The debate over whether Creationism and Evolutionary Theory should be taught in schools has been raging for some time, therefore it is a political issue; and an important one for most conservatives. Those in office should have done the math (or should i say science) but my guess is most have not and just jumped on the “don’t argue with science.” bandwagon. I would have liked to have an “undecided” or “who hasn’t done their homework” show of hands. Regardless of the theology involved, it is a clear example of states rights and the role of the federal government within the local school districts.
Where someone stands on origins also matters because it typically defines their social policies.
For instance, the more you see someone “made in the image of God”, there more you should see the worth of that child or adult; regardless of their benefit to society.
On the other hand, the more you see us as something that “randomly mutated from fish” the more you are going to see all life (human and non-human) as expendable, or as some people having more worth than others who may be “less beneficial” to society.
So yeah, it matters. I just wish I could ask each candidate a follow up:
Why do you or do you not believe in evolution? Because there is where you would get some real insight.
Incidentally, Darwin’s Theory is still just that.— THEORY.
“There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist . . . denies that this is so. It is simply a fact. Darwin’s theory and the fossil record are in conflict.” David Berlinski, Ph. D.
May 7th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
You have some interesting notions. One of which being that those who accept evolution would some how view life as expendable or that they may view others as less beneficial. Well from my experience, and from what has happened in history, it seems that groups that do not accept evolution (with some exceptions) have been the people who have seen people as less beneficial or expendable. For instance look at any fanatically fundamentalist religious group that denies evolution, individuals from those groups have carried out terrible actions. All of the hijackers on 9-11 were Islamic Creationists, Eric Robert Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh were Christian Creationists, Hitler; who had copies of the Origin of Species burned did not accept evolution (contrary to what some fundamentalists claim), neo-Wahabists, the KKK, all these groups or persons did or do not accept evolution and look what they have done. Of course Stalin and Mao did their own evil, as did eugenics believers, but no credible scientists ever claimed what these people did fell in line with evolutionary biology. I accept evolution, and don’t see life to be expendable. I wouldn’t ever feel “oh such and such is somehow lesser than me…so its ok if such and such dies”
Yes the Theory of Evolution is a theory, based on the factual process of evolution, which is very well documented. In science a theory is pretty much as solid as any broad model can get. Yes there are “laws” but theories are much more broad than “laws” and many theories contain several laws. The word theory in science basically means a solid, well substantiated, accepted model, not a guess or hypothesis. So yes it is a theory…and I’m glad you agree that it is a well solid, well substantiated, accepted model.
May 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
You make a good point. Belief in creation does not guarantee one is a Christian. Furthermore, simply saying one is a Christian doesn’t prove much either.
That pretty much rules out Hitler, the KKK and others as true followers of Christ.
Hospitals, orphanages, missions, etc in great numbers have been founded by followers of God and/or Christ. I think Darwinists may have a lead in zoos however.
Let me be clear regarding my thought on evolutionary theory. I don’t believe it, any more than I believe the earth is flat (something the science of the day also promoted, and the Bible contradicted (Isaiah 40:22).) Perhaps you can help me by referring me to the evidence of transitional lifeforms (heck, one would be great).
May 7th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Ron,
“I think Darwinists may have a lead in zoos however.” You are too funny! (Evolutionists are using God’s animals to make their case, and they have a choke hold on museums, too.)
Grant Jeffrey is correct, in the quote you used, but he’s also the Bible code guy, who seems to use Scripture like the 8 ball thing I had as a child. You’d ask a question, shake it, and the answer (on a multi-sided piece of someting) would float to the window. Sounds a lot like divination. (I repent of using it in childish ignorance).
Wakim uses many examples of those who apparently worship/follow false gods (based on their works), some made in likenesses of the One True God, but still false.
The theory of evolution is philosophy. I heard Dr. Grady McMurtry recently give several arguments against long ages, things which I have not heard evolutionists explain to my satisfaction. Things such as why the continents are not at the equator and the seas at the poles, and why the earth’s core is not stone cold.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Uhg! Bible code guy? It’s hard to keep up. Thanks Gary… But (as you noted already) his point is right (at least here). I’ve got similar quotes somewhere from others. I’ll find those when I have a little more time. Thanks again!
