May 07, 2007
Romney, Evolution, Faith And Reason
CBN's David Brody is in high dungeon over a brief statement Mitt Romney's campaign provided to him after he requested some insight into Romney's views on evolution.
Recall that all three frontrunners -- John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney -- said at last week's debate that they believe in evolution. Brody, understandably enough, wants to know what they actually meant.
Does believing in evolution preclude the belief in a creator? Is there a distinction between macro-and-micro-evolution? And why doesn't Mitt Romney pander to religious conservatives?
Let's assume that Mitt Romney does believe in evolution, and by evolution, we mean evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin and refined by countless biologists, paleontologists and anthropologists. There is plenty of debate within the field about whether a belief in evolution necessities a concurrent disbelief in God; the late Stephen Jay Gould famously opined that religion and science were non-overlapping magisteria that could not inform the other. No matter. It's safe to say that most scientists who study evolution are not themselves believers -- that's from some surveys of the field. Many scientists probably would call the view that John McCain expressed -- that he believes in evolution but sees the hand of God in the beauty of nature -- irreconcilably dissonant.
But the American public seems to hold several conflicting opinions at once. 48% believe that the evidence for evolution is well-established. Yet only about 15 percent (13 to 17% in recent surveys) believe that God played no role in guiding the process. (Remember, a tenet of evolution is that random mutations confer advantages or disadvantages, and selection pressure accounts for the evolution of advantageous mutations. Sort of. God is not in the gaps of this theory.) So that's one confusion. 48 percent of Americans also believe that God "created humans pretty much in the present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?" 47% believe that a combination of the following theories is true: evolution (non-God-directed), "evolution" with God directing it, and intelligent design theory. And 60 percent of Americans believe that some form of "creationism" should be taught in the public schools. (Some surveys raise this figure to nearly 80 percent.)
Modern society generally separates the scientific and religious domains, so it's not surprising that Americans believe different things about the same subject simultaneously. It certainly creates a fun conundrum for presidential candidates, but there are no easy answers here, and it doesn't appear that voters will punish a candidate who isn't precise. [MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 09:17 AM
Comments
"(Remember, a tenet of evolution is that random mutations confer advantages or disadvantages, and selection pressure accounts for the evolution of advantageous mutations. Sort of. God is not in the gaps of this theory.)"
Who says God couldn't create a universe where random action is a part of the plan?
NAR | 05.07.07 10:33 AM
 |
It seems that the post strongly implies that the only two consistent beliefs are
1) I believe in evolution and I am an atheist
or
2) I do not believe in evolution since any belief in a divine being precludes a belief in evolution.
I object.
I strongly believe in evolution but I also believe in a God. I would submit that most Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in a God. I know it ticks off Christians but I submit they believe in the SAME God.
It is fine that you are an atheist but you can't explain the Big Bang. You can't explain many things. Are you saying that the significant amount of biologists that go to religious services are hypocrites?
Are you also claiming that all of your views are internally consistent? Posts like this help push people on the fence to the other side.
neil wilson | 05.07.07 10:44 AM
|
Actually, Romney's beliefs seem reasonable. As a practicing Mormon myself, the church doesn't have an official position on evolution or how the earth was created. We do (unlike many Christian denominations) believe that all truth is absolute and doesn't conflict whether it is discovered scientifically or spiritually (through revelation). To believe the creation story in the bible does NOT—according to Mormon theology—mean that God did not use evolutionary processes to create the world; Including even man. On the contrary, the scientific and geological record seem to indicate so. The problem comes when people try to create a false dichotomy between science and religion. This is one of the great things about Mormonism, no one has to hold a certain, dogmatic view about how God made the world. We simply have faith that he did, and seek scientifically to understand the "how." Thus, science informs our religious beliefs.
As far as teaching evolution or creation in public schools, leave it up to the states! But evolution must be taught either way. It is the unifying law of all modern biology and the evidence is overwhelming. If we're wrong, God or science will correct it, but for now I think that Mitt's attitude is reasonable and completely in line with a religious America that claims no absolute answers themselves!
