Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.
The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

An interview by Jamie Glazov with Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University, about his new book Darwinian Conservatism.

Glazov: Larry Arnhart, thanks for taking the time out to talk about your new book.

Arnhart: It’s a pleasure. Thank you for inviting me.

Glazov: Tell us briefly what your book is about and your main argument.

Arnhart: I am trying to persuade conservatives that they need Charles Darwin. Conservatives need to see that a Darwinian science of human nature supports their realist view of human imperfectability, and it refutes the utopian view of the Left that human nature is so completely malleable that it can be shaped to conform to any program of social engineering.

Glazov: How exactly does Darwinian science of human nature demonstrate the imperfectability of humans?

Arnhart: In Thomas Sowell’s book A Conflict of Visions, he shows that ideological debate has been divided for a long time between what he calls the “constrained vision” and the “unconstrained vision.” I see this as a contrast between the “realist vision” of the political right and the “utopian vision” of the political left.

Those with the realist vision of life believe that the moral and intellectual limits of human beings are rooted in their unchanging human nature, and so a good social order has to make the best of these natural limitations rather than trying to change them. But those with the utopian vision think that the moral and intellectual limits of human beings are rooted in social customs and practices that can be changed, and so they believe the best social order arises from rationally planned reforms to perfect human nature.

Those with the realist vision see social processes such as families, markets, morality, and government as evolved rather than designed. Darwinian science is on the side of this realist vision of the conservative tradition. The main idea of the realist vision is evolution—the idea that social order is spontaneously evolved rather than rationally designed. Friedrich Hayek saw this. Steven Pinker, in his book The Blank Slate, shows how modern biological research on human nature supports the insight of the realist vision that there is a universal human nature that cannot be easily changed by social reform.

Glazov: Why do you think so many Conservatives and religious people have always been so afraid and disdainful of Darwinianism?

Arnhart: They associate it with a crudely materialistic and atheistic view of the world—a “survival of the fittest” in which the strong exploit the weak. One of the books promoted by the Discovery Institute is Richard Weikart’s book From Darwin to Hitler. He claims that all the evils of Nazism come from Hitler’s Darwinism. But I show in my book that Weikart’s arguments are weak, because there is no support for Hitler’s ideas in Darwin’s writings. In response to my criticisms, Weikart now says that he cannot show a direct connection “from Darwin to Hitler.”

Glazov: Then what do you think about a book like Ann Coulter’s book Godless?

Arnhart: Coulter’s attack on Darwinism as a threat to conservative values illustrates the sort of mistake that I want to correct. Her arguments against Darwinism as a liberal religion are shallow. It’s clear that she has never read Darwin and doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. She has memorized some talking points from the proponents of intelligent design theory at the Discovery Institute—people like Bill Dembski and Mike Behe. But she hasn’t thought through any of this. For example, she assumes that Darwinism promotes an immoral materialism. But she says nothing about Darwin’s account of the natural moral sense implanted in human nature. And she doesn’t recognize that conservative thinkers like James Q. Wilson have adopted this Darwinian view of the moral sense.

Glazov: Can you tell us a bit about Darwin’s account of the natural moral sense that is implanted in human nature? This in itself is an argument for the existence of a God right?

Arnhart: It could be. If you already believe in God as a moral lawgiver, then you might see the natural moral sense as created by God. In The Descent of Man, Darwin sees morality as a uniquely human trait that is a product of human evolutionary history. We are naturally social animals who care about how we appear to others. This natural human concern for social praise and blame combined with human reason leads us to formulate and obey social norms of good behavior. Darwin drew ideas from Adam Smith’s book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, particularly Smith’s claim that morality depends on “sympathy,” the human capacity for sharing in the experiences of others, so that we feel resentment when others are victims of injustice. Darwin thought these moral emotions of indignation at injustice would have evolved to favor cooperative groups.

Glazov: What do you make of the creation/intelligent design/evolution debate?

Arnhart: In my book, I explain why the arguments of the intelligent design folks are weak. They assume unreasonable standards of proof in dismissing the evidence for Darwin’s theory, and they don’t offer any positive theory of their own as an alternative. But, still, I don’t see anything wrong with allowing public school biology students to read some of the intelligent design writing along with Darwinian biology, and then they can decide for themselves.