May 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Here’s a better quote, straight from the horse’s mouth (Sorry Darwin is no horse, just a horse’s cousin):
~ Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1872) p. 343
May 15th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I’m not sure what thinking leads one to think that the value in humans derives from their origin. I can see a certain logic in your first statement: if we change it to say that humans “reflect God’s image”, and we believe that God is good or valuable, then we can deduce from those postulates that people are good or valuable. On the other hand, other Christian doctrines - such as the fall - can negate this view by following the same logic: “humans are fallen. A fallen state brings corruption. Therefore humans are corrupting, and we might devalue them.”
Personally, I think the sanctity of human life has nothing to do with where we come from, and everything to do with who we are.
Another point is that the truth of evolution does not depend on its moral implications. That being the case, it pays one to adopt an ethical and moral system that will stand up to reality. If your system requires it of you that you ignore science in order to be moral, then you will only be moral so long as you succeed in avoiding education on the issue. (Actually, that isn’t true… in most cases, people who think their morality depends on thinking that people didn’t evolve, find that they maintain it even after discovering the truth… but it certainly can create some confusion for a while!)
May 17th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Haha you reference “science of the day promoted” yet the “science of the day” was controlled by…you guessed it!…. the church! See you in hell.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:30 am
[...] Lest you think I fully support Ron Paul for president, I must now reveal one of his erroneous views. In the first GOP presidential debate of the 2008 election cycle, the moderator asked all the candidates the question “Who does not believe in evolution?” Only three candidates raised their hands. Ron Paul was not one of them. The three who do not believe in evolution are Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. Evolution proponents are wondering how, in this enlightened age, serious candidates can doubt science. Others are asking why a candidate’s position on evolution matters. Shanktified explains why the evolution response matters. [...]
June 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“For instance, the more you see someone “made in the image of God”, there more you should see the worth of that child or adult; regardless of their benefit to society. On the other hand, the more you see us as something that “randomly mutated from fish” the more you are going to see all life (human and non-human) as expendable, or as some people having more worth than others who may be “less beneficial” to society.”
I think I see the reasoning behind this assertion, but I don’t believe this assertion is supported by the bulk of the evidence. As a psychologist, I regularly see evidence that the capacities for genuine empathy and love, along with the capacities to both tolerate and forgive imperfection in others and the capacity to feel mature guilt for our own wrongdoing, are related to the capacity to experience a sense of the intrinsic value of other human beings who have internal lives on a par with one’s own inner life.
Objects have no inner lives. It is essential that one have the capacity to “see” with affective appreciation, the inner life of another in order to truly appreciate that a human being is not a “thing.” I suspect that this understanding is embedded in your argument because you seem to recognize that lower life forms are lower by virtue of their very limited inner lives. Thus, you conclude that one who sees human beings as descended from these lower life forms would be less likely to appreciate that human beings are fundamentally different from these forms.
But while the capacities to see and appreciate the inner lives of others (as distinguished from things) may be supplemented by intellectual beliefs, these capacities cannot be built intellectually. Instead, these capacities are built upon the quality of early bonds beginning well before we have the capacity to intellectually process or reason through our beliefs about how we came to be. This is why the quality of parenting is so important for children to develop into unselfish beings who can love and appreciate the value of human life.
In my work, I have encountered people who have well-developed capacities to see the reality of others as beings with inner lives and many who don’t have that capacity. I am clear that the degree to which the capacity is developed is unrelated (one way or the other) to religious beliefs. As a Christian, what I can say is that it would be very difficult to be what I understand to be a Christian without those capacities, but I leave that call to the Almighty.
And, if you consider God’s capacity to love us differently and above other creatures, his love could not rest merely on the process he employed to bring us into being. He brought his other creatures into being in the same way, whether you believe in a 6-day creation or evolution. How would we be loved differently from other creatures if it were merely the process by which we came into being that formed the basis for appreciating the value of our lives? It is what is inside us that us makes us fundamentally different in his sight. He can see our inner lives. The shell, the body, the housing is merely a thing if divorced from the inner world. That is what must be seen to value human life and the capacity to see that is not an intellectual acquisition. It’s a developmental unfolding that occurs in early relationships with parents primarily, and secondarily with siblings, family and peers.
