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 10 of 11)
136. @ Michelle (comment 135)
You said, "Ok, where is your point that God believed in astronomy? I went back to the spot I guessed I may have performed my vault at and couldnt find it. Maybe it blew away."
I got mixed up and said astronomy when I meant astrology.
All good wisemen (Astrologers) know the kingdom of Astrological ordinances continue to reflect their patterns and rule, never slacking or tottering off their mark of divine authority.
"How can man be of any worth to God who made Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the other constellations of the south, all of which doeth great things past finding out, yes, and even more wonders without numbers." Job 9:9-10
It would seem that Job knew all about the Astrological Kingdom. Indeed there is no end to the great things these stars, planets, and constellations, do to influence life on this planet. They have been programmed to perform their specific tasks and life on earth goes on toward it's ultimate end, with or without man's approval."
God was an astrologer.
"Since all the "real" stars in the sky do not change their apparent position in relation to each other, but move in unison across the night sky as the Earth turns on its axis; there would be no change in the pattern to observe if we were only looking at the "real" stars. It is, and was, the planets (those "wandering stars") which moved and provided a constantly changing pattern which could be observed and then interpreted as a "sign" of some coming event.
Astrology is the Study of the Stars
Thus when the Bible mentions the word "star" it is most often talking about a "wandering star" or planet which appeared to be making some unusual motion, or appeared to be coming into contact with another "wandering star" or some important fixed star that symbolically represented something in the lore and legends of the times. The observation of the apparent motion of the Sun and Moon and Planets, and their relative positions to each other and to the fixed stars or constellations of stars, is what Astrology is all about - the study of the stars and their relation to mankind.
When the Bible talks about "the stars", it is talking about Astrology."
The Magi(three wise men) were astrologers.
Do you, like the Magi and God believe in Astrology?
pboyfloyd at 6:04PM on May 12th 2007
137. @ Michelle -134
You said, " It has been speculated, like was shown in the movie, that there were planets or something that were going to meet at a certain time."
But the sky appears to rotate clock-wise(if you are facing South, and all the stars, planets and everything else appear to rotate with it. It is just the effect of the Earth rotating the other way. This 'guiding star', be it an alignment of Venus(the third brightest object in the sky) and other bright planets ... would have been well known to the Magi... and would not have been confused as some 'new sign' drawing the Magi westwards.
So, given that astrologers would be well aquainted with Venus etc. this 'sign' would have had to be something entirely new. Other societies would have noticed this... Aztecs for sure because they worshipped Venus as well as the Sun. If there were some kind of anomaly... the Aztecs would have described it, unless, of course it was entirely in the Magi's imagination.
You say, "Darwin did not live during your time, so how do you know he was real? I know you do not believe the big bang. What else do you not believe about your religion? If that is wrong, what else are you going to allow? I mean, if its first major philosophy is um... wrong, what else?"
Of course, astronomy is not a religion, neither is Evolution by Natural Selection. What's this about the Big Bang being its(I assume you mean the religion of 'science' or 'atheism') first major philosophy. Reality will not come crashing down no matter what the scientific data show.
The fact of evolution, on the other hand could be easily shown to be a lie. So... get your degree in Paleontology, genetics, biology... and go to it, should be simple for you... you 'know' the 'facts' without even having to look.
A spot of 'looking', collect some data, piece together an article making your point and have it published in a peer reviewed magazine.... voila!!! Should be a 'doddle' right?
You shouldn't have to cheat though, that's important! And you can't just 'stumble' on to an old dusty 'book' ... the Bible "Oh My!" and try to fob that off on scientists as evidence to anything but the vivid imagination of the booklet writers.
Oh, and no trying to invoke any more than the six senses that we actually have.
Good luck!!!
pboyfloyd at 6:47PM on May 12th 2007
138. RE: Social Darwinism:
Man may not have evolved biologically in the last million years or so but he has changed the environment and himself tremendously during the last six thousand years of so that we call history.
Because man now changes nature (forests becomes cities;artifical sunlight replaces natural light when needed and so forth; I could include many more instances) social darwinism is a joke. How do you explain sons and daughters getting into a prestigious college because of so-called "legacy". If your parents are wealthy, you will not have to fight as hard to get ahead as others have to. THe more well-off your family is, the less you have to accomplish on your own right. SO, where is the survival of the fittest? These advantages occur because of external forces that have nothing to do with the natural law of survival.