The problem, of course, is whether this could be done without introducing Biblical creationism. In the case last year in Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members who wanted to teach a literal 6-days-of-creation story used the idea of intelligent design as a cover for what they were doing. In fact, the Discovery Institute actually opposed the policy of the school board because their motives were purely religious, and they had no interest in the scientific debate. In Ann Coulter’s book, she misses this point entirely.

Glazov: Ok, kindly expand on why you think conservatives should welcome Darwinian science rather than fear it.

Arnhart: Sure. I argue that Darwinism can support some of the fundamental conservative commitments to traditional morality, family life, private property, and limited government. For example, a Darwinian view of human nature would reinforce our commonsense understanding of the importance of parent-child bonding and family life generally as rooted in our evolved nature as human beings. Or a Darwinian view of human imperfection might support the need for limited government with separation of powers as a check on the corrupting effects of political power. Religious conservatives fear Darwinism because they think it has to be atheistic. But that’s not true. There is no reason why God could not have used natural evolution as the way to work out his design for the universe.

Glazov: Can you talk a bit more about on the theory and possibility of how God may have engineered a natural evolution? And why would anyone think this is not a religious concept? Even Pope John Paul accepted the reality of evolution.

Arnhart: Yes, the statement of John Paul II in 1996 assumed that all life could have evolved by natural causes. Traditionally, Catholics have had no objections to Darwinian evolution, because they believe that God works through the laws of nature, which could include the sort of natural evolution identified by Darwin. The religious objections toDarwin come from fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who read the opening chapters of Genesis literally, so that God created everything in six days. But very few religious believers take that seriously. Even William Jennings Bryan, at the Scopes trial, admitted that the six days of Creation did not have to be 24-hour days.

Glazov: Larry Arnhart, thank you for taking the time out to talk about your book.

Arnhart: Thank you for having me.


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: bookreview; conservatism; creationbrownshirts; crevolist; darwin; enoughalready; evolutioniscorrect; fetish; fireproofsuits; gettingold; glazov; noonecares; obsession; onetrickpony; pavlovian; wrongforum; youngearthcultists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 651-678 next last
To: A0ri

"... and maybe I did, but failed to find or respond with humor in mind."

Nope. You missed it.


301 posted on 07/23/2006 6:10:49 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Fairly snobby of you to make that assumption. Picking up pointers from DU?


302 posted on 07/23/2006 6:12:27 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: A0ri

"Fairly snobby of you to make that assumption."

No, it isn't.

And you didn't get it.


303 posted on 07/23/2006 6:14:10 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Kiddo, I get a lot of things, and one of those is the fact that you don't get that I "got" it. The DU playground is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that way.


304 posted on 07/23/2006 6:15:23 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

I miss the old days, when some of the trolls were amusingly creative. This present batch is just so dreary.


305 posted on 07/23/2006 6:15:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (The Enlightenment gave us individual rights, free enterprise, and the theory of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: A0ri

"Kiddo, I get a lot of things,..."

Except why nobody cares about what your alleged *academic family* thinks.


306 posted on 07/23/2006 6:17:10 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
Kiddo, I get a lot of things, and one of those is the fact that you don't get that I "got" it. The DU playground is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that way.

Are you saying that DU is to your right?

307 posted on 07/23/2006 6:17:39 PM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I bet you felt big and mighty after posting that.

:o)


308 posted on 07/23/2006 6:17:59 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"I miss the old days, when some of the trolls were amusingly creative. This present batch is just so dreary."

You take what you can get. At least we still have Medved. That counts for something.
309 posted on 07/23/2006 6:18:25 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Not my fault I used my family as close reasoning that intelligence does not imply Creationists are "dumb".

The joke must be on you, if you can't see this.


310 posted on 07/23/2006 6:19:15 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: A0ri

I bet you felt mighty clever posting that.

:o)


311 posted on 07/23/2006 6:19:28 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
"Now you are moving to a different subject, and I think you are intentionally doing such for the sake of jumping around and making this more confusing.

