Conservative Colloquium

An Intellectual Forum for All Things Conservative

Posts Tagged ‘Edwards’

A Change of Heart on Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Posted by Tony Listi on August 11, 2008

Dr. Ken Miller, a Roman Catholic professor of biology at Brown University, examines Intelligent Design as a political phenomenon and addresses two of its key objections: the paucity of intermediate organisms in the fossil record and, more importantly, Michael Behe’s theory of irreducible complexity. He takes these scientific objections to evolution seriously and then scientifically refutes them with specific examples. He does not dismiss such objections merely as “religious” and then end the discussion.

This video of his lecture has changed my view of the ID movement and my thinking on the science behind evolution. I’m more inclined to think evolution is a sound theory now.

It has not changed my belief that science should not be funded by the government nor that there is a hostile, secular, aggressively anti-religious bias within much of the scientific establishment and academia in general.

I am not a creationist and the Christian faith does not compel belief in creationism as literalist Protestants define it.

The natural process of evolution need not contradict the existence of God and his Providence. Thus, neither does it preclude the existence of morality. I mean, what would it say about morality if we really believed a material, natural process could influence its validity at all? That is what liberalism/secularism believes. Creationists make a dangerous misstep since their logic implies this too. Though evolution has certainly been used to justify horrible crimes, so has religion. And we should reject the flawed logic of such criminals that misuse both science and religion.

I am a big fan of Dinesh D’Souza’s biblical argument in defense of evolution:

“We read in Genesis 2:7 that ‘the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.’ Right away we notice something different: the Bible says that the universe was created out of nothing but it does not say that man was created out of nothing. Rather, it says that man was made or shaped from the existing substance of nature. ‘Dust thou art and to dust thou shall return.’ So the Bible is quite consistent with the idea that man is made up of atoms and molecules and shares the same DNA found in earthworms, whales, and monkeys.

It is true, however, that the creation account in Genesis does not prepare us for the discovery that man has about 98 percent of his DNA in common with apes. In his Descent of Man, Darwin writes that ‘man…still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin.’ Our resistance to this is not religious; it is because we sense a significant chasm between ourselves and chimpanzees. Of course Darwin is not saying that man is descended from chimpanzees, only that apes and man are descended from a common ancestor. Whatever the merits of this theory, there is no reason to reject it purely on biblical grounds. Christians since medieval times have agreed with Aristotle that man is an animal–a ‘rational animal,’ but still an animal.

What makes man different, according to the Bible, is that God breathed an immaterial soul into him. Thus there is no theological problem in viewing the bodily frame of man as derived from other creatures. The Bible stresses God’s resolution, ‘Let us make man in our image.’ Christians have always understood God as a spiritual rather than a material being. Consequently if man is created in the ‘likeness’ of God, the resemblance is clearly not physical. When Jared Diamond in his book The Third Chimpanzee refers to humans as ‘little more than glorified chimpanzees,’ he is unwittingly making a Christian point. We may have common ancestors with the animals, but we are glorified animals.”

Posted in Christianity and Politics, Culture War, Education, Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Government and Politics, Politics and Religion, Science and Politics, Science and Religion, Uncategorized, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

McCain, Huckabee Stir Up Envy Against Romney’s Wealth

Posted by Tony Listi on January 6, 2008

Who are the most despised people in America? If one looks at the political scene (especially on the Left), it seems that rich people are.

McCain in tonight’s ABC debate: “And for you to describe it as you do in the attack ads, my friend, you can spend your whole fortune on these attack ads, but it still won’t be true.” (smiles)

Huckabee in Iowa was also trying to play the victim saying that he was being outspent 20-1 by Romney. He said this at his victory speech: “The first thing we have learned is that people really are more important than the purse, and what a great lesson for America to learn.”

Romney’s Republican rivals are trying to make his personal wealth an issue though it shouldn’t be. Romney has raised more money than all his other opponents, about $62 million!  And only 1% of Romney’s contributions were at the $4600 level (highest legally). That’s means a lot of contributors, and people don’t give money unless they really support you. He has a right to spend the money he raises! (See http://www.opensecrets.org) And who cares if he wants to spend $17 million his own wealth? I don’t see any disgust for Bloomberg’s wealth when there is talk of him running.

McCain married into wealth; his wife owns a major distributor for Anheuser-Busch. So he has a net worth of upwards of $32 million! That’s no chump change. He is one to talk. Hypocritical demagogue.

What is wrong with American culture today that it so despises rich people? Romney made his wealth legitimately in business. There is no reason for envy. It is not like he sued doctors and took them for all they were worth based on pseudo-science (ahem, John Edwards, the laughable candidate of the poor).

Posted in American Culture, Written by Me | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »