It emerges from last evening's debate that two of the 10 Republican presidential candidates--Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo---don't believe in the theory of evolution. These aren't the big hitters on the GOP side, but it reveals an interesting under-current of anti-Darwin sentiment among Republicans and conservatives.
I know many on the right, especially the Christian right, are scared of Darwin. Even intellectual magazines like Commentary seem to have adopted an anti-Darwin position. This has enabled many on the left, as well as the professional atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, to portray conservative Christians as yahoos. Sometimes we do come across that way.
In my forthcoming book "What's So Great About Christianity" I will show why, contrary to the claims of Dawkins and company, Darwinian evolution does not undermine the design argument for God. On the contrary, the latest findings of modern science have greatly strengthened that argument. Paley was right and Dawkins is wrong. Fasten your seat-belt and wait for my book, or, if you are a real fanatic, pre-order it here.
But if Christian anxiety is misplaced, conservatives are even further off the mark. That's because Darwin's theory actually supports conservative positions in all kinds of interesting ways. First, Darwin gives a dark and selfish view of human nature, which is why we need a tough foreign policy to deal with bad guys who cannot be talked out of their badness--even if U.N. cocktails are served. In addition, the selfishness in human nature warrants a system called capitalism which channels this self-orientation toward the material betterment of society.
It gets better. Darwin shows that social institutions like the family are founded in the deep human drive to reproduce and care for the young. Reproduction and self-perpetuation are the natural root of human family arrangements, which cannot be redefined as mechanisms of "self-fulfillment" without jeopardizing their biological basis and function. Consider a simple statistic: when divorced moms remarry or have boyfriends in the house, those surrogate parents are vastly more likely to physically and sexually abuse the children than their own parents. Darwinian theory supplies the reason: the real parent shares the same genes as the child and this forms a bond that dispels sexual attraction and discourages abuse. "Family values" are supported by modern evolutionary biology.
I'm not saying embrace Darwinian evolution because it is politically useful. I am saying don't hastily reject a theory that has a lot of evidence going for it when it has the added merit of being politically congenial.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 11)
61. @ CAF (comment #46)
You say,"The person who says that the evolution of man from simpler forms..."
You're absolutely right, CAF, but who are you talking to?
Do you think that a christian who has been sitting in front of his trusted clergyman listening to tales of how scientists are not reasonable(conciliatory) in their demand that people be reasonable(logical, rational.)
Reasonable(logical, rational) commenters are by definition not reasonable(conciliatory) people when it comes to Darwin's Theory.
Darwin's Theory is diminishing their God, and THAT is NOT reasonable(conciliatory) at all, it seems spiteful, hateful... satanic.
Would you take away a baby's blanket?
You MUST be an unfeeling sociopath, like they paint you, because, no matter how reasonable(logical, rational) you are just not reasonable(conciliatory).
pboyfloyd at 8:22PM on May 4th 2007
62. POE-LEASE! Haha! Darwin "theory" SCARE people? Fist off, it is JUST that, A THEORY. I would dare you to research creation as well. I think if you 'truly' did that, you would be humbled to find more evidence supports creation than any theory out there. Now I bet THAT may be scary? Hmmmmm ... just a thought.
Jeni at 8:26PM on May 4th 2007
63. to jeni....creation itself is the dilemma, isn't it? We seem to need to define the moment Existance came into being. Well, the argument starts there, doesn't it? By calling it God, we give ourselves an image that doesn't frighten as much as a Void does. However, I always see the Q entity from Star Trek whenever someone tells me that God created us, and that always makes me laugh! Darwin's theory is more interesting than just "God made man".
dorothy at 8:52PM on May 4th 2007
64. @ phil (comment #61)
You say, "They have made mess of EVERYTHING while in power, and, as usual, we have to clean it up."
But they don't see it as a mess at all. In their eyes Bush is the conciliatory one, the reasonable one. He gave them Faith-based Initiatives. Wasn't that nice... he didn't even pick just his brand of faith, nope, it was ALL inclusive.
(except those reality-based atheists that do nothing but belittle the one TRUE GOD!!! Serves them right!)
If you're just going to base you're entire life on reality.. well, pfft!!... you have no purpose.
'Emperor' Bush has recruited all people of faith as his minions in his evil sociopathic plan... which is self-aggrandization.
It might not be reasonable(logical, rational), that is beside the point, it IS reasonable(conciliatory) and inclusive(of people of faith) and tolerant(of every person of faith).
Now, I ask you, phil, "What reasonable, inclusive, tolerant person could say that Bush's plan was a mess? Heck, we don't even know the plan, it's a secret from Al-Queda, already."
Anyone who knows the 'plan' must be reality-based and therefore can be dismissed out-of-hand.
Keep the faith dude!!
pboyfloyd at 9:08PM on May 4th 2007
65. "I guarantee you any "hole" in the core basis of the theory you can cite I can disprove in about ten seconds."
