Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

[SeeingRed]

In Scientific American, via Skeptic:

Link

Darwin on the Right
Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution
By Michael Shermer

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."

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic (www.skeptic.com). His new book is Why Darwin Matters.

[defanatic]

Ah... This person is ignoring the fact that the reason creationists are creationists is because they believe what is said in the Bible. Well, the bits they want to, anyway.

[Rye]

If we accept evolution, what's to stop us accepting history and concluding that Adam and Eve weren't even real? If they weren't real, then the bible is wrong when it says they brought about original sin and christ redeemed it.

[King Kong]

Most fundamentalists would view these explanations of their beliefs (original sin, family values, morality, etc.) as being demeaning to them, as they show that these principles are not divine in origin, but instead evolve naturally. Then there is little room for a God specifically interested in human morality.

It is interesting how they will accept a concept of God that is demeaning (as a watchmaker) with regards to natural processes, but not when it comes to human concepts of morality. This betrays a huge arrogance, as it implies that their morality (in all its gay-hating, original sin emphasizing glory) is more important than the universe itself. Catholic Church's stance on evolution, where it is accepted as an explanation of the natural world but not of the human 'soul', is one example of this.

[Lord Woodlouse]

If we accept evolution, what's to stop us accepting history and concluding that Adam and Eve weren't even real? If they weren't real, then the bible is wrong when it says they brought about original sin and christ redeemed it.

I consider Genesis (and other parts) to be predominantly metaphor. Otherwise I could not reconcile the Bible with the observable universe.

[Cao Cao]

Of course Adam and Eve existed! They were in fact lesbians from the planet Klingon.

Seriously though, I've always been amused at how creationists limit their omnipotent deity to such a menial existance.
"Oh look at me. I make things out of clay, iron chariots can beat me, shoddy stone towers can reach my home, I break all my promises, I neither control nature nor know how it works but all the same, WORSHIP ME!!!11".
If you're going to believe in an all-powerful superbeing then believe he can do anything or what's the point?

[Rye]

If we accept evolution, what's to stop us accepting history and concluding that Adam and Eve weren't even real? If they weren't real, then the bible is wrong when it says they brought about original sin and christ redeemed it.

I consider Genesis (and other parts) to be predominantly metaphor. Otherwise I could not reconcile the Bible with the observable universe.

You never struck me as an evangelical.

[Darth Wong]

If we accept evolution, what's to stop us accepting history and concluding that Adam and Eve weren't even real? If they weren't real, then the bible is wrong when it says they brought about original sin and christ redeemed it.

I consider Genesis (and other parts) to be predominantly metaphor. Otherwise I could not reconcile the Bible with the observable universe.

The correct term is "bullshit", not "metaphor". A metaphor is still supposed to be analogous in some way.

[SeeingRed]

It is interesting how they will accept a concept of God that is demeaning (as a watchmaker) with regards to natural processes, but not when it comes to human concepts of morality. This betrays a huge arrogance, as it implies that their morality (in all its gay-hating, original sin emphasizing glory) is more important than the universe itself. Catholic Church's stance on evolution, where it is accepted as an explanation of the natural world but not of the human 'soul', is one example of this.

Has it ever been seriously claimed (by someone other than a fundie nut) that traditional Christian religious doctrine is self-consistent? It seems to me that any defence of such a claim would be laughably ineffective.

[Darth Servo]

If we accept evolution, what's to stop us accepting history and concluding that Adam and Eve weren't even real? If they weren't real, then the bible is wrong when it says they brought about original sin and christ redeemed it.

The idea of original sin is just as ridiculous as the rest of the story. Why the hell do we need to be redeemed for Adam and Eve's screw up? Why aren't our own mistakes enough?

[King Kong]

Has it ever been seriously claimed (by someone other than a fundie nut) that traditional Christian religious doctrine is self-consistent? It seems to me that any defence of such a claim would be laughably ineffective.

It's self-consistent only in a religious sense, meaning that self-consistency with regards to logic and reason is unimportant, as long as it is consistent with one's personal faith and the accepted community beliefs. To take things on purely on faith means to ignore logical self-contradictions in one's beliefs.

[Lord Woodlouse]

If we accept evolution, what's to stop us accepting history and concluding that Adam and Eve weren't even real? If they weren't real, then the bible is wrong when it says they brought about original sin and christ redeemed it.