No I'm not. It has a direct bearing. You are trying to justify your belief that evolution is inherently anti-christian in nature and to do that you reject the possibility of Christians accepting both Christ and Evolution.

"Believing in Evolution, does NOT make you or unmake you a Christian -- as belief in Christ as one's Lord and Saviour DOES. However, Evolution makes no stance to protect Christians, in the sense that ID, or Creationism does. The Bible states that God created all-things. Evolution states nature did such. Common sense would assume an issue here.

The SToE has absolutely nothing to say about the origin of the universe or life on Earth. I gave you a link to the modern synthesis, where in that list of tenets is there a reference to life origins?

You seem conflicted. On one hand, at least in this post, you agree that belief in Evolution does not alter the state of belief for a Christian, yet, on the other hand, you claim that common sense dictates a contradiction in accepting both Evolution and Christianity.

"Saying you are Christian does NOT make you Christian. "

OK. What does make you a Christian?

312 posted on 07/23/2006 6:20:02 PM PDT by b_sharp (Why bother with a tagline? Even they eventually wear out! (Second Law of Taglines))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Well, it's time to invoke Virtual Ignore.
313 posted on 07/23/2006 6:20:40 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (The Enlightenment gave us individual rights, free enterprise, and the theory of evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: A0ri

"Not my fault I used my family as close reasoning that intelligence does not imply Creationists are "dumb"."

You STILL don't get it.


314 posted on 07/23/2006 6:23:06 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp; A0ri
OK. What does make you a Christian?

Apparently, you have to start by agreeing with A0ri. The fact the Catholic Church has already made it clear that the Church (and therefore its adherents) agrees with TToE.

So are the adherents to the Church directly founded by Christ not Christians?

Hmmm....

315 posted on 07/23/2006 6:24:21 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping PH...been out all day long, and see I have missed a great deal of the fun...time for me to play catch up...


316 posted on 07/23/2006 6:26:50 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
Not my fault I used my family as close reasoning that intelligence does not imply Creationists are "dumb".

No one is saying Creationists are "dumb." Willful ignorance takes a loft of forceful reasoning. To see physical facts and the only valid interpretation thereof and to still close your eyes and plug your ears takes something besides "dumb."

So, I will be your champion of those mean old people who understand TToE call you "dumb."

But I have to work on another word that describes willful ignorance in a single word....

317 posted on 07/23/2006 6:28:15 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

"No I'm not. It has a direct bearing. You are trying to justify your belief that evolution is inherently anti-christian in nature and to do that you reject the possibility of Christians accepting both Christ and Evolution"

You must not be capable of reading. I myself accept evolution, you fail to specify which type, you fail to regonize that some Christians are idiots and break the "norm". You are foolishly trying to have me state the wrong ideology that the two cannot go hand in hand together, and you foolishly fail to recognize that they cannot go hand in hand together because of flawed moral dillemmas.

"You seem conflicted. On one hand, at least in this post, you agree that belief in Evolution does not alter the state of belief for a Christian, yet, on the other hand, you claim that common sense dictates a contradiction in accepting both Evolution and Christianity."

Again, you fail to recognize what I had written. I think this is because you fail to understand what it means to be a Christian. Catch up on basic religious knowledge, then get back to me.

"OK. What does make you a Christian?"

Hello? I posted this prior. "Belief in Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior{.


318 posted on 07/23/2006 6:28:46 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

Was there a ping?


319 posted on 07/23/2006 6:28:51 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
Hello? I posted this prior. "Belief in Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior"

Therefore there is no conflict between Christianity and TToE. And as I stated, the Church He founded is on board.

320 posted on 07/23/2006 6:30:15 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Sure there was a ping...early this morning...but I have been gone all day, and just returned to find the mornings ping, and now I have to go through and read the whole thread...

Got my work cut out for me...


321 posted on 07/23/2006 6:31:26 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

I usually shoot to the end and back track the funny ones.

I was flying all day so I am cutting corners (as I do for fly-days).


322 posted on 07/23/2006 6:32:51 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Wrong. Explain to me how evolutionists integrate Faith and science.