Tito | 05.07.07 11:40 AM
|
I agree with your summary. I’m very religious, my son is a scientist at Harvard and I believe in both: a creator and evolution. Read the book by Francis Collins. He’s a brilliant scientist who also believes in God. As Francis puts it, Science tells us how, Religion tells us why.
I also believe this is NOT an issue that American people use as a basis for electing a president.
I support Mitt Romney and I have been very impressed with his education and experience. I'm also impressed with his values, he's a candidate that walks the talk.
TK | 05.07.07 11:59 AM
|
Was this post written by a second-grader?
goethean | 05.07.07 12:44 PM
|
Why didn't Romney address it when he was at Regents Univ with Pat Robertson over the weekend? Romney is pandering to Robertson on whose CBN website they talk about "How Do I Recognize a Cult?" and say that "when it comes to spiritual matters, the Mormons are far from the truth.".
Is Romney insane? He also said at the university that, "In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."
Flipfloper Romney will say and do anything to get the nomination.
RomneyThePanderer | 05.07.07 01:07 PM
|
Thanks to the theologians at Hotline.
I'm an evangelical pastor who very much believes in evolution.
What's really going on with the lower-tier conservative candidates disavowing evolution is that they're expressing what's often called biblical inerrancy. That's the view that everything in every part of the Bible -- whether the claim is historical, scientific, or theological -- is literal truth. Because the opening chapters of the book of Genesis describe a non-evolutionary creation, those who hold to biblical inerrancy also believe in a non-evolutionary creation. Many of these same folks, if they've totally surrendered their rationality, also believe -- for the same reasons -- that the earth is only around six thousand years old.
While McCain and Guiliani don't give much evidence of faith-guided politics, all three top-tier Democrats do. Talking with Obama, Clinton, or Edwards about evolution and their belief in God might lead to deeper insights than from that deep theological thinker John McCain.
Among my favorite stories about McCain are how, in 2000, when someone help up a John 3:16 sign at one his rallies, it became clear to a reporter with him that he had know idea what this verse said. (Note for the non-biblical: it's the most quoted verse from the Bible by evangelical Christians.)
Another story illustrating McCain as theologically indifferent is his comment on TV the afternoon of 9/11/01: "God may have mercy on the people responsible, but we won't." How's that for an explicit denial of God's will and faith-based politics!!!
YellowDogJZ | 05.07.07 01:40 PM
|
Within fifty years after the United States was launched, a cadre of intellectual mavericks arose who were determined to destroy everything the Founders had stood for. This turned out to be not only a threat to the United States, but to the whole civilized world. You may be surprised at some of the men who were on this team.
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
A. Karl Marx (1818-1883) combined with a wealthy benefactor, Frederick Engels, to write The Communist Manifesto in 1848. He said his goal was to dethrone God and destroy capitalism. It was an open declaration of war on modern civilization. He distorted the ideas of the German philosopher, George Hegel, to argue that the principles of dialectics made the rise of communism on a world-wide basis inevitable. To clean out the rubbish of modern civilization, he proposed to:
1. Wipe out the right of private property.
2. Destroy religion.
3. Destroy the code of morality.
4. Destroy the family and set up a community of women.
5. Destroy the system of government.
6. Destroy the system of law.
7. Destroy the history books and rewrite it in terms of class struggle.
8. Destroy all art forms associated with modern life.
9. Wipe out the concept of civil rights.
10. Manage the people as a herd of animals.
Charles Darwin (1809-1902)
B. Charles Darwin (1809-1902). When Darwin wrote his book, The Origin of Species, in 1858, Karl Marx was jubilant. He praised Darwin for his unproven but rational justification for the proposition that:
1. There is no need for the idea of a God to explain the universe and the great variety of life which exists on the earth. It can be explained by survival of the fittest.
2. The universal display of the simple fossils in the rocks preceding the complex, virtually proves that the simple produced the complex.
3. While it cannot be shown that any one specie produced any other specie, scientist will, in time, prove that there are missing links which demonstrate the gradual evolution of one specie into another, and finally produced the highest specie of all, man.