I consider Genesis (and other parts) to be predominantly metaphor. Otherwise I could not reconcile the Bible with the observable universe.

The correct term is "bullshit", not "metaphor". A metaphor is still supposed to be analogous in some way.

*shrug* Some elements I struggle to figure out what they represent. But other elements, like Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve and whatnot seem more representative of the birth of civilization. Cain and Abel seems to represent the victory of city-dwelling civilization over nomadic. Of course I do not know this, but it seems fairly reasonable to me.

...and yes, hell, some of it might literally be "bullshit". I certainly believe the Bible is imperfect (otherwise I would not struggle to discover the meaning in some of it's passages). It was written by human hands, often long after the supposed events they claim happened. Much of which is undoubtedly distorted by oral tradition. I maintain that "bullshit" is a very strong possibility, yes.

[General Zod]

Has it ever been seriously claimed (by someone other than a fundie nut) that traditional Christian religious doctrine is self-consistent? It seems to me that any defence of such a claim would be laughably ineffective.

It's self-consistent only in a religious sense, meaning that self-consistency with regards to logic and reason is unimportant, as long as it is consistent with one's personal faith and the accepted community beliefs. To take things on purely on faith means to ignore logical self-contradictions in one's beliefs.

So, in other words you're saying it's self-consistent as long as it agrees with what you believe?

[King Kong]

So, in other words you're saying it's self-consistent as long as it agrees with what you believe?

Yes, that appears to be the religious definition of self-consistency. After all, religious thought is not logical.

You may be misunderstanding. It sort of sounds as if you think I think that this is a valid line of thought. I don't. I was simply pointing out in the response to my previous post that logical consistency in religion is not something that religious people desire anyway, so it would be unlikely that anyone would claim its existence. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[SeeingRed]

Yes, that appears to be the religious definition of self-consistency. After all, religious thought is not logical.

Well, wouldn't such a definition also include having various elements of religious thought be consistent with each other (cf. the demeaning role of God in nature vs. morality)? It seems to me that even if religious thought is not "logical" in the scientific sense, that broad self-consistency is at the very least a requirement for it to be a valid school of thought at all. Or are they literally using the catch-all, "God did it", to explain away everything?

...logical consistency in religion is not something that religious people desire anyway, so it would be unlikely that anyone would claim its existence. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I think the problem is exactly the opposite -- that a large segment does desire logical consistency (or at least a superficial appearance thereof) in at least some elements of reliigous doctrine, thus the barrage of theories that seek to make Christian theory of origins line up (if loosely) with science.

[Middleclass]

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.

This is a fairly nit-picky point, but I often hear people say that natural selection and the invisible hand are similar. Not so. The invisible hand, after all, is guided by intelligence. Smith predicted that a free market, with no barriers to trade or compromise, will not just reach an effecient outcome, but the most effecient outcome. Natural selection offers no such thing. A species can evolve some mutation, over a great deal of time, which is more advantagous than before. But there is no pressure to have the most advantagous thing possible. I respect the hell out of Michael Shermer, and it irks me to see him promoting this nonsense.

Actually, now that I think about it, this is a fairly elegant arguement that evolution could not have an intelligence behind it. We have seen what competition, tempered with intelligence, can do. It only barely resembles genetic drift caused by environmental factors, and only in a superficial way. If some diety were behind it, I posit that the process of evolution would have much more similarity to the market.

[King Kong]

Well, wouldn't such a definition also include having various elements of religious thought be consistent with each other (cf. the demeaning role of God in nature vs. morality)? It seems to me that even if religious thought is not "logical" in the scientific sense, that broad self-consistency is at the very least a requirement for it to be a valid school of thought at all. Or are they literally using the catch-all, "God did it", to explain away everything?

Religion, in its essence, is not a school of thought. It is non-thinking, of taking things purely on faith primarily to satisfy one's personal emotional feelings. One can produce ramifications to these core beliefs using logical rules (which will therefore be self-consistent), but the premises are taken on faith do not necessarily have to be self-consistent.

I think the problem is exactly the opposite -- that a large segment does desire logical consistency (or at least a superficial appearance thereof) in at least some elements of reliigous doctrine, thus the barrage of theories that seek to make Christian theory of origins line up (if loosely) with science.