The further you move away from natural history into man's social structure, the greater the deviation from those laws which guide natural evolution. Remember the old phrase, "it's not what you know, it's who you know"? We don't all start at the same place. How will we ever know the potential of children in Africa who die of starvation every day? Which chance to achieve did they receive?
I am not buying into "social darwinism". It is propaganda disseminated by those with power and privilege to make those of use who do not have these advantages believe they have a right to their privilege because of "survival of the fittest". That is nonsense.
The phrase "all men are created equal" deals not with equality of status, money, education, intelligence, creativity and so forth. It refers to our right to the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That was a huge step in those days and it just as huge today. We all have our own definition of "pursuit of happiness" and it may have nothing to do with material goods. That should not be taken away from us. The huge question and one that is constantly debated is what, if any, obligation does society have to aid us in achieving our goals. This is especially true in this country which is a hybrid state. It provides social programs in some areas and not in others. We are not completely socialist nor completely capitalist. That certainly leaves us with a huge identity crisis.
CAF at 9:55AM on May 14th 2007
139. Pboyfloyd,
Well, well, well, this astrology stuff is interesting. Maybe there is something to it. Could be. There was a scientist once, escaping my mind at the moment what his name was, who was a God man and believed in astrology. You could very well be right.
About the wise men, I do not think it was in their imagination. I think as well as knowing astrology/ astronomy whatever it was, they knew the scriptures, and they knew the prophesies about the Messiah. Maybe others saw the star formation and thought it was amazing, but did not know the prophesies. And also, the shepherds gave the little King a visit. Perhaps the star helped them too. We do not know how many stables with mangers there were near these shepherd fellows. Maybe when the angels disappeared, they suddenly saw this strange star "in a new light".
So you want me to go "get your degree in Paleontology, genetics, biology". How many years are you giving me?
And hey, if I cannot invoke the six senses, dude, what can I invoke? I am left with no options, dear Pboy of floyd. Unless you want me to use facts or something. Wow, what an idea!
I must now get ready for a vaca. Not from my persona but from my house. I should be returing to my computer chair about next Monday, being that dear old qwerty aint travelin with me.
TTYL ha ha ha,
Michelle
Michelle at 11:38AM on May 14th 2007
140. @ Michelle (comment 139)
I said, "Oh, and no trying to invoke any more than the six senses that we actually have."
And to this, you replied, "And hey, if I cannot invoke the six senses, dude, what can I invoke?"
Of course, you HAVE TO use your six senses.. are you reading my comments upside-down or backwards or something.... you seen to be reading the exact opposite of what I am saying.
You say, "Maybe others saw the star formation and thought it was amazing, but did not know the prophesies."
So, you can imagine that, in a world full of astrologers, they might have noticed this star, but they would have thought, "Well that's certainly an odd looking one, but darn it, we have no specific prophecy to account for it... let's all just ignore that one."
But they were looking for meaning in any strange occurence in the sky... they weren't about to ignore a sign that shepherds could spot... are you deliberately being daft, Michelle.
Did you know that vaca means cow in spanish... I know you meant vacation..
There is no time limit for you to go ahead and disprove evolution... you'd be a hero Michelle, they'd give you a Nobel Prize(that comes with cash money) for sure, Michelle.
It would go a long way to converting everyone to Christianity, Michelle... I think that it is no less than your duty as a good Christian to prove evolution wrong... plus, like I said, since you already 'know' the 'facts' .... it should be no trouble at all for you...
... and just letting you know again... what I said was.... (paraphrasing now) go ahead and use your six senses... but no more than that... no imaginary ones like 'intuition' or anything daft like that.
pboyfloyd at 3:17PM on May 17th 2007
141. Hello there Pboyfloyd,
When I was down visiting my cow (by the way is not that vaca pronounced with short As rather than long?) I learned a lot more about this star of Bethlehem stuff. Forgot it, but thankfully I have my notes, and therefore a portian of the proceeds. Here are some "facts"
1. You are right. The magi were astrologers. Though another book, not the Bible, mentioned an astronomer in 125 BC.
2. At that time, new stars were believed to denote big events.
3. Jupiter, quite possibly a teammate in this manifestation is known as the planet of King David. A red star from Leo, also a part of it, vague now but somehow mattered. Leo is the emblem of Israel.