If you clearly cannot see the purpose of Intelligent influence in the role of Creation, then what is the purpose of said Designer?

It is easy to argue the atheist standpoint with TToE.


323 posted on 07/23/2006 6:33:55 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
Got my work cut out for me...

I recommend an adult beverage, maybe popcorn.

And a movie instead.

324 posted on 07/23/2006 6:35:10 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
As I've mentioned elsewhere, he may have a defensible position. But it is one of which science is correct, not one of teachers being given full freedom to decide what to teach. So any claim to be defending teachers "freedom to choose" is simply a red herring.

Politicians are stuck: Is Creatonism science? Should people in Astronomy be taught the Universe is 6,000 years old? Should Geology students be taught there was a worldwide flood? Should students in chemistry be taught alchemy as Zarostrians believe?

Creationism is NOT an alternate theory to TToE. The Universe is NOT 6,000 years old. There WAS no flood.

These things we know.

Religious precepts such as the Genesis Story can be taught in theology class (along with other Origin Stories). But they have no place in science.

325 posted on 07/23/2006 6:39:10 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
"What debate? It's a religious debate . . ."

You're right in so far as you address the debate among and between religious groups. But as soon as that debate becomes an attack on science itself, and that is clearly the way I view the Creationist/Intelligent Design/Evolution controversy, you have reached a point at which it can be treated on a basis other than pure religious study. High school students, who are some of the most impressionable beings on the planet, can benefit from the development of skills in critical thinking that will enable them to understand the distinct assumptions upon which each side to the debate is basing their arguments. If you do not arm these students with this knowledge, how many of them will walk away from the debate concluding that science is some evil conspiracy of godless atheists bent upon destroying the Christian religion, rather than a discipline rooted in the materialist study of the natural universe? Or conversely, how many students will come to see religious belief and practice as a retreat from intellectual honesty, leading them to condemn religiosity in all its forms? Informed students schooled in critical thinking can avoid either of these extremes.

"A more modest goal in my mind, and an achievable one, is to keep religious dogma out of science classes."

That is definitely part of what I am trying to achieve here ml1954. But I don't think it goes far enough. "Critical Thinking" comes down to a lot of things, but basically focuses upon developing the "tools of rational thought." And do understand, since I may not have made this perfectly clear to everyone, I only want this CreationistID/Evolution debate aired for a very small portion of the class. I might envision it as a one or two day exercise in comparing Metaphysics with Materialism, once students understand the distinction between the two. That's all I have in mind. The other 248 days of the school year I will want them studying quite a bit more; Informal Fallacies of Logical Argument, Logical Rules of Inference and their Application, How Ordinary Language is Expressed Symbolically, What is Philosophy?, What is Epistemology?, What are "Schools of Philosophical Thought"?, What were the major "revolutions" in human understanding? These form the real basis for a course in critical thinking.
326 posted on 07/23/2006 6:41:37 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

I do have my adult drink with me now...its blazing hot here, and I am not used to it, so I am drinking something quite cold, and something to make me forget about the heat...

Tempting as a good movie may sound, I usually am able to get a few laughs out of these threads, so I will plod on with my reading...


327 posted on 07/23/2006 6:42:24 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
If you clearly cannot see the purpose of Intelligent influence in the role of Creation, then what is the purpose of said Designer?

God started the whole thing and set it on its way. He may interfere in individual Human events but the design was His. He exists OUTSIDE of the Universe we know. It is not His intent for use to see him in mechanics, but in our hearts.

The God of the Creationists is one that is a human -- Gandalf the Wizard writ large. He needs to tweak things or he planted things. The idea He could design this incredible Universe is too big an idea for them -- it makes a much less personal God.

Creationists limit and diminish God. Scientists, especially those who understand TToE, revel and amaze at God's Work as they unveil more and more of this unbelievably wondrous, complex and vast Universe.

The real God is revealed in His splendid work: The Universe.

It is a sin to close your eyes to His wonder. I will not insult God as you do.

328 posted on 07/23/2006 6:46:43 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Amazing. You have described an "intelligent" aspect to the world's design. That is what we call ID.