True, but it seems to me that they are using (mostly bastardized) scientific concepts to correspond to Christian theology in order to support their own personal beliefs. They don't want logical self-consistency but to simply use the scientific thought process to support the things that they take on faith. Which doesn't make any sense.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

From an outside position it makes no sense. But remember the need for evangelism is part of doctrine. This means there is a moral imperative to remove obstacles for other people's belief, even if largely by obfuscation or even deception (remember that since they are used to certain amounts of self deception, they will not spot deception in their favor). Thus simply admitting the absolute basis of faith for all that they believe would rightly open them to ridicule, and they would fail in the Great Commision of winning back souls. Not only does this mean people they care about may burn forever, but God himself may frown in his mercy upon them if they have not carried out their duty.

[Darth Wong]

Natural selection offers no such thing. A species can evolve some mutation, over a great deal of time, which is more advantagous than before. But there is no pressure to have the most advantagous thing possible.

You know, I actually assumed you must be reasonably well-educated until you spouted that idiotic tripe. Natural selection creates enormous pressure to have the most advantageous variations possible, because all other variations tend to be wiped out.

[Darth Servo]

Natural selection offers no such thing. A species can evolve some mutation, over a great deal of time, which is more advantagous than before. But there is no pressure to have the most advantagous thing possible.

You know, I actually assumed you must be reasonably well-educated until you spouted that idiotic tripe. Natural selection creates enormous pressure to have the most advantageous variations possible, because all other variations tend to be wiped out.

I think what he meant was that evolution doesn't necessarily come up with the absolute best advantage the way an intelligent engineer like yourself could. As anyone familiar with the biosystem knows, there are some absolutely crappy "designs". Natural Selection, while it does provide enormous pressure to select the best traits, can only select between the traits provided to it.

[Darth Wong]

Natural selection offers no such thing. A species can evolve some mutation, over a great deal of time, which is more advantagous than before. But there is no pressure to have the most advantagous thing possible.

You know, I actually assumed you must be reasonably well-educated until you spouted that idiotic tripe. Natural selection creates enormous pressure to have the most advantageous variations possible, because all other variations tend to be wiped out.

I think what he meant was that evolution doesn't necessarily come up with the absolute best advantage the way an intelligent engineer like yourself could. As anyone familiar with the biosystem knows, there are some absolutely crappy "designs". Natural Selection, while it does provide enormous pressure to select the best traits, can only select between the traits provided to it.

That's not what he said. And in fact, the characteristics of intelligent design are not necessarily ideal designs (in fact, most designs are far from ideal in order to save money), but other characteristics such as design features suddenly appearing or moving across product lines or being abruptly revised and/or removed.

[drachefly]

DW: Remember your response to my supposition that perhaps tendency toward homosexuality was adaptive? Not every optimization needs to be made, not every feature is optimal.

What evolution enforces is 'good enough', cutting away the inadequate. In highly competitive situations, this leads to strong optimization. In less critical areas (whether it be geographically different or a different aspect of the same creature), not so much.

[Darth Wong]

DW: Remember your response to my supposition that perhaps tendency toward homosexuality was adaptive? Not every optimization needs to be made, not every feature is optimal.

What evolution enforces is 'good enough', cutting away the inadequate. In highly competitive situations, this leads to strong optimization. In less critical areas (whether it be geographically different or a different aspect of the same creature), not so much.

How does that refute the statement that there is heavy pressure toward advantageous configurations?

[drachefly]

It doesn't need to, because that is not what you said!

Natural selection creates enormous pressure to have the most advantageous variations possible, because all other variations tend to be wiped out.

I pointed out that this is false. Second-best is often quite good enough; heck, fifth best is often quite good enough, in non-critical areas.

This is far less true in Smith's theory: a manager can and often will try to optimize a procedure even if failure to optimize has zero chance of endangering the company, even if it produced insignificant enhancement of shareholder value.

Evolution can't even see it -- if it doesn't help reproduce, it might as well not even be there.

And then you get the local optimizations that are far below the global optimizations. Smith's theory allows for radical change; evolution isn't going to get rid of our appendix.

[Darth Wong]

It doesn't need to, because that is not what you said!

Natural selection creates enormous pressure to have the most advantageous variations possible, because all other variations tend to be wiped out.

I pointed out that this is false. Second-best is often quite good enough; heck, fifth best is often quite good enough, in non-critical areas.

If they're non-critical areas, then the advantage is functionally small or even non-existent, dumb-ass. Now you're just nitpicking. Natural selection DOES create enormous pressure to have only the most advantageous configurations survive.

What the fuck do you think "advantage" means, exactly?