[PatrickHenry]

Everybody be nice.

[LongElegantLegs]

No offense intended, but one could write a more convincing case for why Christians should include the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the trinity.

This article is a little one dimensional.

[Radix]

"There is a conflict between biblical literalists and evolution. Not much doubt about that."?

I completely disagree with that! Not the doubt part. That is you and many may have no doubts, and I agree or rather appreciate (with) that.

The notion that there is conflict b/n Biblical literalists and evolution probably has more to do with how one defines a "literalist."

I have met few people in this lifetime who actually have read that text, and even fewer who have read the text in the original language.

I have met none with complete understanding. I have met many who claim to have such a command.

The number 3 (Three) is nonsense in the article.

Keep being nice.

[Dracian]

God is just a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than we are.

They're setting themselves up for the fall. When lightning was not understood, it was the work of the Greek and Roman gods. Nowdays we understand how to generate electricity and so as impressive as a bolt of lightning is, there's no great mystery about it.

Similarly, as our abilities to genetically engineer things increases we will eventually be able to produce things more perfectly than anything found in nature.

This religionist view of God as genetic engineer will become silly because human engineers will do a better job. Yet it is not because they consider themselves to be god like in their powers -- but because the creationists of today are so limited in their imaginations of what power a god like being must have. Just as the ancients thought only gods could produce electricity.

[chesley]

Interesting, and yet, it totally missed the entire point of Christians who object to evolution. Namely, without the Fall, there is no need for redemption. And with evolution, there is no Fall.

I offer this without taking a position either way, so save the flames.

[JamesP81]

1. Evolution fits well with good theology.

This has been debunked so many times it's almost humorous. Almost.

[Tax-chick]

Is "pish-tosh" nice?

The only reason to "accept" evolution would be if an individual believed it to be an accurate explanation of events.

[Elsie]

Oh boy!

SA!!!

I took this magazine for DECADES before they swung to the left about 10 years ago....


Does that 'editor' still publish his smirking little picture in each issue?

[Sloth]

Speaking as a Christian who leans toward theistic evolution, I have to say these are TERRIBLE reasons.

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?

This is NOT a reason to accept evolution. It is merely a (valid) point that evolution is not outside of the scope of God's power.

2. Creationism is bad theology.

This is the worst, most incoherent argument in the list. God's choice of how to create in no way diminishes His power to do it a multitude of other ways. It also mis-identifies intelligent design, as almost all anti-ID (and a lot of pro-ID) propaganda does.

3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature.

4. Evolution explains family values.

5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts.

All 3 of these are essentially the same argument. "Explaining" a moral or spiritual principle in terms of natural selection & instincts is not going to get Christians on the side of evolution. If God is involved, He doesn't need Darwin's help in formulating a moral code. If He's not involved, then any such biologically derived "morals" have no more objective legitimacy than a mosquito's "moral" compulsion to bite humans.

6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics. Charles Darwin's "natural selection" is precisely parallel to Adam Smith's "invisible hand."

Ridiculous. If biological systems were instead structured such that less fit organisms were disproportionately benefited by those who are better adapted, meaning that all genetic lines were equally preserved instead of the fit ones, would that somehow create a moral argument for socialism?

If conservative Christians should accept evolution as true, it is for exactly one reason: because it IS true. If evolution is a fact, then it should be accepted for THAT reason, not because it gives us warm fuzzy feelings about God and/or morality and/or the Laffer curve. This is a terribly condescending article.

[Elsie]

You guys bitch when religious types emote about 'science' - can we complain when 'science' tells religion what to believe?

[Elsie]

 

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

 

---

Yeah... sure....

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. 

If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers,

they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Acts 17:26-27

 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
 27.  God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

 

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 Acts 17:24-26

 24.  "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
 25.  And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
 26.  From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Was LUKE wrong about this?

---

 

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
 8.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
 9.  neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  

 

---

 

 

Was Paul WRONG about these???

 

---

 

If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word??

 

NIV Genesis 2:18
   The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

---

---

 

 

SA left out reason 0:

"We're tired of their yammering and nipping at our heels. "

[jwalsh07]

"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."

So much for the selfish gene.

[Heartlander]

Who is advocating the mixing science and religion here? A Scientific American article by Michael Shermer ?

FYI …

[taxesareforever]

Can one be a conservative Christian and a Darwinian? Yes. Here's how.

Now the liberal evos are trying to tell Christians how to abandon or doubt their faith and accept Darwinism. How crass of them. Let me explain to them how they can reject Darwinism and accept creationism. Read Genesis Chapter 1.

[Liberal Classic]

Religious people should accept evolution for the simple reason that it is true. Using modern DNA sequencing technology, we can observe genetic markers moving through populations of individuals over successive generations. It has sprung from the same science that has given us a cure to polio, put men on the moon, and allows us to communicate instantly with electronic messages. It is an enormously useful scientific model that benefits mankind in disciplines ranging from medicine to agriculture, even to distant fields such as computer science and mineral extraction.

Science in general and evolution in particular threatens no one's faith. No one is demanding idolatry of Charles Darwin. Belief is not required, merely acceptance that this is our best educated guess. Christians accept the scientific idea that heavy objects sink, yet believe in the miracle of walking on water. There is no difference with modern biology. Belief is the cornerstone of faith. One does not need faith in science in order for science to operate. One need not "believe" in electromagnetism in order for a radio to play music. One need not "believe" in evolution for the influenza virus to mutate. These things are going to happen whether you believe in them, or not.

Science is not a religion or faith, and no one is asking that any one believe in it. Science is a tool. Nothing more. From plate tectonic theory, to evolutionary theory, to circuit theory, or the theory of relativity, all of these are tools we use to describe the physical world. Christians are not asked to believe in science any more than they are asked to believe in a hammer or inclined plane. One does not need to believe in the inclined plane in order to lift a heavy object. One does not need to believe in the hammer in order to drive a nail. The only thing one needs is a little understanding of how to use, and how not to misuse, the tool. It is no different with science. It is no different with evolution.

[JimSEA]

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.

For the life of me I can not understand why polls and political/theological arguments are relevant. Evolution fit the geological, biological and genetic scientific findings quite well. I offers a plausible explanation for our observations (Yes, I know I will get "shot" for that assertion but I will ignore it). Cause / effect has likely spurred impassioned debate ever since Grog "discovered" fire. Or, perhaps fire discovered Grog (and he tasted good)?

[xzins]

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

Not.

It changes the nature of God.

Is he a God who snaps His fingers and things get done, or is He a long-lived Gandalf who muddles around for a billion or more years accomplishing a plan?

Those are 2 different beings, imho.

[freedumb2003]

Did this start in Religion or evolve to Religion???

[DungeonMaster]

#2 is really dumb. In creation God makes the entire inter related eco system and each living organism with all of it's awesome complexity. Using words like watch maker and tinkerer is a dishonest attempt to belittle that.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

...29 percent of Democrats who are creationists...

How does this work? These must be the radical Christians Rosie O'Donnell warned us about.

[unspun]

yawn

And the gospel of Evolution is supposed to do what for us?