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 3 of 11)
31. Chauvinist: a person with an unreasoning belief in the superiority of one's own group.
Darwin believed men were made with some innate ability to do anything and everything better than a woman. Therefore women are "less" somehow, weaker, substandard and stupid. I tend not to subscribe to that theory. The only group of people Darwin never spoke against or disrespected were white males. White supremecy, anyone? If he were a presidential candidate today, all politically-correct, intelligent people would hate him.
Love: intense affection; enthusiasm or fondness; the willingness to die for people that hate you (last part added from the Bible)
God is love. You keep your god and his bible, I'll keep my God and His.
C. at 10:48AM on May 4th 2007
32. uakujuo writes: "If you pro-homosexuals or pro-Darwinists are so sure of your theories, do not be afraid to debate those who disagree with you, rather than threatening them with excommunication."
Ted Haggard lost his direct line to the White House. Did they give the line to you? You just answered my question as to how there can be evolution and George Bush can still be President. Thanks
Phil at 11:01AM on May 4th 2007
33.
Why do Creationists have to lie so much? Every argument you make is a lie, the central principle of your argument is a lie. I know you rehearsed these lines in Sunday school every week but they are still lies. Evolution is not a matter of faith, you can be ignorant of the facts or you can acknowledge them, no belief is involved.
Once again, Darwin did not convert to Christianity on his deathbed. That is a lie someone taught you in church to try to discredit him.
His own daughter said so, she was there, I think she knew a little more about it than you wackos do.
In fact, Darwin earlier in his life was a devout Christian who took the Bible as literal truth, but later changed his mind.
Peter at 11:06AM on May 4th 2007
34. For the past 6 years we have had the most anti science government this country has ever seen. Evangelists, conservatives and religious fanatics are rapidly driving this country to third world status. Our schools are way behind the rest of the world and we are becoming the laughing stock of the world. No wonder Americans are regarded as stupid in western Europe especially. God help us in about 20 years when this situation becomes much worse, due to our idea that science is evil.
Ed Reints at 11:14AM on May 4th 2007
35. In many ways evolution prevents me form becoming a card carrying conservative. I do not believe in evolution. I accept the fact of evolution because it is supported by sound science. I don't need to believe in it. If the science shows that it is either, wholly or in part invalid, I, and the entire scientific community will reject it as invalid. What scares me is not the scientific debate about evolution. What scares me is the anti-intellectual, doctrinaire religious diatribes denying evolution on a religious basis. It is another step in the dumbing down of America.
eric at 11:17AM on May 4th 2007
36. 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
37.
Uakojo, I am not afraid to debate you on this subject, in fact I've been trying very hard to get one of you to make an honest point that can be debated.
The problem is you guys are probably the biggest group of liars in this country and you can't debate someone who is convinced a lie is the truth. Truth goes out the window and debate is no longer possible, because every true thing I tell you you will completely disregard as a lie. The fact is that none of you really want to debate about this because you don't have a leg to stand on, so you just call it a theory and run away.
I don't think any of you have the slightest idea what evolution is even really about. Can any of you tell me what the principles of gene flow, genetic recombination, and mutation are about?
You've probably only been taught evolution through a Creationist book or sunday school. I am more than willing to correct your various inaccuracies but first someone has to say something specific about what's wrong with it instead of just writing the whole thing off as just a theory.
It was a theory, now it's a proven theory. It was a theory that the earth revolved arond the sun, now that's a proven theory too.
Peter at 11:20AM on May 4th 2007
38. Peter says,
"Everything in science starts with a theory, then you build on that theory with evidence you can observe and recreate in the natural world. If you want to discount it for starting with a hypothesis then you are discounting the entire scientific method, and frankly that makes you a complete moron."
Peter, the truth is that the creation of a new life form has not/cannot be observed or recreated in the natural world (or in a lab for that matter) so your own words condemn you since evolution is not based on the scientific method and thus just another belief system.
Pater continues,
"Evolution can be observed under a microscope. Viruses and bacteria reproduce at rates far faster than you or I and thus they evolve much more quickly. This is why anti-biotics have created super-diseases, they have evolved resistances to our drugs."
What you describe is called "adaptation", not "evolution". Adaptation of a form to its surroundings is not in dispute. Evolution, or becoming an entirely different life form, is disputed. There is no proof of this actually happening in either the fossil record or in a lab. In simple terms, a mastiff and a dachsund, though many years of manmade manipulation of their genes have led to very different characteristics, are both still dogs, same species. On the other hand, a flower is not a fish is not a dog is not a man and will never be.
Faith is something you accept without proof,like creation or evolution. Please don't be foolish and say something like faith is actually science, it's not.
