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."
Of course not. That would be retarded. However, since these words are not accurate, one cannot claim that every word in the Bible is true. Using it as a science text is even worse. Not all of this is "modern taxonomy", either. Some of it is objective facts that are wrong regardless of what era you are in.
Locusts: Perhaps the hind legs (hoppers) were not counted in the description.
They're still legs. In fact, since they are used for jumping, and are therefore the primary means of ground locomotion, why didn't God refer to locusts as only having two legs in that case?
While I don't claim to have any knowledge about when or why this thread was moved into a different forum you do seem to have missed the fact that the "scientist" who authored the OP was making a theological argument, not a scientific one in at least his first 2 points.
Thanks for all those very useful links...I respect your expertise in this area and appreciate that the links you posted will be full of information, from experts in the field...your effort is much appreciated...
CthulhuDidit placemark
- That should suffice to show that there ARE many SCIENTISTS who believe in Creation Science or Intelligent Design with attendant evidence.
Lets' look at some of these:
CRS Statement of BeliefSource: Creation Research SocietyAll members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Summary of the AiG Statement of FaithSource: Asnwers in GenesisFor a slightly more detailed copy of the Statement of Faith, please make your request in writing.
(A) PRIORITIES
The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
(B) BASICS
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.
(C) THEOLOGY
The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
All things necessary for our salvation are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.
Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in person to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage.
(D) GENERAL
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious,’ is rejected.
No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
Other similar organizations have similar statements.
Now someone who is a scientist is free to join such an outfit, but, if his research is constrained by statements like the above, whatever he is doing there is not science. That's because he's reached his conclusions based on a single data point, the Bible, and explicitly said he will ignore or reinterpret any data that contradicts it.
Further note that the two statements above are explicitly Christian. No Jews or Hindus can perform research at these places. This is very different from science, where the results are tested against natural phenomena only, and are independent of the researchers' religious beliefs. That's one reason why science uses peer review, to make sure that individual prejudices aren't contaminating the results.
"Pet the kittens gently!" Placemarker
You are right. And the fact that we can see planets orbiting the sun, and even toss a few tiny ones of our own into the fray, is no proof that the earth orbited the sun in Biblical times. One should never assume that physical laws and phenomena are constant over time.
I'm sorry, but science doesn't deal in proof. It just seeks the most elegant descriptions and explanations of phenomena. Among these phenomena are the geologic column and its embedded fossils, ERVs, polyploidy, and ring species.
For starters.
The problem with the religion forum is that all statements seem to have equal claim to veracity, so long as they are based in faith.
Some may be more equal than others.
[Motive disclaimer: Everyone is wonderful. I have no motivation in posting this material.]
I don't normally frequent the religion forum, so I really don't know if your comment is accurate or not, but if it is, I'd have problems with such an approach as well. Clearly, truth is not created by personal perspective. I believe truth is objective, and in many or most cases we are able to arrive at it (not that we all recognize or agree on it, of course).
Philosophies and theologies are the foundation for how Freepers and Lurkers approach the question Pilate asked “What is Truth?” - a primary issue on this forum.
As a Christian, I would in no way suggest science should hold some special status.
Fine. But that is exactly why science shouldn't be in the religion forum. It's not a religion and it can't be treated as if it were. This is why we have a religion forum -- for religious issues. And that's why we have forums other than the religion forum. That's why I post science news threads in the news forum. I just did another, this morning: Meet the Earliest Baby Girl ever Discovered! It's news, and I think it belongs in the news forum.
Freepers can -- and do -- post articles from creationist websites about what science means to their faith. That's entirely appropriate material in the religion forum (in my always humble opinion). But outside of this forum, a thread about science shouldn't be subject to theological constraints.
Mind you, "The Creationist Method" would be better phrased "The Political Method," as it is a method used by politicians of all stripes.
On the other hand, it's not an invalid way of thinking -- start with the conclusion, then look for the data -- as long as the conclusion can be abandoned, if the data cannot be found.
Science isn't after TRUTH. Just knowledge -- something that can be accumulated.
Religion and philosophy do not accumulate knowledge. There is no way to distinguish the era of philosophy or theology from its content, without knowing its history.
But it's funny how they think they could somehow recognize "truth" when they have stopped looking for it.
makes the old "blind leading the blind" quip rather amusing
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.