First of all, I do, sort of, believe in evolution, in that I believe that humans and other creatures evolved. However, I, personally, believe that this evolution occurred under the guidance of God. I.e., evolution was and is a way that God chooses to create.
However, if I were to try to find a "hole" in the theory of evolution - and this might not even be one - I think that my attempt would be to hypothesize: the theory of evolution does not fully account for the development of species, because physical evolution alone does not explain . . . consciousness.
This seems to me to be a glaring omission, as consciousness or the mind is clearly an important part of human beings. In addition, there appears to be evidence that many animals are also conscious . . . maybe even some invertebrates.
So, does the theory of evolution explain consciousness?
I do not think it does at present, because evolution deals with the development of physical processes, and science has never really explained how consciousness could be the result of physical processes. Many believe that consciousness is the result of the moving electrical charges and chemical reactions of the brain - but it has never been explained how that could be. Moving electrical charges and chemical reactions appear in natural phenomena - but it does not appear that these phenomena are conscious.
Hence, it is not even established whether consciousness is the result of physical processes . . . and not something non-physical like some sort of mind or spirit. Therefore, that appears to me to be a gap in evolutionary theory.
RR at 10:40PM on May 4th 2007
66. @ jeni (comment #64.)
You say, "POE-LEASE! Haha! Darwin "theory" SCARE people? Fist off, it is JUST that, A THEORY. I would dare you to research creation as well."
Maybe you're right jeni, maybe this is as far as we go... scrapping over who's version of God is the baddest of the bad.
Did a little research on creation... I understand that, according to this theory, God did it all!
He created the 'serpent' and the 'tree of life', went for a smoke break or something... came back and was pissed off at them kids for listening to that 'serpent', that He allowed in to the garden.
He didn't think to keep the 'serpent' out but he sure as hell kicked the kids out and they weren't getting back in.
Punished the 'serpent' too. Made it crawl on it's belly... you know, like a serpent.
In short, BIG DADDY got mad when the kids listened to the snake so he kicked them out on their ass.
And you believe this because you can't be bothered to look up the two distinctly different definitions of the word 'theory' in any good dictionary.
All these genetics students, biology students, paleontology students, medical students and on and on, every single science, are wasting their time studying all those sciences which support Darwin's Theory because... well, because POE-LEASE!!
Get back to 'spring-break' land KIDS... raptures just around the corner... why sweat it?
pboyfloyd at 11:03PM on May 4th 2007
67.
Jeni-
How do you move your comment up like that? It used to be comment 57 but now it's 64 and now my response to it @ 58 makes no sense. What a strange thing to do, did you not like my response or something? I certainly hope you didn't do it for dishonest reasons.
Peter at 12:08AM on May 5th 2007
68. Peter,
I received my homework assignment and now I have to go to school. Of course it's gonna take me awhile, so I'll get back to you, thanx.
Cdalealden at 1:47AM on May 5th 2007
69. Cdalealden,
No response yet ... to post #3. I don't know why. Maybe you've already found the Cdalealdenicus and are busy getting published. Congratulations.
Regarding Darwin being "exaulted": it's not true. Many of his ideas are accepted but some (such as his gene analog): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity have been canned. Unlike with religion, the core books of science are often altered or cast aside in years or decades instead of, as with religion, in centuries, millenia, or never. Plenty of religionists will try to square the conflicting messages of the Bible, etc. but NO biologist thinks Darwin's work doesn't need to be altered by Mendel's.
lil_turk at 7:38AM on May 5th 2007
70. for those who believe, there is no answer needed ! for those who don't, there is no answer possable !
jackie at 11:13AM on May 5th 2007
71. The word theory has several definitions. Creationists have difficulty selecting the right one. When scientists say the theory of evolution, they are using #5 (from Merriam Webster). When creationist apply definition #6, they make themselves look foolish. Some of you could only look more foolish if you used, say, a banana as proof of God's creation.
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption
Mike at 2:34PM on May 5th 2007
72. @ mike.
Christians will take that...5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena ...
and twist it to this... 5(christianized): a deniable or satanically acceptable general principle or other body of principles offered to deny GOD..
Plus the untwisted version is still unreasonable because it is not conciliatory.
Meaning number 6 IS on the other hand reasonable because it IS conciliatory.
Am I getting this right, Christians?? Just shout out anything that I'm getting wrong...
Science and God do not mix. Any attempt to mix them must reasonably(logically, rationally) come down on the side of science. Conversely, any attempt to mix them must come to unreasonable(unconciliatory) conclusions. Science deals with the natural, reality-based world, while religion deals with the supernatural(unnatural), faith-based world.
