Posted on 09/17/2011 7:52:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In the last few months, in the run-up to the Republican primary, the press (and others) have made quite a bit of noise about the beliefs of the candidates on the issue of evolution. The goal of this post is to elucidate why the question of origins is important within politics at all. Even more so, my hope is that this will help parents understand and teach the practical consequences of our beliefs within everyday life.
It may seem to some people that the position of a political candidate on an issue like evolution is like asking them what their position is on quantum gravity. That is, certainly, that is an issue better left to the quantum physicists, and the politician's views on the subject can't possibly matter for the governance of the nation. The media is generally asking this question as a test of personal competence. Most in the media consider belief in Intelligent Design or Creationism to be de facto evidence of incompetence for a person in the 21st century.
I believe that the question is an important one, but for a very different reason. The foundation of politics is in the nature of humanity. One cannot govern humanity if one does not understand humans. Thus, one's opinion on the nature of humans is very pertinent.
So what does that have to do with origins? There are some ways in which one's theory of human origins is separable from their view of the present human nature. But there are other ways in which they are intricately linked. If someone believes, as evolutionists do, that humans developed entirely via material processes, then one doesn't believe that humans are composed of non-material being, like a soul.
Likewise, if someone believes that humans are the result of the upward movement of biology from primordial goo on an ever-upward path, the goal of governance would be to accelerate that path upward. However, if one instead believes in original sin - that each human is born with an innate disposition that leads them towards evil, the goal of governance is to minimize the ability of that disposition to expose itself and cause harm.
Finally, if someone believes that the universe is part of an orchestrated plan, then understanding the plan should be a first principle of governance. On the other hand, if someone believes that the universe is essentially arbitrary, then there is no law but the one that we make. We have no boundaries but the ones we set for ourselves.
The question of origins is interconnected with nearly every foundational aspect of governance. While most people view the question of origins as an obscure theological, philosophical, or scientific topic, the fact is that the question is of utmost practical importance to how we order our daily lives, as well as how we order our society.
If I were a politician and you asked me that question, I’d tell you it was none of your business.
I think that is one of Governor Chris Christie’s trademark responses to any journalist who asks him a question he finds irrelevant to his ability and competence to govern.
See here for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm-fsq-aA5E
It is my answer to someone asking anything irrelevant to my abilities.
How can someone object to questioning evolution since it is still only a theory and Creation is proven through the Bible which has never been proven wrong.
Excellent challenge. 50 years ago this man would have been the type moderating the debates and the questions and responses would be of equal caliber.
Now, with rare exceptions, we have blow dried air heads on both sides chattering one liners until you are sick of hearing them.
To me, advocates of evolution are illogical. One law of nature is entropy....continual degradation. Only life fights entropy and then only briefly like a ball thrown in the air can overcome gravity for awhile by a force imparted to it, not coming from it.
To assert that life began and improves randomly, is...to use an old slogan in the debate....like claiming a Rolex is produced by a windstorm in a junk yard.
Very deep questions that a wise man will tell you is yet to be understood.
I would settle for knowing (for sure) Barry’s origins.
Adam
And if I were a politician and asked, I would ask if I could speak my answer uninterrupted for the next three minutes. If I were allowed, I doubt it would ever be an issue again.
ML/NJ
There are three things I don’t discuss in the workplace: religion, sex, and politics.
Obviously if I were running for political office, politics would be discussed. As for the other two, I just don’t believe they’re appropriate.
You see, for me discussing "evolution" is not about religion. It's about science, bad science.
ML/NJ
You want to talk about science? What do you know about the physics of chaos?
My undergraduate minor was in physics. No one talked about chaos then. But chaos is really more mathematical than it is related to physics, and my degrees are in math. I've read several books about mathematical chaos and tried to apply it to something useful but so far have been unsuccessful. What chaos has to do with "evolution," I do not know. Do you want to teach me, or suggest some reading?
ML/NJ
Nope. Not suggesting you read something and I’m certainly not qualified to teach you physics!
When I worked in a nuclear power plant, one of the biggest problems was interior erosion of steam pipes due to the chaotic nature of steam flow. The flow of pressurized steam, like that of water, is unpredictable. Utilities spend a great deal of money x-raying pipes to find where the steel is thinning excessively. A steam-line break in one’s vicinity makes for a really lousy day.
My reason for mentioning chaos is after studying it, I began noticing it operating all around me. An event like a flood or tornado results in chaos, then regular patterns emerge to result in something different than what existed previously; in other words, order out of chaos. But the order that followed was altered and not exactly as had existed previous to the chaotic event.
I’ve now come to expect a bit of chaos in my life regularly. It keeps things from being, well, boring.
So what does this have to do with this subject, Question of Origins? I may not agree with everything scientists do or theorize, but they are unwitting in their search for the “standard operating processes” of God’s creation and the physical ‘laws’ that exist in our universe. In this process they’re uncovering the incredibly complex, sometimes chaotic, and elegant workings of the universe, in essence God’s Laws. In the midst of all this searching they create a little bit of chaos for those who are dogmatic.
Science is based on proof, which stands until superceded by another proof. ‘Truth’ does not exist in pure science.
Religion is based on Faith and Truth.
I never mix the two and frankly believe neither should anyone else. Mixing faith and truth with science results in junk science and belittles faith to the point it becomes theocratic.
You know the truth, but you've been brainwashed. There is no proof for evolution. It is not science. It is faith, just like my stuff about Moses, but not quite as consistent.
ML/NJ
All true science is confirmed by the words of God in the Bible imho. For instance modern day science used to scoff at the Biblical notion that man was created from dust until micro-biology confirmed that we are the equivalent of dust once the water in our bodies is removed.
Did you know the Bible explains the water cycle or the earth is a sphere that hangs on nothing in space?
For you to think otherwise [not mixing science with faith] is simply b/c you may have only encountered scientific naturalists. I felt a similar way until I started reading sites like creationscience.com
Produce physical evidence supporting Creationism.
Why are you addressing this to me? All I've said here is that "evolution" is bad science.
ML/NJ
Since it is ‘historical science’ you are more likely to get a look at Obama’s birth certificate.
otoh once you see the interpretation of the evidence from a creation and Biblical viewpoint you can form a much more informed decision. But you’ll have to do the reading - I can’t do it for you.
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Religion parading as science doesn’t cut it, pal.
I went over the “evidence” for intelligent design 20-years ago. It was BS then and it is BS now.
This dispute pits over a century of accumulated physical evidence, particularly that involving the fields of geology, palaeontology, thermodynamics, microbiology (DNA), nuclear physics and cosmology, that builds a forensic case supporting evolutionary biology.
Evidence supporting creationism? Not so much.
If you go back and look at my lengthy response to ML/NJ, I spoke of the universe as created by God, and that scientists are discovering the physical laws created to operate this elegant universe.
I am no aetheist but I do not believe God plays dice with the Univeerse, either.
If you can’t figure out what I just wrote, that’s your problem.
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.