Image: BRAD HINES
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.
Calling God a watchmaker is belittling.
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 article was originally published with the title Darwin on the Right.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentMike! I love your work. You introduced me to skepticism!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish there were more resources like this that explain evolution from a sort of Christian perspective. I think Creationists would be more open to that than to just raw evidence, especially if it comes from another Christian.
I am considering starting a project to do just this thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE LAW OF ADAPTATION WITH SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF LIFE
To read the entire article, go to: http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:LOTY_Pierre_Jean_Daniel
This newly discovered law comes as a death stroke to evolution theory. We have the guarantee from the nature of the underlying philosophy (Intelligent Design) that the resulting application (programmable bacteria) is free of eugenics.
First of all; let us recall the fundamental reasoning in evolutionism: natural selection coupled with mutations can transform a species S1 into a totally new species S2.
Then, let us assume an individual S1 is under difficult conditions and undergoes modifications.
What evolutionism did not consider is that at the same time, another process comes into play: difficult conditions cause S1 to enter into a resistant form, with a subsequent loss of life.
What if conditions improve? As shown with the 1970’s research led by Peter and Rosemary Grant, “in the years following the drought, previous finches (with smaller beaks) again dominated the population.
There was a reversal in the direction of the selection; the population subjected to selection oscillating back and forth each time the climate changed.”
Thus, modifications tend to reduce if difficult conditions do not persist. However, there is absolute need of a directional, steady line of changes, should the species cross over to a new form of life.
Now, in case difficult conditions do persist, two processes admittedly would run parallel. As modifications would increase, the “quantity of life” would decrease downward limits of tolerance. Modifications would at best help the species to cope, though with a subsequent loss of life.
Surprisingly, the species S2 that admittedly evolved from S1 is found with high “quantity of life”. But S2, which is assumed to have undergone the full amount of modifications, should have undergone accordingly the full amount of adverse conditions.
Thus, S2 would have been found with a lowest “quantity of life”. Indeed, natural selection, coupled with mutations leads necessarily toward the extinction of the species.
As evidenced by the law of recurrent variation, the range of possible adaptations is preprogrammed in DNA, thus imposing inherent boundaries between kinds (groups of species defined only through lineage criteria).
Fabrice Loty's post is, unfortunately, absurd. Immediately after introducing evolutionary theory as a species undergoing changes, there's the "counterexample". But what does that counterexample consist of? Not a species, but an individual! And I'm supposed to take this claptrap seriously?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the article above, I think it's a good presentation of a way to spin evolution in a conservative Christian way. It's worth keeping in mind, though, that the argument has nothing to do with any necessary reasoning from evolution to CC; it's simply a case for compatibilism. If the argument were necessary, then our political landscape would be profoundly altered - we'd have a scientific basis for both a politico-religious stance. As it stands, though, I don't find the argument here convincing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe condescension never ends. Even this attempt to bridge the gap between ideologies is filled with it. To begin with Protestants are defined as those who protest agaist the added things of the Catholic Church and believe in Sola Scripta or Bible only theology. Evangelicals are by definition Protestants too. On item one; "What difference does it make when God created the universe--10,000 years ago or 10,000,000,000 years ago?" The differance is we rely on a set written text as the basis of our faith. When you start saying parts of it dont matter then how can you say any of it matters? That being said there are many parts of the bible that are alagorical and many that are not clearly translated. The better arguement would be that the words in Genesis used for Morning and Evening can also mean begining and ending. The word used for day can also mean period of time. You can thank the 1611 King James translators for that bit of confusion. So I agree that the young earth theory held by many creationist is not an absolute truth. On your second point the condescension sets in. Thats like saying a former President of the United States is above taking out the trash so it couldn't happen. I assure you that isn't true. Even the greatest of us can do meanial tasks. Points three through six do nothing to repudiate ID. The simple fact that prevents me from accepting evolution is there is no known instances of it. You cannot use adaptation to prove evolution. A disease resistant bacteria is at the end of the day still a bacteria. A dinosaur with appearing feathers, wether they be actual feathers, a visual misinterpretation of chemical erosion found in the sediment that contained the fossile, or some facsimili that appears to be like feathers is still a dinosaur. There is no where near the diversity there should be on this planet with evolution alone. Like faith in God's creation, evolution is unprovable. Unlike Evolution so many other things in the Bible have proven true. I'll take the more proven of the two. If you wish to take the other then I commend you for having more faith than I.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough there are a ton of problems with this article, I think the second section, "Creationism is bad theology" is enough to prove that this guy really has no idea about what he is saying. It only takes a few seconds to realize that the statement "[the] God of intelligent-design creationism is delimited to... a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than we are" is completely ridiculous. Saying that He was able to create the entire world in six days definitely acknowledges His omnipotence. Furthermore, Creationism does not imply that He pieced "together life out of available parts." Don't forget that He also had to create all of those parts out of nothing. It takes a lot of arrogance to claim being even close to as advanced as our Creator. I think its time evolutionists start actually understanding our arguments before they criticize them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" I think its time evolutionists start actually understanding our arguments before they criticize them."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be nice if creationists produced some scientific evidence that we could argue about.
Personally I prefer scientific evidence to opinion and baseless assumptions.