"Even though Darwins' Theory says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God it is unreasonable(unconciliatory) with religion... therefore theists must say that it must be wrong."-pboyfloyd
In 28 words I have explained all creationist and Intelligent Design argument. Anything added to this is simply for the sake of creating confusion.
pboyfloyd at 4:24PM on May 5th 2007
73. There are two ideas that keep religions alive and prevent believers from accepting evolution (which, by the way, is both a Theory and a fact). The first idea is that we, as individual beings, simply cannot possibly cease to exist. Death is both frightening and confusing, so it's not surprising that many or most of us simply deny it. The second idea is that we had to exist in the first place. While the first idea compels the theist to look forward to heaven and fear hell (or whatever), and the various rulebooks (Bible, Koran, etc.) serve as guidelines for how to go about the business of existence, that second idea forces people into a way of thinking that goes like this: 'Because I (or humanity or flagella or bunny rabbits) had to exist, the number of steps that would have been been required for this to come about via evolution and other material events––the odds of it all working out in this way––are simply too slim to be an "accident" or driven by the environment and natural selection.' Well, therein lies the problem. You, your mom and dad, your dog, your back yard, your street, your language, your loves and hopes and fear, your species and all other species, your planet.....NONE of it had to exist. If your perspective on life begins each and every time with this idea that you were destined to exist, and that everything in Earth's history was leading to this moment for a "reason," then OF COURSE you are going to find the odds way too slim to be believable.
An analogy: You roll the dice ten times, and you get snake eyes each time. You calculate the odds of that happening, and you think 'Wow, those are some bad odds.' But instead of leaving it there and chalking it up to luck––which is all it is––you decide that you absolutely were destined to roll ten snake eyes in a row, and therefore something magical must be afoot. This is the primary objection that people have to evolution: 'The odds are just so slim that things would've worked out this way in such a chaotic universe.' Well, yeah. But only because you are calculating the odds of ONE OUTCOME. If you analyze or interpret the universe in this way, everything will seem like a miracle.
Until people realize that everything exists only because it can, not because it had to, they will never be able to absorb or understand or accept evolution as a fact of life or a scientific theory.
tinisoli at 4:57PM on May 5th 2007
74. While I am an atheist, I don't agree that religious people can not also be scientific people. (That may not be what you meant anyway.) So many people here have shouted out that evolution is JUST A THEORY. By doing so they immediately prove that they're completely and totally ignorant of evolution and science in general. Obviously, they're just repeating the ignorance they've heard from their pastors. I'm not trying to be condescending here. I mean ignorant (lacking knowledge) not stupid. The definitions from Merriam Webster probably still haven't cleared things up for some. A scientific fact is an objective, verifiable and repeatable observation. Evolution in this regard is a fact! The occurance of evolution has been observed and verified. Now then, the theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. A theory is as high up as you can go in science in explaining facts. The theory of evolution has more evidence piled up in its favor than any other scientific theory, but we're still building on this body of knowledge. You may, if you wish, put your fingers in your ears and repeat Genesis over and over in between LA LA LA LA LA's. That wouldn't change anything any more than not believing in Quantum theory would make your CD player stop working.
I really don't care if people want to diminish their lives and the lives of their children by ignoring science in favor of the ramblings of some bronze age sheep herders and fishermen. I do care when they want to force my children to learn their faith in a science class. I don't try to force myself into a Sunday school to teach evolution.
Mike at 5:26PM on May 5th 2007
75.
RR-
The theory of evolution by itself does not attempt to explain consciousness, it states only that evolution does occur under several different circumstances. How our own consciousness came about exactly may one day be able to answered through the theory of evolution, but there's a lot more work to be done on that front.
In my opinion, consciousness is a matter of perception: Of time, place, etc., and the difference between the organic (living) and inorganic (dead or non-living) is that ability for perception and manipulation of our environment. I can't, of course, prove that to you since I can't show you how a dog or cat or monkey or fish perceives the world.
However under the theory, we likely all descended from one mother species, every creature on Earth shares that species as it's common ancestor, but over time we've split apart into the variety of life we see today, each exploiting our own niche for survival. If you want to consider that first life form as the origin of consciousness because it was the first living thing, I'd say that's a safe bet because by the nature of living they were conscious on the most minimal level, but again I really can't prove how that being perceived the world. How fascinating is that, though, that every living thing on Earth is connected to each other?
Now here's where I will give you who hold your faith above science an out: If we all descended from one life form, where did it come from? Life didn't exist on Earth for a long time, then suddenly it did. Providing organic creatures cannot result naturally from some sort of inorganic reaction (jury is still out on that one) where else could it have come from? Or if you want to go back even further, one of the laws of physics states that matter cannot be created from nothing, yet the matter resulting in the Big Bang got there somehow. Those physical laws break down before the universe was created, so it's very possible something broke those laws and that excludes anything natural science can explain at this point. So there you have it, you all can still believe in a creator and you can stop this evolution-denying sillyness.
Peter at 5:47PM on May 5th 2007