Unfortunately, for Darwin and all his disciples, scientists now proclaim that there are no missing links and mankind appeared on earth pretty much as we see him today. Even Darwin had admitted in his writing that:
"We can prove that no one species has changed ... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory." 1
Nearly a century later, Dr. Austin H. Clarke, noted biologist of the Smithsonian Institution, revealed that nowhere on the planet had any missing links been found which would link one species with another. This was particularly true of the human race where the evolutionists had made the greatest effort. He said:
"There is no evidence which would show a man developing step by step from lower forms of life. There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkeys ... he appeared suddenly and in substantially the same form he is today.... There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex, related more or less closely to all the rest, and appearing therefore as a special and distinct creation." 2
Professor Albert Fleishman, Professor of Comparative Anatomy at Earlangen University, summed up the findings in his field as follows:
"The theory of evolution suffered some grave defects which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts. The Darwinian theory of Descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." 3
Canadian geologist, Sir William Dawson, felt it is time the public should be told the truth concerning the widespread reliance on Darwinian evolution as a scientific fact. He said:
"[This theory] is one of the strangest phenomena of humanity; it is utterly destitute of proof." 4
All of these developments resulted in an important court decision. In a California case entitled Segraves v. California, the Superior Court "directed the California State Board of Education to fully disseminate to all schools and other appropriate personnel copies of the state's policy concerning the teaching of evolution. That policy specifically directs that evolution is to be taught only as theory and not in a dogmatic manner." 5
Meanwhile, however, the theory of evolution had become virtually institutionalized throughout the world and has affected many of intellectual thought.
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
C. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Without waiting for science to prove Darwin's theory, Herbert Spencer, the English philosopher, went right ahead and fabricated an elaborate panorama of an evolving universe. He said:
1. The idea of God evolved.
2. Religion evolved.
3. Morality evolved.
4. Society evolved.
5. Law evolved.
6. Government evolved.
Spencer was an extremely popular lecturer in both England and the United States. His thinking popularized Darwinian evolution in every field of academic study. He reversed the thinking of men with power and influence. Here is what the famous industrialist, Andrew Carnegie said after he read Darwin and then listened to Spencer:
"I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth in evolution." Practically overnight, Carnegie changed from a practicing Christian to a devout atheist. 6
It was almost inevitable that Darwinism would make an early impact in the field of psychology.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)
D. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) An Austrian physician who invented "psychoanalysis," and became the darling of the Marxists as well as the Darwinians. He believed human behavior is controlled by built-in forces which each individual must accommodate to avoid mental illness. He subscribed to the idea of the "primal horde" where the early cave man lived with his brothers and sisters and parents in one horde. As he matured he resented but also revered his primal father who denied him the power and women he wanted. He therefore united with his brothers and killed and ate the father, thus satisfying the "id," but then the superego reasserted itself and he and his brother began to worship the memory of the father, and also feel guilt because of what they had done. Out of all of this Freud developed his theories concerning:
1. The "libido." The instinctive passion for pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, which constitutes the force behind all human action.
2. The "id." The reservoir from which the impulses of the libido emanate.
3. These impulses can only be controlled through the development of the "ego" (estimate of self) and the "superego" which is implanted in the subconscious.
B. F. Skinner (1904-)
E. B. F. Skinner (1904-) The field of Behavioral Psychology grew out of Freudian thought. It assumed that human beings are conditioned to act by their genes of inheritance and the impressions received from their environment and experience. This presupposes:
1. That people only do what their very nature compels them to do.
2. They have no freedom to choose.
3. Therefore they should not be blamed or punished for what they do.
4. The only hope for the horde of humanity is to force them to do what psychologists believe to be necessary for their mental health which will produce acceptable behavior.
5. Skinner advocated the use of drugs in school to control the behavior of children.
Friedreich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
F. Friedreich Nietzsche (1844-1900). This German philosopher and psychologist was a moral and religious nihilist. He declared "God is dead," and considered Christian morality a myth. He said the strong were made to rule and the weak were made to be ruled. His writings were the focal point of a world famous criminal case in 1924 when Clarence Darrow combined Nietzsche and the premises of Behavioral Psychology to save two college students from the electric chair.
Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
G. Clarence Darrow (1857-1938). Acting on the theories of Freud and Behavioral Science, Darrow became America's most famous defense attorney in criminal cases. When two wealthy college students killed a 14 year-old boy "just for the thrill of it," Darrow saved them from the electric chair on the basis "they couldn't help it. Society made them that way." He said the minds of the two defendants had been corrupted by reading Nietzsche's philosophy of moral nihilism at the University of Chicago. He claimed this was a basis for excusing the crime. Speaking of one of the defendants, he said:
"Then who is to blame? The university would be more to blame than he is. The publishers of the book ... are more to blame than he. Your Honor, it is hardly fair to hang a nineteen-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university.
"Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite, not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped, and those unfortunate lads sit here hated, despised, outcasts, with the community shouting for their blood." 7
This tendency to deny responsibility for crimes is especially apparent in the juvenile court system. As Supreme Court Justice Fortas said concerning the founders of the juvenile courts:
"They believed that society's role was not to ascertain the child was 'guilty' or 'innocent,' but 'What he is, how has he become what he is.'" 8
All of this distortion of fundamental principles was bound to take hold in the schools.
John Dewey (1859-1952)
H. John Dewey (1859-1952). Responsible for the training of thousands of teachers at Columbia University, he became the father of what is known as Progressive Education. With Darwinism and Marxism as a frame of reference, Dewey virtually demolished the standards of excellence, and the moral foundation of American education. It became his goal to sacrifice discipline and rigorous training of the mind for "social adjustment." He overlooked the tragedy of a maladjusted student graduating from high school without the ability to read his diploma.
Dewey and his associates said that the public school must replace the churches as the principal means of molding the thinking of the next generation. Students must be indoctrinated with a completely new value system. Old values must be denigrated.
Marxists in the American Civil Liberties Union initiated a series of cases to eliminate all religious related morality or religious symbolism from the schools. A majority of the United States Supreme Court sustained them in this purging process. Prayer was taken out of the schools. Then Bible reading.The Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule could not be exhibited on the walls of a school library.
Marxists in state departments of education imposed on the local schools an evaluation questionnaire specifically designed to prejudice the minds of students against traditional values. Federal funds were provided to subsidize counseling and value testing in the schools.
Here are some of the questions put to students in California:
Which is worse: spitting on the Bible or spitting on the American flag?
Which is worse: denying the existence of God or laughing while the Star Spangled Banner is being played?
How much money would you want to spit on a crucifix? Eat a pound of human flesh? Desecrate a church service?
Answer the following with a flat yes or no:
The world would be better off if science replaced religion as the guiding principle of men's lives.
God answers prayers by actually intervening in people's lives.
Christ was born of a virgin, as the New Testament teaches.
The world would be better off without religion because it is based on superstition.
There is no apparent eternal purpose for man's existence in the universe.
Man has no soul or spirit. He is just a superior animal with nothing but a physical body.
Values are all relative. There are no absolute standards of right and wrong.
Religion is merely a crutch which insecure people rely on.
(For many additional abuses in education see Subversion in the Schools, by E. Merrill Root which was published by the Devin-Adair Company. He is a former professor from Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, and has also written Collectivism on the Campus, and Brainwashing in the High Schools.)
Two generations of miseducation and perverted values produced a strange breed of American leaders in politics and finance.
Wealthy Foundations Endow Marxism in America
I. The Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. Because it was found that many of the subversive elements during the first half of the twentieth century were coming from the universities, Congress began an investigation.
1. It was discovered that twelve huge foundations were providing 80% of the endowment capital for American universities and colleges.
2. It was found that these funds were used to control policies of these institutions with a strong emphasis on secular humanism and Marxism.
3. It was also found that disciples of socialism in the government were guiding these policies. When Norman Dodd, the principal investigator for the Committee was invited to the office of the head of the Ford Foundation, he was told:
"Mr. Dodd, we operate here under directives.... The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant-making powers to alter life in the United States so that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union." 9
When Mr. Dodd went back into the minutes of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace it was discovered that the advocates of world socialism were so powerful in this organization that they had deliberately advocated the involvement of the United States in World War I and later World War II to facilitate the concentration of power in Washington and the acquisition of control over farms and factories. 10
Not only were the wealthy foundations discovered to be involved in manipulating the destiny of the nation, but it was discovered that a powerful combination of industrial leaders and Wall Street financiers were interlocked in a vast consortium of power.
Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924)
J. Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924). After teaching at several colleges, Woodrow Wilson became president of Princeton University. Later he became governor of New Jersey, and in 1912 he was elected President of the United States. A collection of his campaign speeches was published under the title, The New Freedom, in which he states:
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." 11
By the time Wilson was elected President he was interlocked with this powerful elitist cadre. He apparently felt comfortable with the master planning of these men, many of whom later organized themselves as the Council on Foreign Relations. He went along with their scheme to have him elected for a second term under the slogan "He kept us out of the war" (World War I), and then six weeks after his inauguration demanded that the U.S. enter the war to "save the world for democracy." The collectivization of government power during that war was so extensive that the United States has never been the same since.
It is interesting that in his campaign for President, Wilson had said the Constitution was Darwinian in structure, and that all he would ask if he were elected, would be "to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle." 12
Furthermore, he appointed Col. Edward Mandell House as his executive assistant. It was this same Col. House who admitted writing a novel Philip Dru: Administrator which described the creation of an international grouping of powers and establishing "Socialism as dreamed by Karl Marx."
The Fruit of the Marxist Tree
IV. The fruit of the tree. The centralization of power in Washington according to Marxist principles has riddled the Constitution and demolished much of the power reserved to the states. Furthermore, the covert disciples of Karl Marx who orchestrated both foreign and domestic polices for the United States during most of the twentieth century, have left the following legacy to the upcoming generation:
A. Social planning became so extensive that it escalated U.S. expenditures from six billion dollars in 1936 to 600 billion in 1980, and more than a trillion dollars per year by 1990.
B. It has now become apparent that the social planners virtually squandered these vast sums of money without solving any of the major problems for which these funds were targeted.
C. Furthermore, they have borrowed more than three trillion dollars over and above the monstrous burden of taxes which the American people have been paying during the last fifty years. This bloated national debt has left Americans owing more money than all the rest of the countries of the world combined. To merely service this debt costs the United States over 250 billion dollars every year. This is money down the drain -- wasted along with the original expenditure which failed miserably just as Marxist policies have failed all over the world.
D. Perhaps the most devastating impact of all, has been the serious dislocation of fundamental values in the traditional American culture. We can repair a damaged economy, but scars on the souls of the American people may take generations.
Conclusion: Today the hue and cry in the Communist world is "Perestroika," which means "restructure." While we rejoice to see some changes occurring in the Communist world, we need to adopt a slogan of "Perestroika" for America. The situation calls for some thoroughgoing housecleaning and restoring America to her original Constitutional moorings.
-Dr. Cleon Skousen (LDS)
Federalist Publishing | 05.07.07 03:42 PM
|
I'm with the Pastor. Highly religious, born-again, believe in evolution. So do a plenty of mainline Protestants. I don't think most folks see these things as contradictory.
Jared | 05.07.07 05:03 PM
|
I thought Mitt's response was good. Let's be honest, who has the time or interest to actually decide the details on how the earth was formed. I hear strong arguements on each side. If science increases our quality of life then let it do its work, while faith gives us purpose and meaning. As for the Skousen quote, the guy was great at caracature. Also, not sure what your quote had to do with the conversation? Skousen makes good points in his books but if you are a strict follower of Skousen good luck finding a candidate. Ron Paul just might be your guy.
Chad Heywood | 05.08.07 03:08 AM
|
In what part of the castle is this "high dungeon" located? It's examples of ignorance of the English language like this which cause feelings of high dudgeon.
Michael Rebain | 05.08.07 12:00 PM
|
I suppose we are long past the time when Thomas Jefferson could say that if a man worshipped twenty gods or no gods, it "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Now it seems that the U.S. is a borderline theocracy. I'm sick and tired of hearing the candidates talk about their "faith," or their praying to Jesus for guidance. To me it only makes them look silly, not presidential. You wouldn't hear Putin or Gordon Brown or Sarkozy talking about their religion. Even though it's the 21st century, we're still a nation of superstitious simpletons.
Francis | 12.06.07 11:09 AM
|
The expression is "high dudgeon", not "high dungeon." It means a feeling of strong indignation.
Maureen | 01.29.08 12:55 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
