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."
This was written about physics, but applies to all of science
The Crackpot IndexIt is an interesting exercise to rate any biologist of your choice against, say, Morris, Hovind, Dembski, or Behe, or to compare the creationist and ID hypotheses and how they're backed up with normal science.John Baez
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:
A -5 point starting credit.
1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".
10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.
10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.
10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.
10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".
10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".
10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)
20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).
20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.
20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)
20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.
20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".
20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".
30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)
30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.
30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).
30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.
40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.
40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.
40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
I just saw this was posted on the religion board, but it came from "Scientific American". ...
There is no such thing as original sin. That concept was declared doctrine by the Council of Orange awhile back and is due primarily to the thoughts and efforts of Augustine. They made certain claims which contradict the words of Jesus in John 9 and their first claim directly contradicts Ezekiel 18, the very chapter cited by the Council as a justification. The Jews never believed in original sin also, the concept was foreign to them.
It wasn't "posted on the religion board." One of the mods decided that this Scientific American article should be moved to the religion forum.
It is written and translated by men. The creation can be observed and studied by all men in all cultures without translation. It's laws and attributes are constant. It cares not where or when you were born.
You worship an icon full of pagan stories borrowed from pagan cultures.
Aside from being a subset of the set of all gods he is indeed a subset of the Christian god. The Christian god is made up of three parts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
If there is no separation between the Father and the Son then why did the Son complain to the Father while being crucified?
Although the Bible considers God to be the god of both the Jews and the Muslims, those two faiths and Christianity assign disparate qualities to God. So in that sense your god is a subset of the god 'attributes' accepted by those three religions.
Did you intend to have a point and just forget to state it?
Oh come now. You assume that we're ruling out the possibility that no deities exist at all.
We were created in God's image. There's nothing mere about us, unless we don't try.
ok, so -if I understand you correctly- one could safely assert in trumpeting boldness, with no fear of repercussions from the Mods, on a religion thread, something along the lines of...
"All variants of [creed X] are pure bunk, so much and so obviously so that belief in any thereof seems the very definition of abject ignorance and certifiable lunacy"?
...irrespective of what "creed X" might be specified as being?
as a side note - "Particularly with regard to theology and philosophy, such conduct is almost never stupidity or mendacity. It is most always a matter of belief" is essentially irrelevant when the -ah- "habitual poster of inaccuracy" is making patently false statements concerning verifiable empirical data.
It's a nice excuse, for philosophers, but does not cover those who blatantly and demonstrably misrepresent facts.
hey! only a few posts left until your favorite Prime's time comes 'round at last - you gonna slouch towards this thread?
Gomorrah or Bethlehem?
Probably a feeble attempt at a joke (the pun on dating.)
In the same way the scientists here consistently say to 'keep religion out of the science class', we should be keeping science class out of the news/activism forum.
Science is not a mainstream area for conservative activism. It's not even on the radar of priorities...and the statistics in the opening paragraphs of the original post confirm that.
Not to mention that an elite group of chosen people get to participate in certain News/Activism posts, and a hand picked (by who?) group of people cannot, goes against FR principals, as Religion Mod rightly pointed out earlier. Cetainly there is, at the very least, an equal amount of FReepers who view each side of this discussion as "disruptors".
Scientists who threaten to leave The Republican Party because of different opinions about evolution in particular, deserve the same treatment here that the single issue border fanatics have received, from JimRob on down. Anyone who enables Democrat victories by turning against Republicans does not have our support and should leave.
Single issue border turncoats are somewhat of a significant minority...single issue evolution turncoats are miniscule in the national majority we enjoy.
Last, I repeat my example; where would an article about Christianity/Islam impact on war/terror/politics be categorized by the mods? If it was a discussion about the principles of Christianity and Islam, it would be put in Religion.
I am suggesting the exact same thing for science. No one is suggesting a ban. That type of spin smacks of liberalism. All logic should substantiate the unique needs and discussions around how evolution and science should be categorized on the leading grass roots, conservative, political forum that is Free Republic.
Thanks for your consideration.
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.