June 7th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Dr. X
The conscience is an incredible thing. It’s one the most troubling things for evolutionists. Seems to fight right against that whole “survival of the fittest” idea.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your point that one has to “see” and appreciate the “inner life” (do you mean soul?); but rather than seeing the “inner life of another” to be able to appreciate them. It is more powerful for one to see man is created in the image of a holy God and creator. Who will one day hold us in account of how we managed what he gave us. When people reject that, it leads to a self-centered “survival of the fittest” mentality. The desire to be selfish, rather than self-less is something we all fight agaist - and that’s where the conscience comes in. I’ll admit there as some who view a strong community as part of their survival of the fittest mentality. But if that were a natural reaction (perhaps we’ll evolve to that next
) we’d have a different world, indeed. If anything we seem to be devolving as a society… and we’ll continue to unless we have another great revival.
While I completely agree — almost.
I’d only add that the Bible makes it clear that goodness comes not from man, but is bestowed on us from the Holy Spirit. My life is a stark contrast from where I was before I surrendered my life to Christ and where it was days later. This was not an intellectual assent. This was a work of God. (2 Cor 5:17).
Are people who are not Believers in or followers of Christ capable of good deeds? Sure. God gives a conscience to all men. It’s why punishment is just. God gave us a knowledge of right and wrong (con-science means with-knowledge) and each of us will have our day before God to explain how we did. (see “are you good-enough to get to heaven“)
I don’t think God loves loves us for what we are or what lies within us. He just does. It’s part of who He is. Other parts of God are wrath, justice, grace, mercy and more. None of them can be separated.
I’m willing to love human beings simply because God loves them. Even when I personally don’t want to, I am willing to allow God to work through me and love them anyway. It’s what being a follower of Christ is about.
Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake, who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
(1 Peter 1:13-25)
June 7th, 2007 at 9:39 am
[...] Psychologist, Dr. X, chimes in on “Why Evolution Matters” [...]
June 9th, 2007 at 3:23 am
A couple of things here.
First, I’d like to point out that well-respected scientist and devout Christian Francis Collins has written a book called The Language of God that does a pretty good job of putting forth an argument for why belief in both Christianity and evolution are not mutualy exclusive. I highly recommend it, and I would be happy to summarize the major points if you are interested.
Second, while the fossil record gets a lot of attention for whether it supports or does not support evolution (and I am not a paleontologist, so I won’t go there), very strong evidence can be found at the DNA level by looking at genes that are present in both very simple organisms and more complex organisms. Humans may look very different from worms and fruit flies, but genes that are responsible for the most critical functions of the cell have remained virtually unchanged across millions of years. Something of a “common ancestor” at the genetic level, if you will. It’s really quite astonishing and beautiful. Unfortunately it’s a bit harder to explain than fossils, so it gets less attention in the public evolution debate.
June 11th, 2007 at 10:32 am
genetics_extraordinaire: You are welcome to highlight some of the points. It might be better on your blog (which I’d be happy to link back to you) if you have one.
Regarding your 2nd point. It is often pointed out that there are similarities in much of creation. Most heard is “monkeys look and act a lot like humans and their DNA is very similar to our own. Which is evidence of a common designer; much like experts can look at various paintings and can tell a difference from a Van Gogh and a Rembrandt. All of Rembrandt’s work will have similar traits or idiosyncrasies. This does not make the Theory of Evolution true or even more believable, to me.
Thanks for your comments!
October 1st, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Interesting discussion. I’d like make a contribution.
Genesis chapter one tells us that God created everything “according to its kind”. This pretty much settles the question of “one kind” evolving into another.
Grass doesn’t evolve into a snake; grains don’t evolve into fruit; animals/mammals don’t evolve into humans. All species were created “after their own kind”. Then God gave humans dominion (means responsibility to take care of) over His creation.
God said he created man “in His own image”. For those who believe in evolution, I guess their God must look like and act like a monkey??? PLEEEEEEEESE!!! It doesn’t take rocket science to figure this out.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Replying to the original article:
The author seems to try to make some link to believing in evolution and no respect for human life. I think this is a massive jump, as evolution is a theory and respecting human life is an issue of morality. Otherwise, surely most atheists and agnostics would kill people on a daily basis, as they ’see all human life as expendable’. Ive not killed anyone today! I respect humans because I am a human.
December 16th, 2007 at 5:35 am
There are a few niggles i have with the way evolution and creation is debated. Id like to briefly discuss one of them here.
