Do Conservatives Need Darwin?

[fuzzis]

A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us/politics/05darwin.html)

...Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances....

:smt102

[aaron]

This guy is given too much credit.

[Pop]

Be careful of using Darwinism to mold human society and political views, just look what it did for the Third Reich and Stalin. Many of the same issues are around today infanticide, euthanasia, gene manipulation....

Prediction--this thread will end up in the religion/spirituality forum in about 10 post

[58ford]

Some evolutionary ideas can be traced back to the simple tunicate. This small animal has a primitive spine in it's larval form that disintigratesas it matures. All chordates including man could have descended from this animal. It has an aperture at each end of a tube like body, one for intake & one for exhaust. Some forms of tunicate have both apertures at the same end of their body, from these creatures descended politicians.

[bpitt]

Intake & exhaust, now that's funny.

[Scotz]

Why would conservatives need darwin? The pagan left already claims him. This is wut happens when conservatives try to compromise:

http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=46951

Baylor is now fully secular.

[CircusRide]

Darwin= freaking nut job

[politically incorrect]

It takes more faith to accept Darwin's theory than to accept the Bible. Every time you turn around some scientist somewhere has made a discovery that changes the theory of evolution. To my knowledge, no one has yet proven any word in the Bible is false.

[JimmyJam]

<big sigh="">Big sigh.....I think I am going to cry. :cry:

In a nutshell: Science is dynamic. It changes as new information is added. Science is able to be questioned and disproved (or more solidly supported) based on evidence. It is not based on faith. Faith is the acceptance of things that are "unprovable" or "untestable". There is no argument between faith and science. They do not intersect.

Science is able to change when new information is provided. Faith cannot be changed when the world changes around it. OK. I am going to go sit in my swing and ponder Darwin's theories, and maybe cry some more....:laugh:</big>

[JimmyJam]

It takes more faith to accept Darwin's theory than to accept the Bible. Every time you turn around some scientist somewhere has made a discovery that changes the theory of evolution. To my knowledge, no one has yet proven any word in the Bible is false.

These new developments refine and reinforce the theory...they do not disprove it. Scientist argue all the time, just as theologians do. It does not change the "correctness" of the overall theory of evolution, just as the changing attitudes of theologians (like allowing women to participate in church services or wear pants) has not changed the substance of religion. :smt118

[Ted]

These new developments refine and reinforce the theory... It does not change the "correctness" of the overall theory :smt118JJ,
I think you will like this (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm).;)

[JimmyJam]

JJ,
I think you will like this (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm).;)

Thanks Ted! What a wonderful article to explain how science works! :smt023

[politically incorrect]

These new developments refine and reinforce the theory...they do not disprove it. Scientist argue all the time, just as theologians do. It does not change the "correctness" of the overall theory of evolution, just as the changing attitudes of theologians (like allowing women to participate in church services or wear pants) has not changed the substance of religion. :smt118

You know that I respect you, JimmyJam, and I respect science as a whole. But, we will have to agree to disagree on this subject. When I look around at the wonders of the world and the marvel that is the human body, I cannot accept that it all came from an accident. (Although my particular human body does indeed look like some kind of horrible accident).:-D

And I'm glad women can now wear pants. What would we do without certain colleagues who wear jeans on Fridays?;)

[Ted]

Thanks Ted! What a wonderful article to explain how science works! :smt023You're welcome.:smt001
Dr. Asimov is (was - RIP:() one of the very best science writers.

[Guru]

Very excellent link Ted. You never fail to impress me. I was going to rep you just for the read but alas, I have to spread it to someone not named Ted for today.

[Ted]

Very excellent link Ted. You never fail to impress me. I was going to rep you just for the read but alas, I have to spread it to someone not named Ted for today.Thanks, Guru.
Although it's not possible, it's really Dr. Asimov that deserves the Rep.:smt001

[threekidspa]

I've been trying to convince myself that I don't really want to post in this thread since it came up yesterday. I've just lost that argument.

