Bless you, my son!
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."
So you're saying logic is relative?
Is the to some extent the view that much of the public has of Conservatism (here and in other countries.) It's similar to what happens in discussions with new-agers or postmoderndeconstructionists.
It would appear that he or she is assuming his or her conclusion, and refusing to accept that his or her claims should not be accepted as truth without evidence.
O how horrible!
The control of Washington is in the hands of about half of one percent of the population.
Pointing out that Republicans are slitting their own throats by abandoning science is not the same as supporting democrats.
Just for example: I guarantee that the climate is warming. The cause can be debated, but the event is happening. A couple more degrees, and the Republicans will be standing on the sidelines for the next hundred years, watching socialists manage the government.
However, refusing to vote for Rinos is.
on this thread, is there an apparent difference?
sheyucks... ary taime, Paw!
I guess my attempted humor in reference to DATING didn't compute too swell ;^)
I know the feeing! ;^)
;^)
You illustrate some of my points very well. Using the liberal spin tactics that say Republicans are abandoning science is hogwash.
Where have any Republican leaders stated the party's action plan to abandon science? As many here like to request, show me the data.
The Republican Majority leader in The Senate is a doctor, hardly someone who advocates "abandoning" science.
It is these style of tactics used here that smack of liberalism and turn off many FReepers to your "cause".
thank you for offering up your opinion for public scrutiny.
some would find merit in it.
however, conversely, and speaking in broad and completely non-specific terms of course:
Anyone who goes far and away beyond the call of whatever sectarian duty he could possibly operate under to make the Republican Party (and political conservatism more generally) appear to be the exclusive bailiwick of Luddites and theocrats ought to be drummed off the site as an obvious covert Donk operative/useful idiot.
I said that.
Two different subjects, as you are well aware. It was not contradictory but it suits your purpose to state otherwise.
You will have to carry on without me. Enjoy what is left of this glorious day.
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.