Humans did not ‘randomly mutate from fish’. Fish are an entirely separate species - they are not even mamals - therefore we are clearly very VERY far removed from them. Indeed, we did not even evolve from apes, as apes exist today - therefore they must have evolved from some common mamalian ancestor billions of years ago.
Suggesting humans evolved from fish is pretty silly - noone would believe that. I think its patronising to suggest people who believe in evolution are that daft!
December 25th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Only people who have zero understanding of evolution would ever use something that evolution doesn’t claim (this “evolved from fish” junk) to make their argument.
There’s nothing random about natural selection.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Would you prefer “goo to you?”
December 29th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Many people are completely confused about what evolution is. The process where life evolves over time is well-documented, well-understood, and absolutely accepted among every person educated on the topic. The origin of life, however, is more of a mystery. Evolutionists infer from the presence of evolutionary processes today that evolutionary processes were present in the past, and, logically, it seems most likely that life originated from simple biochemical processes. Others believe life was created from a god, or through magic. Still others think the truth might be a little of both.
But the point is that evolution as an ongoing process isn’t a “theory”. It’s the very foundation of modern biology and medicine, which is why the comment was made about him being a physician. There are virtually no physicians that don’t “believe” in evolution because they see it all the time. The various harmful strains of e. coli simply did not exist a few decades ago. It evolved right before our eyes. People have been breeding animals for centuries. This is evolution! The only difference is that instead of natural selection determining who is fitter to survive, we have people making that decision instead by choosing how to breed their animals. If a species couldn’t evolve, you wouldn’t be able to come up with a new breed of dog.
Belief in evolution as a process is important in the political climate because those that do not believe in this process typically fall into one of three camps: 1) they’re uneducated; 2) they favor emotional arguments (faith) over objective reasoning (science); or 3) he “believes” in evolution, but pretends he doesn’t so as not to upset too many of his constituents. If a potential president has shown that he is incapable of transparently trusting scientific conclusions, then he will be a president that makes public policy decisions based on feelings or flawed reasoning, which is incredibly dangerous if a sound rational basis exists for another course of action.
Also, consciousness is not a “troubling” thing. If you consider the possibility that there’s no such thing as magic, and you’re forced to come up with an explanation that fits our current understanding of the universe, the nature of consciousness becomes quite apparent. People don’t like to accept it, though, because it either goes against their religious beliefs, or because it’s depressing. Once again, biologists and psychologists have had this figured out for decades, but they don’t tend to advertise it because those views are unpopular, so unless you make it clear that you’re “one of them”, their responses will be geared to placate and comfort you. And it’s a good thing that they’ve figured this out, because without the acceptance that the mind is a function of the brain, so many medical and psychological advances we’ve made would have been impossible.
The link between a belief in evolution and a lesser respect for human life is a bit silly. If anything, the understanding that our species are not too dissimilar should just strengthen our resolve to protect animals from harm. It’s no coincidence that animal rights movements have been gaining ground in that respect over the last few decades. Just because science doesn’t back up the line drawn by your bible between “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt eat animals for food” doesn’t mean science is wrong, it just means that justification for this line has to come from somewhere else (or the line needs to be blurred, moved or go away entirely). The “natural” desire to eat animals for food, and protect one’s species/family from harm, is trivially explained in most any biology or psychology class. This is one of those areas where our morals are guided by our instincts, not by intellect/reason. (That doesn’t make them wrong, but recognizing their origins helps to understand which ones we can throw away and which ones we should keep or strengthen.)
December 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Hey Ron,
You said: “The debate over whether Creationism and Evolutionary Theory should be taught in schools has been raging for some time, therefore it is a political issue; and an important one for most conservatives.”
Or, if you’re a true conservative and a constitutionalist, then you realize that even this is not an issue because the federal government shouldn’t be establishing and funding public schools to begin with. It would nice to see education privatized and allow for parents and school boards to choose cirricula. We could at least start by deferring to the states and have the cirricula be determined locally.
December 31st, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Good point David. I agree with removing the federal Department of Education.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
“Good point David. I agree with removing the federal Department of Education.”
You’re……you’re not serious, are you?
June 24th, 2008 at 8:17 am
y’all are nuts over here. quoting the bible to prove one’s point about god is like me proving the existence of hobbits by quoting tolkien.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Aside from the fact that Tolkien never purported to be factual. That would be true Mateo, unless Tolkien also had archaeological, prophetic and statistical evidence to verify it.