JJ, your definitions are right on, I think, until you get to the part where you say Science and Faith don't intersect. I think they do, and they're inextricable (sp?). I will even go so far as to say that good science, and faith are completely congruent.

How? First, the FACTS of evolution (things we've observe, tested, proven) do not conflict with faith. I think where it goes wrong (and becomes bad science) is when someone takes an unproven conclusion (such as man being a decendent of apes) and makes a claim about faith, even though scientific evidence is now less in favor of that evolutionary path. I have the same view of trying to argue about science strictly from what we've been given in the Bible, which, truth be told, is probably the more common stance, and is also bad science.

Brighter people than me have held this same view. St. Augustine wrote about this too, cautioning against taking such a strict and literal stand on Creation that we end up looking like fools when evidence to the contrary shows up, and again, later, when he said we need to be careful about arguing against sciencentific evidence from a purly theological view. Incidentally, he wrote these things before anyone had even dreamed about evolution.

So, for me, the facts of evolution are what they are. All evidence, evolution, cosmology, etc., still points to a remarkable, designed universe that is not here by accident, and I give credit for it all where credit is due.

[JimmyJam]

Threekidspa, Richard Dawkins addresses your argument far better than I can in his book The Blind Watchmaker.

Basically, the apparent "design" in the universe is visible because we are a pattern-seeking species. And evolution does NOT say that we are descended from apes, but that we shared a common ancestor in the recent past (recent being a relative term, since geologic time is measured on a scale that is hard for most humans to imagine, since our typical life span is under 100 years) :)

[Augustus McRae]

Darwin Lott is one of the good guys. Used to play ball with him. He married one of a sweet, pretty girl that I really liked many, many years ago. Yeah, I like ol' Darwin!

[Fish-Bait]

Bagel.

[threekidspa]

Threekidspa, Richard Dawkins addresses your argument far better than I can in his book The Blind Watchmaker.

Basically, the apparent "design" in the universe is visible because we are a pattern-seeking species. And evolution does NOT say that we are descended from apes, but that we shared a common ancestor in the recent past (recent being a relative term, since geologic time is measured on a scale that is hard for most humans to imagine, since our typical life span is under 100 years) :)

Oh, that watchmaker thing again...Richard Dawkins is a fool, regardless of how much education he has. And its that sharing a common ancestor thing that I was talking about when I mentioned unproven and unobserved conjecture to refute the existance of something else altogether.

[JimmyJam]

Oh, that watchmaker thing again...Richard Dawkins is a fool, regardless of how much education he has. And its that sharing a common ancestor thing that I was talking about when I mentioned unproven and unobserved conjecture to refute the existance of something else altogether.


Exactly my point too...people use unproven and unobserved (and unreplicable) conjecture to refute scientific findings (e.g. Scriptures) ;)

[bpitt]

Huh?

[threekidspa]

JJ,

Ok, so now that I've had a moment to get over my knee-jerk reaction, here's the thing....Dawkins wants to dismiss all this apparent 'design' business as some illusion we've made up ourselves, regardless of the vast amount of OBSERVED data that would indicate otherwise. But don't take my word for it. There are plenty of recognized scientists of all flavors that think the same thing. Try reading Hugh Ross' The Creator and The Cosmos or Francis Collins' The Language of God, for example.

Don't get me wrong. I do not think the idea of Intelligent Design constitutes science in any way (you might have noted I didn't (and wouldn't) mention anything by William Dembski) But I do think that people like Dawkins, who continue to dismiss the idea of design in the face of the vast amount of data showing otherwise, are just as wrong (and foolish) as those Christians that deny the the facts of evolution. To believe that the universe, and the life in it, is here by accident takes a FAR greater leap of faith than the one I've taken.

[bpitt]

Who's to say that God isn't one kick ass scientist?

[threekidspa]

Who's to say that God isn't one kick ass scientist?
I'm convinced He is!

[JimmyJam]

I appreciate the thought (and respect) you put into all of your replies. We agree to disagree in a civilized manner. We will all know the "real" answer one day, and, unfortunately, when we do, we won't be able to tell anybody! :-D