Apparently you aren't on the same page of TToE as others, and apparently you have no clue what you are arguing against.


329 posted on 07/23/2006 6:49:31 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Fine, but don't claim this is a defense of academic freedom, which by definition applies to individuals.

Actually, that's not true. Academic freedom also encompasses the collective freedom of scholars to set the standards of their discipline.

330 posted on 07/23/2006 6:51:56 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
But I don't think it goes far enough. "Critical Thinking" comes down to a lot of things, but basically focuses upon developing the "tools of rational thought."

That is fine -- in "critical thinking" class. I have been the most strident proponent of high school students learning comparative theology. And some philosophy.

But for the core curriculum, they need to be taught hard science, hard math, hard chemistry, hard mathematics.

Do you really want to open the door on Creation when they are learning about the red shift? That the stars we see are billions of years old, but there is a contravening idea that says they are only 6,000 years old?

Kids today are coming out of High School stupid enough with the way Liberals have ruined the curriculum with experimental ways to teach English, hating white males in history, and allowing "all ideas are OK" and "optional constructs" in English.

Do you want to apply "critical thinking" for little children to use very adult-level philosophy to try to apply silly psychobabble in looking at hard facts?

That results in the kind of thinking that we have on many of these posts -- that TToE is some sort of guesswork or, worse, a Commie plot conspiracy.

You request making kids basket-cases who would make great "Jay Walking: fodder.

331 posted on 07/23/2006 6:55:06 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: Stultis; ml1954
"I'd say the alternative is to find a subject which will be interesting to students, but with regard to which you don't have an appreciable percentage of teachers who will have an ax to grind or an ox to gore. That shouldn't be hard. There are plenty of controversies within the history of science that would be highly engaging (upon resurrecting the richness of their forgotten details) but which won't evoke particularistic passions."

The first thing I want to say is that I do not propose the development of a course on Critical Thinking as an antidote to the Creationist/ID/Evolution controversy. There is no such thing. My real goal is to, well, advance an understanding of Critical Thinking, which has now become an important part of college placement and entrance exams. If it is going to be required for entrance into college, then it must be taught. It is just that I view such a course as a perfect forum within which to introduce the controversy.

Stultis, obviously your distrust of the Creationist/Intelligent Design crowd is quite great. May I say that I share your distrust? Let's face it, if any change is made to a high school curriculum to permit any discussion of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design those guys and gals are going to go right to the school board and demand that the discussion be made on their terms. You and I, and I suspect ml1954 as well, all know it. And we'll be right back at war with them again. But I submit that the potential damage from such a war is far less than the war over getting it into a science class. Do you guys realize that there are university level Biology courses that deal with this controversy? Just Google all the appropriate keywords to view the syllabi of freshman biology courses and you'll see it. It is my opinion that we are losing the struggle to keep religion out of science class if it has to be dealt with at the college level. We need to reevaluate how to do that.
332 posted on 07/23/2006 6:55:36 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

What is it about "In the beginning God created[...]" that isn't "intelligent factor" to you?

Without intelligence, you assume a GODLESS state. See the problem it has with Christianity?


333 posted on 07/23/2006 6:58:43 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: A0ri

Actually you are the one who is off target completely....

Many who accept evolution are indeed atheists...

Many who accept evolution also consider themselves to be Christians, to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ...take note, they dont ask you who is and who is not a Christian, because your opinion does not matter...if someone says, that they support evolution, and that they also have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, I take them at their word...you may not chose to do so, as throughout the thread, I have noticed your take, that certain folks who consider themselves to be Christians, apparently dont fall into the 'approved' category, of who you do and dont believe to be a Christian...as I said, your opinion of who is and who is not a Christian does not matter one bit...its only your personal opinion, and really, nothing more....

Just because someone says that they support evolution, and that they are Christians, and that they believe that God started everything, and used evolution to create, does not put that person into the ID camp...the ID camp seems to grant that God may be completely dead, or that the intelligent designer could have been aliens from outer space...I have yet to find as Christian religion which believes that God is dead, or that creation was started by space aliens..and ID requires a designer, which science and evolution do not...

Many of the evolution supporters on these CREVO threads, are indeed Christians, consider themselves so, and are in no way an advocate of the ID notions...


