Must conservatives reject the theory of evolution?

[GenSeneca]

the poll may as well say do conservatives have to like asparagus to be a real conservative...

That's basically what it says.

 

[PLC1]

So far, we have six conservatives all agreeing that it is not necessary to reject the theory of evolution in order to be considered a conservative, yet we seem to have no self described conservatives supporting evolution.

I find that quite interesting.

Now, how about the other theories under discussion? We've had some lengthy discussions about global climate change, with, as far as I can remember, no conservatives siding with science on that one.

Aha! Time for another poll!

here it is

 

[orogenicman]

Many conservatives do believe in evolution. The question that needs asking is what is a conservative? If you do believe in evolution, does that make you a 'liberal' undeserving of the label 'conservative'? Does conservatisim equate with fundamentalist? No, although there are certainly many conservatives who are. But then, there are also liberals who are fundamentalists. I don't believe that conservatives have a monopoly on fundamentalism. I just think they are more vocal about it. My personal belief is that the theory of evolution has been researched for 140 years. It took over 50 years of research for it to gain general acceptance by the scientific community. And in light of the amazing advances in the field of genetics, it seems rather desparate to now simply declare it wrong in the face of such overwhelming facts. The Scopes trial is over, folks. As such, it is no longer the job of scientists to defend the theory, though we can certainly do a better job of explaining exactly what it is and what it isn't.

It is for those who don't believe it to be a viable explanation for the phenomenon it explains (that being why life forms change over time) to come up with an alternative (recognizing the fact that almost no broadly accepted scientific paradigms are ever replaced, but merely elaborated upon) that better explains said phenomenon. And if someone can come up with better explanations, we are certainly more than willing to have a look at them. That's the way the scientific method works, folks. And if anyone can come up with a better method, we are all ears there as well.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The last Pope even endorsed Evolution as I recall of course God willed it , or something...

 

[orogenicman]

"I see no conflict between Evolution and Intelligent Design."

That's a rather bizarre assessment, considering that ID rejects evolution. No conflict? The issue is nothing, if not in conflict.

 

[GenSeneca]

no conservatives siding with science on that one.

You are not siding with science, you're siding with computer models.

 

[PLC1]

"I see no conflict between Evolution and Intelligent Design."

That's a rather bizarre assessment, considering that ID rejects evolution. No conflict? The issue is nothing, if not in conflict.

There is only a conflict when Biblical literalists insist that everything happened just as described in Genesis, that god willed everything into existence a few thousand years ago. If you accept the idea that god set evolution into motion, and perhaps tinkered with the process over the eons, then there is no conflict. Evolution explains how life on earth came to be as it is. It does not explain why.

 

[Gipper]

These polls by THC do prove something. Of course, they prove the exact opposite of what was intended...funny how everything libs do results in unintended CONSEQUENCES...(please see my wonderful thread on CONSEQUENCES).

IMO these silly threads prove libs will believe anything that fits their ideology. Does not evolution promoted by the commie Darwin not fit the lib template? Does not AGW promoted by the marxist left not fit the lib template? Of course they do.

These little polls also prove another very telling thing. Libs live in a fantasy land were theories are facts and those who dispute the theories are to be viciously attacked and marginalized. Libs believe whatever their leaders tell them to believe.

Conservatives live in reality. We evaluate the situation and dispute findings which are unproven. We want to debate the issues, but libs want no debate...remember Fat Albert proclaiming the debate is over on AGW???

 

[orogenicman]

But certain religions reject evolution. And most people who reject evolution, turn out to subscribe to one of those religions, and frequently use the teachings of their religion as justification for the rejection.

Hence my question.

Most religious people who reject evolution, as far as I know are fundamentalists, both within Christianity, and within Islam. But other religions accept it, particularly the Catholic Church, where I got my first positive exposure to it. Judaism also accepts it.

 

[orogenicman]

Lewis Black on Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcJvkAdydnQ

 

[PLC1]

These polls by THC do prove something. Of course, they prove the exact opposite of what was intended...funny how everything libs do results in unintended CONSEQUENCES...(please see my wonderful thread on CONSEQUENCES).

IMO these silly threads prove libs will believe anything that fits their ideology. Does not evolution promoted by the commie Darwin not fit the lib template? Does not AGW promoted by the marxist left not fit the lib template? Of course they do.

These little polls also prove another very telling thing. Libs live in a fantasy land were theories are facts and those who dispute the theories are to be viciously attacked and marginalized. Libs believe whatever their leaders tell them to believe.

Conservatives live in reality. We evaluate the situation and dispute findings which are unproven. We want to debate the issues, but libs want no debate...remember Fat Albert proclaiming the debate is over on AGW???

And yet, my polls prove that the self described conservatives on this board reject the idea that it is necessary to try to refute evolution and global warming in order to be conservatives. Ergo, it is not a part of conservative thought, and so it is entirely possible to be both a conservative and an "evolutionist", meaning someone grounded in fact and research instead of wishful thinking. It is also possible for a liberal to fall in to the trap of believing ancient writings over modern science.

You (not Gipper, but the self described conservatives (SDC) on this board) have indeed proven my hypothesis wrong. There is no connection between the simplistic liberal to conservative political model and evolution or global warming. It seemed like a good hypothesis, as it is nearly always the SDC who attempt to argue against established science, but that may be just a coincidence.

So, Gipper is a SDC, mentions "liberals" in every post as being deluded individuals who live in fantasy land, and he is in addition, a refuter of established science. But, I have to admit defeat. There is no cause and effect between those two points of view.

 

[GenSeneca]

SDC who attempt to argue against established science

Correction... Theoretical science and in the case of AGW, an hypothesis.

The word "established" suggests the science has been proven true... in these cases it has not.

Of course if you're using the word "established" as in, "lot's of people believe it so it must be true", then you should probably refer to it as "consensus" science.

 

[PLC1]

Correction... Theoretical science and in the case of AGW, an hypothesis.

The word "established" suggests the science has been proven true... in these cases it has not.

Of course if you're using the word "established" as in, "lot's of people believe it so it must be true", then you should probably refer to it as "consensus" science.

Evolution is established.
Global warming is established.
AGW is an hypothesis that is accepted by a vast majority of climatologists, hence, a consensus.

So, you're partly correct.