Vicki at 11:38AM on May 4th 2007
39. Creation is not a scientific theory. It is a religious belief. To those who believe in creation, scientific proof is not required nor even sought. A belief which is based on religious conviction is not compatible with scientific investigation since no amount of proof to the contrary will ever deter the believer from his belief. Creation has no place in science courses and should be relegated to religious institutions and never see the light of day in public institutions.
eric at 11:34AM on May 4th 2007
40. Relativity and gravity are both theories. Do Christians have alternatives to gravity and realtivity, also?
eric at 11:38AM on May 4th 2007
41. Peter,
Are we to be as impressed with you as you seem to be with yourself? You assume that because creationists believe something different than you do when presented with the same information but no real proof that we are uneducated or wilfully ignorant. The fact is that your comment "you can't debate someone who is convinced a lie is the truth. Truth goes out the window and debate is no longer possible, because every true thing I tell you you will completely disregard as a lie." Isn't the same true of you? What could anyone possibly say that would convince you differently? You have already labelled us all liars and are obviously convinced beyone persuasion that your "truth" is infallible.
As for the comment "You've probably only been taught evolution through a Creationist book or sunday school." Weren't you taught through an evolutionist book or public school? Do you honestly believe there is any less bias in that setting?
As to "It was a theory, now it's a proven theory. It was a theory that the earth revolved arond the sun, now that's a proven theory too." Maybe you need a quick primer on the Scientific method. It begins with observation (gathering facts), followed by hypthesizing (sugggesting explanations, then experimenting (testing explantions. After an hypothesis passes many experiments and is supported by other scientists, it becomes a theory. If a theory is continually verified and stands the test of time, it becomes a scientific law. Darwin's THEORY has not attained such status.
Even brilliant men like Aristotle formed faulty theories which stood for nearly 2000 years until they were proven wrong - through more experimentation. Creationists don't eschew science. Science increasingly validates an intelligent design. To hold blindly to one point of view in spite of evidence to the contrary is actually beyond the level of yahoo or whacko. It is a definition of insanity.
Vicki at 11:56AM on May 4th 2007
42.
Okay Vicki, it's about time someone said something.
You seem to be making the argument that Micro-evolution happens but Macro-evolution and speciation do not. That's a common Creationist argument. You also claim speciation has not been observed in nature, another common argument. It's also a lie.
Here's a link for you, scroll down to bullet point 5.0.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Here's one of the many instances cited in the article:
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
Congratulations, you're a liar and you lose this debate.
Peter at 11:56AM on May 4th 2007
43.
I'm not impressed with myself, I just realize that 51% of this country does not believe in evolution, and I've had arguments with many creationists before. If I don't insult you you won't debate me and you won't learn anything.
You're screwing up our education system, that's why I won't let you believe a lie or tell lies like this.
Peter at 11:59AM on May 4th 2007
44. God scares some liberal pseudo-intellectuals who consider themsleves more knowledgable than they are.
God scares some political party liberal Democrat pseudo-intellectuals who consider themselves more knowledgeable than they are. Darwin’s Origin of the Species is poor even for scientific theory. Some political conservatives have personal knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ revealed by the Holy Spirit to St. John reads,
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”
We attain knowledge of God by the word whereby all things were created. Life came from God and was the light. The light created by God coming to us from the Sun gives us life. The Sun sends the light to the earth with energy to create life. See a flower grow. Read the parable of the Sower in chapter 13, St. Matthew and how the seeds (words of God) grow or perish.
As real as the science and math of engineering is the truth that “as many as received Jesus, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name are “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
Alan Klaus at 12:20PM on May 4th 2007
45. I truly feel that religious people who decry evolution have not really studied it. At least, not with an open mind and from scientific (not Creationist) sources. I consider myself a devote Christian, and went to a religious university. Entering school, I didn't think evolution was correct, but I hadn't really studied it. I'd simply been told by some people I respected that it wasn't correct (sadly, including my high school Biology teachers). However, I ended up majoring in Biology, and through my studies, came to realize that evolution undeniably happens Evolution IS a theory, and in science, that means it is a hypothesis that best describes the observed phenomenon while being continually tested without being disproved. It is a theory, with as much evidence and validity as cell theory, gravity, relativity, and so many other scientific ideas that most religious people seem to agree with just fine. You can indeed watch it happen under a microscope.
Whether or not this affects your religious beliefs is an entirely personal decision, and has no bearing on science. I feel that the dichotomy between science and religion is simply false. They cannot prove or disprove each other, because they are in different spheres. Religion deals with faith and belief. Science deals with observable and measurable phenomena. Creationist thought is not science, because it cannot be quantified, tested, or generate new testable hypotheses. Thus it should not be taught in the classroom as a science. This does not mean you cannot be a religious person and also think evolution happens. Every biology professor I ever had was religious and also agreed with evolution. The mistake comes when people try to use one to claim the other must be false.
Rob Bogardus at 12:21PM on May 4th 2007