334 posted on 07/23/2006 7:00:19 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
You have described an "intelligent" aspect to the world's design. That is what we call ID. No, that is a completely different arena. ID says that an Intelligent Designer reached in DURING EVOLUTION and jiggled the wires at various points. It says that speciation and marvels such as the human eye could not have come about via un-patrolled evolution.

Apparently you aren't on the same page of TToE as others, and apparently you have no clue what you are arguing against.

Oh, I am. You don't seem to be on the same page as CR/Id'ers (see everyone how I sill use the new PC term?). TToE is silent on a Creator, one way or the other. As is all true science. It uses the Scientific Method to identify physically measurable phenomenon to explain the Universe.

Thas is NOT ID.

335 posted on 07/23/2006 7:03:22 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
Amazing. You have described an "intelligent" aspect to the world's design. That is what we call ID.

That may be what YOU call ID, but what the ID movement leaders like Wells, Johnson, Behe and Dembski call ID is very different. They assert that there are some aspects of life that CANNOT have developed through purely natural processes, and therefore required the direct intervention of God.

As Ken Miller points out, correctly, the phrase "intelligent design" is really a misnomer, because it identifies a movement that asserts the universe WAS NOT designed intelligently enough for life to evolve without direct divine intervention.

So, for what it's worth, yes, I (and a lot of Christian scientists) believe that the universe and its physical laws were intelligently designed so that life, as well as the human body, would eventually come about through purely natural processes.

But that is not "intelligent design" as it is defined by the leaders of the movement that bears the name.

336 posted on 07/23/2006 7:05:01 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Archive.


337 posted on 07/23/2006 7:05:34 PM PDT by OriginalIntent (Undo the ACLU's revison of the Constitution. If you agree with the ACLU revisions, you are a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

Amazing. Evolution without ID?

These are the folks claiming to understand what is called the contemporary environment of evolution? Holy cow folks.


338 posted on 07/23/2006 7:08:11 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

From dictionary.com,

Main Entry: intelligent design
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance; abbr. ID

What is it about God created, that doesn't click with you folk?


339 posted on 07/23/2006 7:10:53 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
However, on my father's line, 2 lead nuclear engineers/physicists on the manhattan project (great and grand), and my father with NASA.

If they "think" as well as you do, they probably swept the floors. Good for them, but now we special associations for people like that.

340 posted on 07/23/2006 7:11:53 PM PDT by balrog666 (Ignorance is never better than knowledge. - Enrico Fermi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
Without intelligence, you assume a GODLESS state. See the problem it has with Christianity?

No, you assume God-neutral.

Just like atronomy. If you take Genesis literally, you better get ready to defend a 6,000 year old Earth. Which nothing in any science that deals with anything historical (astophysics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, anthropololgy, agronomy, archeology) agrees with.

341 posted on 07/23/2006 7:13:16 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

Amazing, most conservative boards ban the likes of you. I guess Freerepublc isn't conservative, but a very weak strain of moderatism.


342 posted on 07/23/2006 7:13:40 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
"But for the core curriculum, they need to be taught hard science, hard math, hard chemistry, hard mathematics."

Of course. But they must also be prepared to gain entry into college and critical thinking is now a part of the entrance placement process.

"Do you really want to open the door on Creation when they are learning about the red shift? That the stars we see are billions of years old, but there is a contravening idea that says they are only 6,000 years old?"

That "idea" is put in front of many of them when they are about 10 years old or so. I cannot envision simply trusting that they will have it undone in science class. They need to develop rational skills alongside of it.

Please remember, I'm only talking about two hours of discussion in an entire school year here. No more than that.

"Do you want to apply "critical thinking" for little children to use very adult-level philosophy to try to apply silly psychobabble in looking at hard facts?"

Do you really want to deny them that background and then see them tested on it when they prepare to go to college?

This is bulleted item #1 from the SAT scoring explanation is for a top quality essay:


And then on top of that students must face an entire critical reading section.