4. Seth from Genesis said something about it. A prophecy.
5. For some reason also King Herod believed when his religious people went to their scrolls and quite possibly he saw the star and that is why he killed a great many little children.
I also learned more about evolution. Problem is for some reason I did not take all the notes on that one. I will have to order the thing later. But here are some things I remember.
1. People have enough copper in them for so many penneys, iron for so many such and such and so on and it all adds up to $14.00. But on the other hand,
2. People's DNA is so vast that if ONE person's DNA were stretched out side by side it would go to the moon and back like 100 times or something like that (like I said, notes).
3. It also would fill the grand canyon over and over a lot.
Pboyfloyd, how can this happen by mistake? And how in evolution, can a fish evolve? It would have to jump out of the water and it only has so much time until it stops breathing on the ground right? It would have to figure itself out real quick there or itd be in a heap a trouble, and so would evolution.
Michelle at 9:33PM on May 21st 2007
142. Correction on my statement about the Grand Canyon, Pboyfloyd
The information in the DNA would fill the Grand Canyon like 100 times or some other such large number.
Michelle at 4:21PM on May 25th 2007
143. @ Michelle (comment 141)
You say, "People's DNA is so vast that if ONE person's DNA were stretched out side by side it would go to the moon and back like 100 times..."
You seem to be leading up to the idea that this could not have been a 'mistake.'
People make mistakes, Michelle... the weather doesn't make mistakes and volcanoes don't make mistakes, for example.
It is well established that all life on Earth is connected, related. That was not established by the Bible, Michelle.
We are primates. Our DNA is close to chimps, gorillas and other primates.
We are mammals. Our DNA is more closely related to all mammals than it is to birds (avian dinosaurs), reptiles, insects, plants, fungi... but all of those are more closely related to each other than bacteria and viruses(virii).
You could go to school and learn this... not believing a single word of course... then go out in the field and bring home one specimen that shows up all the Neo-Darwinists and all geneticists.
This should be a fairly easy task... I'm sure that there must be some Christians trying to do this right now!!! Discovery Institute people come to mind and maybe AIG people.
But they don't do this... they try to disparage evolution by claiming that it has already been disproven and that it is now a religion.
In fact you said that you thought that yourself.. the Big Bang Theory being one of the 'cornerstones' of my 'religion'... you said something like that.
But these people are just fooling you and they are trying to fool everyone... reality cannot be pitted against someone's opinion... it just is.
You don't say where you are getting your information but the conclusions that 'they' are aiming at, is that the Bible is fact because God inspired it.
Well, Michelle, the world itself is telling a different story. There is a full spectrum of science all pointing to the same thing... and there is a full spectrum of Believers whose opinion accepts only the science that it likes and discards the science it doesn't.
But, and there is always a BUT... reality is not opinion based.
pboyfloyd at 5:38PM on May 25th 2007
144. Pboyfloyd,
Ok, I admit I still am not an evo expert. I do not wanna be all stubborn though and not look into the facts to disprove it factually. So I ask you, Pboy of Floyd, has any animal evolved from lettuce? That lettuce sure got smart. Hope it doesnt get so smart in my mouth. And like I asked before, what about the fish? How can it evolve? "It would have to jump out of the water and it only has so much time until it stops breathing on the ground right? It would have to figure itself out real quick there or itd be in a heap a trouble, and so would evolution." And I ask you to answer these questions if you can. I do not ask them as perverbials. You know what I mean.
Michelle at 9:43PM on May 25th 2007
145. @ Michelle (144)
You ask, ".. has any animal evolved from lettuce?"
No. That would be more magical than the idea of gods and demons floating around.
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Plantae
Division: Magnoliophyta
Class: Magnoliopsida
Order: Asterales
Family: Asteraceae
Genus: Lactuca
Species: L. sativa
Can you see how reality would be totally screwed up if a lettuce could just suddenly decide to become an animal? If reality were like this, we might just decide that we want to be beautiful/handsome... six feet 6 inches tall... have an eye in the back of our head... you know... magical stuff.
When you imagine a fish wanting to sprout legs and grow lungs... you are tackling the problem backwards. Evolution doesn't seem reasonable to a Christian because it has already been decided that there wasn't any evolution.
Why not look for a living fish that HAS lungs? Oh, here's one...
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Sarcopterygii
Subclass: Dipnoi
Lungfishes are freshwater fish belonging to the order Dipnoi. Lungfish are best-known for retaining characteristics primitive within the Osteichthyes, including the ability to breathe air, and structures primitive within Sarcopterygii, including the presence of lobed fins with a well-developed internal skeleton.
Of course that lungfish is NOT at an evolutionary dead-end... that's just the way it evolved... there is no set program for things to grow more mobile, smarter or anything like that.
Isn't it a lot easier to imagine that some of the lungfish's ancestors went on to become land animals... than to imagine a lettuce suddenly becoming an animal?
pboyfloyd at 2:26PM on May 26th 2007
146. Hello Pboyfloyd,
Hey, who says I am not beautiful and six foot six inches tall with an eye in the back of my head. Are you saying I am magical?
Lungfish huh? Interesting. Shoulda thought of that. Now my question is(I know you said, "there is no set program for things to grow more mobile, smarter or anything like that.") is there any known way in which one thing becomes another thing? What would cause it? Random selection? Has a fossil ever been found of something in progress, of something changing into something else? I know over time people change, evolve you could say into older people, but they are still people.
Michelle at 1:44PM on May 28th 2007
147. @ Michelle
Natural Selection is the way.
You say, "Has a fossil ever been found of something in progress, of something changing into something else?"
If you mean magically changing like your fish jumping out of water and suddenly growing lungs and legs... no, that would be magic.
If you mean are there fossils that have characteristics of say lizards and mammals mixed... sure, lots of them.
Lots of fossils of land animals, intermediate animals then whales... that kind of thing.
Look it up Michelle. I can't understand the reason God would plant this evidence to mess with our heads. That wouldn't make sense at all.
Look stuff up. Here's a good one... they tried to keep Siberian foxes as breeding stock for their furs... but the darn things evolved into pets, with multiple colours. Totally unexpected.
pboyfloyd at 5:18PM on May 28th 2007
148. Hello Pboyfloyd,
I looked for the stuff you mentioned. Found a couple of pictures. The one of a flyable reptile thing was interesting. What I have to say to that though is that it is possible that creatures like that existed in former times but their habitat was somehow destroyed as were they. It was found in Germany. Hard to know exactally when it was from. They of course claim 150 million years. I on the other hand with my dogged Ken Hamm persistance (By the way have you been to his new museum?) think more like something thousand years. I would wonder what level of strata it was found in.
The fossil with the whale something creature is interesting. But being that snakes used to have legs and that the world used to have one solid continent I think anything could happen right?
And the dog foxxes, I looked that up and found only something about similar genetic characteristics between them and dogs and so therefore they trained the foxxes to become siberian house foxxes. Couldnt find the multiple color thing.
Michelle
Michelle at 2:12PM on May 29th 2007
149. @ Michelle
You said, "..the world used to have one solid continent.."
Do you think that the world was one solid continent only 6000 years ago, Michelle?
Ken Ham won't have a leg to stand on when all the fossil pictures come on line... you must remember that although computers are 'old hat' to you and me... pcs with good graphics quality haven't been available for that long... then there is the fact that universities don't like to just give away information... they want you to pay for your education.
You can be sure that science will never disprove God... he could be hiding anywhere, right?
Look up 'whale intermediate fossils'... but click on 'images'.
If you'd rather believe what Ken Ham has to say...that's fine Michele, what harm could that do? Check out a cartoon documentary on the same subject... it's called 'The Flintstones.'
pboyfloyd at 2:25AM on May 30th 2007
150. @ Michelle
Read this.
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm
I know, I know.. Ken Ham is soooo much easier.
pboyfloyd at 2:55AM on May 30th 2007