Ron Guhname at Inductivist discusses the role played by one’s religious beliefs in either accepting or rejecting Darwin’s speculations.
This is a question that interests me because I’ve come to notice over the years that fellow Christians often accept the idea of life originating spontaneously and human beings having ‘evolved’ from the primordial soup, or whatever today’s equivalent belief.
I don’t see how the two belief systems can be reconciled because Darwin’s ideas, at least as interpreted by postmodern Western peoples, have no room for a Creator, without twisting the plain teaching of the Christian Bible.
But it does seem as though most people on the right, though they may be nominally Christian, are willing to go along with the Darwinian orthodoxy rather than the Biblical teaching.
Not long ago I mentioned the results of a study by George Barna, the pollster who reports on Christian beliefs and practices. The results of the poll he had just done showed that the great majority of Americans who assert they are Christians do not in fact have a Biblical worldview. Instead, they seem to let the world shape their free-flowing interpretation of the Bible. For example, “the Genesis creation story can’t be true because archaeological findings prove that the earth is x billion years old, and the creation story in Genesis would seem to describe a more recent event” or words to that effect.
The Inductivist analysis of the data on people of various faiths vis-a-vis evolution show that (not surprisingly, I suppose) Moslems show the highest numbers of disbelievers in evolution, at 65.6 percent. Next, at 65.5, are those identified as simply ”Christians”.
Confusingly, next on the list are ”Protestants”, with a 63.6 per cent rejection of Darwinism or evolution. I don’t know why Protestants are differentiated from ‘Christians’ here. I would say the non-squishy Protestants (not liberal, not mainline) are less likely to believe in evolution or other non-Scriptural beliefs.
But in any case, comparing Protestants and Moslems it looks as though the numbers are pretty close as far as skepticism or disbelief in evolution. I just wonder why it seems that few right-wing Christians seem to question evolution, especially those people who accept the ideas of HBD. It seems to be necessary for them, in order to hold their current ambivalent beliefs, to accept that peoples “evolved” because of migration to different climates, producing ‘mutated” phenotypes, etc. It almost seems just a way of justifying their belief in HBD, because it sort of scientizes it.
But I don’t see how one can prove (sans a so-called ‘missing link’) that peoples can evolve into very different peoples no matter how much time might be allotted for this alchemy to take place, any more than the idea of life springing out of nothingness, caused by nothing.
Someone recently said, ‘if God wanted to create the domestic dog, couldn’t he just create the dog as He wanted him”, rather than taking the raw material (the wild canis lupus) and transmuting him into our pet dog? Couldn’t the same question apply to human beings? Maybe there were multiple progenitors not just two. Genesis even suggests this, if you read the book carefully.