How can you not prepare them?
343 posted on 07/23/2006 7:16:17 PM PDT by StJacques (Liberty is always unfinished business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
"You must not be capable of reading. I myself accept evolution, you fail to specify which type, you fail to regonize that some Christians are idiots and break the "norm".

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is nothing but accumulated micro evolutionary changes. This is articulated quite clearly in the SToE.

What 'norm' are these 'idiot' Christians breaking?

"You are foolishly trying to have me state the wrong ideology that the two cannot go hand in hand together, and you foolishly fail to recognize that they cannot go hand in hand together because of flawed moral dillemmas.

So, the 'wrong' ideology is that the two cannot go hand in hand? Why then do you follow up by stating that they cannot go hand in hand? Are you admitting that you adhere to the 'wrong' ideology?

Your idea that there is a logical contradiction between Evolution and religion is based on a poor understanding of the SToE. Evolution needs a preexisting species to create a new species. It does not suggest that a new species originates from nothing. It says nothing about the origin of life.

"Again, you fail to recognize what I had written. I think this is because you fail to understand what it means to be a Christian. Catch up on basic religious knowledge, then get back to me."

I can only go on what I read. If you insist on equivocating your terms I can only surmise you are having trouble getting your thoughts straight.

I come from a long line of creationists. My father married into a whole family of re-born Christians. I have a fair idea of what it means to be a Christian.

344 posted on 07/23/2006 7:16:23 PM PDT by b_sharp (Why bother with a tagline? Even they eventually wear out! (Second Law of Taglines))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
What is it about "In the beginning God created[...]" that isn't "intelligent factor" to you?

Sure it's intelligence, but that's not what ID is.

ID, at least as proposed by the leaders of the movement, has nothing to do with the beginning. It's all about the supposed inadequacy of evolution to explain what happened AFTER the beginning.

If you wanted to write some ID scriptures, they'd sound a lot like this:

It's more like this:

"200-300 million years after the beginning, the designer thought it would be really cool if bacteria could swim. Unfortunately he also saw that they were having trouble evolving their own means of locomotion. So the designer, in all his benevolence, decided to give them irreducibly complex flagella.

"After another 3 billion years or so, the designer decided that natural evolution was failing to produce enough phyla for his liking. So he set to work desiging all kinds of new body plans, resulting in the Cambrian explosion!"

ID: bad science, bad theology and, above all, bad philology.

345 posted on 07/23/2006 7:17:25 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

You can take over for me. I have to take off for the evening.


346 posted on 07/23/2006 7:17:44 PM PDT by b_sharp (Why bother with a tagline? Even they eventually wear out! (Second Law of Taglines))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Hello? Who said most Christians do not take such as is?

The last time I read my highschool biology textbook on evolution, it said "in the beginning there was a cosmic explosion, caused by such and such particles because of such and such properties, because of such and such dimensional workings". Not once did it say "God".

Who is to say God did not desin Earth to look 4.5 odd billion years old? Amazing how evolution removes such theories from the picture.


347 posted on 07/23/2006 7:18:32 PM PDT by A0ri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; A0ri
Well, curiosity just helped me kill the cat. ;)

A0ri, you are now on record agreeing with my definition of God's influence on the Universe.

And, since I was crystal clear, it means you have put yourself in a position where you either have to admit you don't understand what ID is or become a proponent of TTOE.

Or you can say you didn't understand what you were agreeing to (I am quite magnanimous). But then you have to determine which part of my definition fails.

I will even accept a prima facie argument (I am magnanimous).

Nice pick up curiosity!
348 posted on 07/23/2006 7:18:57 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
Amazing, most conservative boards ban the likes of you. I guess Freerepublc [sic] isn't conservative, but a very weak strain of moderatism.

You are pretty firm in your opinions of how FR should be run, for a newbie (2006-05-08).

You a retread?

349 posted on 07/23/2006 7:19:08 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: A0ri
"Amazing, most conservative boards ban the likes of you. I guess Freerepublc isn't conservative, but a very weak strain of moderatism."

Since you are almost certainly a retred banned creo, that's funny.

If you really mean it, take it up with JimRob. I'm sure he'll find your opinion interesting.
350 posted on 07/23/2006 7:20:30 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 651-678 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson