Shermer Uses Evolution to Support the Religious Right
by MikeGeneMove over, Michael Ruse. Michael Shermer is a hardcore skeptic whose insights bless that pages of Scientific American. Shermer has recently had an epiphany that can be appreciated from six perspectives:
1. Evolution fits well with good theology. 2. Creationism is bad theology. 3. Evolution explains original sin and the Christian model of human nature. 4. Evolution explains family values. 5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. 6. Evolution explains conservative free-market economics.
Now, I realize that some might view this as a parody. But I see no hint of that. In fact, Shermer writes, "Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced."
On the other hand, others might take issue with Shermer's argument. But I see something else. Y'see, when Shermer speaks of "evolution," he is talking about the findings of modern science. In other words, this hardcore skeptic, writing in the pages of Scientific American, has felt compelled to concede that modern science supports conservative Christianity!
With the backing of science and evolution, perhaps some public school board out there may one day begin looking for ways to more explicitly re-introduce family values and specific Christian moral precepts into the curriculum, along with some specific advocacy of conservative free-market economics, since these are not rooted in religion, but instead are derived from science and its understanding of evolution.
Who needs the Wedge when you can just cite Shermer and Scientific American? 
Oh, the irony.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:10 am
Does this mean that Darwin has actually made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian?
Comment by macht — September 22, 2006 @ 12:10 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:13 am
Michael Shermer pontificated,
My take on those points:
1. He wouldn't recognize good theology if I spammed him with it.
2. Creationism is bad theology only if good theology is bad.
3. Evolution in no way explains "original sin", nor the Christian model of human nature. I wonder if Shermer even knows what the Bible teaches about those issues.
4. Evolution explains family values in the same way it explains why rape is an adaptive mechanism in many cases, and why men prefer women who wear army boots in jungles.
5. Oh. "Moral precepts". I thought he said "Amoral prenups".
6. The ol' "dog eat dog" school of evolution and economics. A trusty standby.
Comment by Douglas — September 22, 2006 @ 2:13 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:24 am
Wasn't it one of Shermer's buddies who said "that which explains everything, explains nothing" Apparently evolution explains both the presence and absence of religion, explains both theism and atheism, and is compatiable with any worldview, no matter how contradictory. Wow, what a neat theory!
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 10:24 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:51 am
"Evolution is Great Theology!"…
P.S. In contrast to this, MikeGene at TelicThoughts has a pretty funny satiric response to Shermer….
Trackback by Thinking Christian — September 22, 2006 @ 10:51 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:02 am
A remarkably fruitful theory. In fact, it cannot fail to be fruitful. Amazingly, it encompasses both truth and error, explaining both, and even supporting both.
Comment by Douglas — September 22, 2006 @ 11:02 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:13 am
I'm curious how he discovered that a God must be like that. Did he poll the field?
Comment by TomG — September 22, 2006 @ 11:13 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:46 am
[...] Several creationist/ID sites have recently posted articles concerning evolution's compatibility with religion. Dembski's weblog posted Darwinism: A House Divided– an article about the split between those 'Darwinists' who think evolution is compatible with religion and those 'Darwinists' who think it is not– a few days ago, and now Telic Thoughts has posted Shermer Uses Evolution to Support the Religious Right– an article written by Micheal Shermer, whose work I enjoy, for Scientific American, a magazine I adore. It is this last article I intend to address. [...]
Pingback by hell’s handmaiden » Blog Archive » Evolution isn’t theology — September 22, 2006 @ 11:46 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:50 am
Makes me want to go hug a Christian and say "Hey, man, Darwin loves you!!!"
Comment by chunkdz — September 22, 2006 @ 11:50 am
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Or, a Christian could hug Shermer and say "God loves you, and so do I!" Darwin would approve!
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Yeah, but don't forget that 'love' (or as Shermer calls it – "attachment and bonding") is just an evolved survival mechanism!:wink:
What a romantic that Michael Shermer must be! Women must really dig it when he tells them "Wow, you look like you could produce a lot of fit offspring well suited for survival! Care to engage in some attachment and bonding?"
Comment by chunkdz — September 22, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
"hey baby! What engage in a little lateral gene transfer?!!!?
Comment by DonaldM — September 22, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Leaving aside all the usual Darwin-bashing yada for the moment, I'd point out that Shermer was an Evangelical Christian for a number of years. As far as I can tell from his writing, he's no Christian-basher (unlike what's-his-name in Minnesota), so I don't know why anyone would suggest he "wouldn't recognize good theology if I spammed him with it."
I actually agree with him… Creationism is bad science and even worse theology.
Spam away!
Comment by takuan — September 22, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
September 23rd, 2006 at 12:42 am
Is this the same Shermer who wrote The Joys of Life Without God?
Comment by Bradford — September 23, 2006 @ 12:42 am
September 23rd, 2006 at 7:04 am
One and the same. Makes you wonder about his professional qualifications to do a piece like this.
Shermer's training is in psychology and the history of science. I don't doubt that he's competent in both, but his prejudices seem to get the better of him. There's another great example of that in his current Skeptic magazine (discussed here; see also Scott Gilbreath's response).
His credibility is not on the upward swing–not with this kind of nonsense going on. Yet SciAm still features him.
Comment by TomG — September 23, 2006 @ 7:04 am
September 23rd, 2006 at 9:27 am
From the lead-in to Shermer's "Joy without God" article:
Believing in God is the same as believing in astrology? When did astrology lead a nation of several million out of a hostile country, through a wilderness, and appear to them on a mountain? When did astrology miraculously and obviously deliver a people numerous times? When did astrology give precise and clearly fulfilled prophecies hundreds of years in advance? Where do atheists get characters like Shermer, anyway?
However, I have to agree with the last part of his comment. I'm sure theists aren't the only ones who have been hit by semis.
Comment by Douglas — September 23, 2006 @ 9:27 am