet no one could hear what anyone else was saying?

Then you have those Notzerim. They actually claim that the G-d who refused to "directly interfere" in the evolution process by which he created the universe (unlike IDers, who believe he did so interfere) dared to encloth himself in human flesh (after a virgin gave birth, no less). Moreover even the most anti-supernatural, anti-ID chr*stians insist that this J*sus did all these magic tricks and they were 100% real. Then (they say) he returned to life after being executed and actually supernaturally reappears every time a priest recites correcty performs the rituals. Now slap me silly and call me Obadiah but I detect a whiff of hypocrisy here when these same Notzerim start bawling and crying about the "J*sus Seminar" or The DaVinci Code.

So the problem is, if you're going to believe all this other stuff, what's the point of insisting on a purely naturalistic origin of the universe (while insisting that G-d is the one Who did it, even though that's exactly what those "creationist" IDers say)? A purely naturalistic process created this world full of talking donkeys and magical flesh cookies? Jeepers.

Of course, I suppose it's theoretically possible that evolutionists who say their only quarrel is with the first eleven chapters of Genesis and have no other problems whatsoever with the rest of the contents of Judaism or chr*stianity are lying to us . . . or perhaps just ignorant.

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.

Evolution explains how sin was brought into a thitherto absolutely perfect world (in which people didn't even die) by the eating of a fruit??? Cool.

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.

That sounds suspiciously like a denial of the notion of Divine Commandments (decrees) delivered to humanity via revelation. So now Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy have to join Genesis as "profound allegories?" Whaddaya gonna do with that J*sus feller?

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.

Well, not that I have a stake in chr*stian morality, but now I'm confused. First evolutionists only wanted Genesis 1-11 de-literalized (chr*stian evolutionists only want the "old testament" de-literalized). But still (they say), even though He didn't "interfere," G-d nevertheless actually created the world via evolution (as opposed to IDers who say He created the world by "interfering" with evolution). But now they're telling us our morality wasn't given to us by supernatural revelation? Perhaps G-d "used" natural human societal evolution to give us His "decrees" (without actually interfering, of course!)? Sounds an awful lot like the universe is creating G-d here instead of the other way round. Hegel, anyone?

I wonder what the late JPII would have thought of evolutionists quoting his words on evolution to imply that Divine Revelation is as unnecessary to chr*stianity as a six day creation?

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.

Not being interested in Adam Smith (or John Locke, or Thomas Jefferson, or Thomas Paine, etc.) what do I care what explains free market economics? Oh well. Maybe social conservatives will eventually wake up to how the economic conservatives are using them. But at any rate I find this concept of "spontaneous order" very interesting (especially when it encompasses "spontaneous objective meaning"). But remember, G-d actually did all this through evolution without actually interfering with it. So I guess G-d created free market economics too?

And I notice that Mr. Shermer does indeed believe in design, so long as it is "unintended." So G-d created the universe via evolution even though He didn't intend to? Maybe this is the real sticking point between ID Theistic evolutionists and anti-ID Theistic evolutionists.

So when will this "gxd" being spontaneously and unintentionally created by the universe be complete? I suppose for right wing evolutionists, though, we passed the "omega point" a little over two hundred years ago. Coincidentally, it didn't stop when Hegel thought it would either.

PS: All this being the case, maybe some of you anti-ID Catholics can explain to me how J*sus pulls off this "transubstantiation" business? Perhaps that's an "unintended consequence?"

My responses have been to show how Evolution is just what it is: too lacking in testability, testing, and test results, to be called scientific theory. Also, to point out how human beings (and animals) have abilities that are simply not addressable by the vain materialist philosophy at the heart of Darwinism.

Prove that, and you could be the next nobel prize winner. The problem is that the whole statement is nonsense, and you would be laughed out of any scientific conference.

Once again, the "burden of proof" is with those who would propound the "theory," not with those who point out the standards which are not being met. Once again, I leave dealings with documentation that is not science but is presented as science (i.e., pseudo-science) to "you" (i.e., the Darwinist). And as I leave, I bid you newfound intellectual peace.

Christians and conservatives should NOT accept evolution as evolution is simply anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture.

OK, so Astronomy is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture?

Geology is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture?

Archeaology is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture?

or is it just evolution because it somehow disagrees with your literal interpretation of Genesis?

Because if one branch of science, (evolution), is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture, then all branches of science are.

OK, there, maybe html isn't as hard as I thought.

- Evolution as is popularly taught is that there is NO Creaor, so there is NO creation. ALL "somehow" came from NOTHING, or next to nothing. Precise ORDER ACCIDENTALLY sprang "somehow"- over a loooooooooooot of time- out of UTTER CHAOS and/or NOTHINGNESS. It's all given a whire-wash of Scientific jargon and the duped public is to tkae this MYTH as fact.

Unless you can correctly state the theory of evolution, and correctly report how it is taught, no one is likely to feel any great obligation to respond to your requests.

My responses have been to show how Evolution is just what it is: too lacking in testability, testing, and test results, to be called scientific theory.

You have been provided with examples of tests for the theory of evolution. That you refuse to accept that they are actually a part of the theory does not negate their existence.

You're incorrect. Evolutionary theory is currently the dominant model. As it is the status quo, the burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

"OK, so Astronomy is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture?"

Nope.

"Geology is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture?"

Nope.

"Archeaology is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture?"

Nope.

The above are sciences.

The anti's you mentioned above pertain to evolution, which is not considered a science. It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science.

You're incorrect.

Discuss the issues, do not make it personal. If the above were phrased "that statement is not correct" it would not have been personal.

Oh, good grief.

You have been provided with examples of tests for the theory of evolution. That you refuse to accept that they are actually a part of the theory does not negate their existence.

No tests have been made which obviate a Creator creating, which is the primary impetus of the philosophy of Darwinism. (No observation of the generation of true, discretely reproducing species of complex life forms, generated by material causes, etc.)

G'night.

Oh, good grief.

Right.

Its time to put the spine to the feathers. Good night all.

You're incorrect. Evolutionary theory is currently the dominant model. As it is the status quo, the burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

Beginning in 1917, Marxist theory was the dominant socioeconomic model in Russia. Their burden eventually became too much to bear. Intellectually, it was from the beginning.

Science knows no dominant models except those which have been tested as consistent and not countered by tests, in the first place.

G'night.

what that appears to mean, literally, is "avoid use of the second-person, singular or plural. use, instead, elaborate constructs built around the odious 'one does this' etc..."

example:
"it would appear that it is not the content but, instead, the form of manners which matters here, one might be led -by some authoritative posts- to conclude."