I don't base my worldview on baseless assumptions, and that is why I don't simply accept what the media and others like to claim is fact. There is a ton of scientific evidence against evolution, more than I can put here. Just to name a few problems, there is a great deal of inaccuracy with the methods used to date the earth, fossils of modern man have been found in layers thought to be older than the layers where transitional forms exist, the transitional forms themselves are only slightly different than either regular humans or regular apes, there are animals today whose fossils where the same "millions" of years ago, and irreducible complexity has not sufficiently been accounted for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust picking out one of my statements doesn't really take away from my initial argument though, which is that the author made some very poor statements about how Creationism takes away from God's supremacy. If you have anything to say I would be interested to hear.
bluejay27
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is a ton of scientific evidence against evolution, more than I can put here."
No there isn't - THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS EVOLUTION (by natural selection)
"Just to name a few problems, there is a great deal of inaccuracy with the methods used to date the earth,"
There were some KNOWN difficulties with dating methods , ALL the difficulties have been resolved to give reasonably accurate dating techniques.
"fossils of modern man have been found in layers thought to be older than the layers where transitional forms exist, "
No there haven't
(you really should read more besides the creationist web sites).
"the transitional forms themselves are only slightly different than either regular humans or regular apes,"
Believe it or not there are HUNDREDS of species not related to either humans or apes
"there are animals today whose fossils where the same "millions" of years ago,"
Course there are - , but what relevance is this. All this proves is that they have not evolved. Perhaps they did not need to
(Evolution does not say that species MUST evolve)
"and irreducible complexity has not sufficiently been accounted for."
Again this stupid argument raises its head.
You are arguing backwards - i.e remove something from a PRESENT organ - it ceases to work
However EVOLUTION works FORWARD.
Michael Behe acknowledged (in the Dover trial) that the irreducible complexity argument FAILS as evolution works forwards in time, not backwards.
So there is NO reason to account for it because it is NOT a problem in evolution.
I think its time creationists start actually understanding the stupidity of there own arguments.
You have based ALL of your position on many assumptions. Until you realise that they are in fact assumptions, you have no arguments to present.
Laughing Gravy! How’s it going? It took you so long to reply that I forgot about our little conversation. Glad to hear from you though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let’s get to it. I see a few things wrong with what you say here. First of all, saying “There is no evidence that contradicts evolution” seems a little far reaching. You couldn’t have possibly examined all of the evidence on the topic yourself and answered all unsolved questions. No one can claim that, and to do so shows disregard for the true spirit of science and reluctance to budge from the status quo. Therefore, it appears that you are just giving the same line that appears continuously in evolutionist literature instead of actually trying to find answers. Simply restating something over and over again and putting it in all caps (nice touch by the way) doesn’t make it true. Second, I do read more than creationist websites. In fact, I am a biology major at a college that teaches evolution. So I get to read textbooks and hear lecture after lecture supporting your theory. Upon learning about evolution I did not just discard it just because of what I had previously been taught. I have just found its arguments to be unconvincing. It would be foolish to discuss an issue without first hearing the other side. Furthermore, why would I have even come to this site and read the article if I only stuck to creationist writing (think it through)? Finally, yes the argument of irreducible complexity will keep showing up because you do not have a real answer for it. Your “arguing backwards” statement doesn’t stand up. Rather than saying “evolution works forwards…not backwards,” explain how a sophisticated organ or structure made up of multiple pieces that would be useless by themselves could be derived from natural selection. Either they would have to appear one at a time, in which case natural selection would not have preserved them long enough for the rest to fall into place, or the whole arrangement would need to come about at once, something that is highly unlikely unless it was the result of, oh, a creator.
In addition, I think stooping to calling my beliefs “stupidity” shows a lack of both valid arguments and true confidence in your opinions. You may feel strong in your position, but if you really were then we could have a mature debate. It also indicates a frustration with people who point out inadequacies in your viewpoints.
As with my last comment, I urge to actually discuss my original comment about the article, which you have either overlooked or are cannot actually do.
"First of all, saying There is no evidence that contradicts evolution seems a little far reaching. You couldnt have possibly examined all of the evidence on the topic yourself and answered all unsolved questions. No one can claim that, and to do so shows disregard for the true spirit of science and reluctance to budge from the status quo. Therefore, it appears that you are just giving the same line that appears continuously in evolutionist literature instead of actually trying to find answers "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe or she does not have to find anything...YOU are the one asserting that evidence which contradicts evolutionary theory exists, therefore YOU have the burden of providing said evidence; the onus is yours. When you provide such evidence, he or she or someone else will address it.
"First of all, saying There is no evidence that contradicts evolution seems a little far reaching. You couldnt have possibly examined all of the evidence on the topic yourself and answered all unsolved questions. No one can claim that, and to do so shows disregard for the true spirit of science and reluctance to budge from the status quo. Therefore, it appears that you are just giving the same line that appears continuously in evolutionist literature instead of actually trying to find answers "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe or she does not have to find anything...YOU are the one asserting that evidence which contradicts evolutionary theory exists, therefore YOU have the burden of providing said evidence; the onus is yours. When you provide such evidence, he or she or someone else will address it.
Mobile Fail...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this