I thought this was a profound comment and am reposting it here so that I can find it.
F.A. Hayek got it partly right when (in his “Constitution of Liberty” 1960) he said that people rejected evolution – not because of a basic reason against it, but because of the implications that were FALSELY taken from it.
After all why should God not create a universe with evolution in it?
That all the Bible was written by God has never been a majority Christian position (only certain small parts of the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments, are held to have been written by God).
The Bible (including the New Testament) is written by human beings (even the Gospels differ slightly) – and the further back one goes the more it is a matter of traditional stories (the Book of Genesis is such a story).
The stories are written by human beings inspired by God and the stories have a moral purpose – but they remain stories. Human beings are not all from Adam and Eve – taken litterally the story does not even make sense in his own terms (Cain went and lived among the ….. – hang on, if all people are from Adam and Eve…..).
Also the morality of the Bible is often NOT from God – it reflects that of the human beings.
If anyone denies that – remember Joshua.
Joshua attacks towns without cause (other than desire to take their land) and murders entire populations – down to the babies.
Any Christian or Jew who claims such deeds were really commanded by God is saying that God is a murderer.
The alternative is that Joshua was NOT doing God’s will.
Sorry – but there are no other alternatives.
People may think (with total sincerity) that they are serving God – but may not be at all.
However, let us get back to the implications of evolution.
Hayek does not help matters by (in the same 1960) work endorsing determinism – Hayek denies that determinism destroys moral responsibility, but Hayek is just flat wrong on that.
If “science” truly means that human beings do not make real choices (i.e. are not “beings” at all) then science is bunk (including evolution). However, (as Ayn Rand, Antony Flew and many others have pointed out) science does NOT have the determinist implications that turn of the 20th century Vienna (the Vienna of Hayek’s education) claimed it did.
And evolution?
Was it silly religious people who claimed that it had all sorts of evil implications?
Not at all.
The mainstream SUPPORTERS of evolution (falsely) claimed that evolution had all sorts of evil implications – for example that the “inferior” (races and individuals) should be exterminated or sterilized by government or private action.
Such works as “Hunter’s Civic Biology” (the actual book in dispute [NOT whether the book should be allowed to be sold - but whether it should be used as school textbook] in the 1920s “Monkey Trial”, although the play and film never mention this, assumes that this is the right implication of evolution – it was a depraved doctrine that RIGHTLY horrified even the racists of Tennessee).
The hostility to morality (as well as to religion) by the “scientific” mainstream was what led to the turning against evolution by so many Christians in the United States.
And it was hostility to morality – to basic right and wrong.
Read the account given in J. Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” or in Jack Cassell’s “Hoodwinked” – the people who took over the support of evolution in the United States were evil to the core.
I say “took over” as (as late at the early 1900s) many leading evolution supporting scientists were Christians (real ones) – for example several of the people who wrote “The Fundementals” (the essays from which the term “fundementalist” comes – in opposition to the socialist “Social Gospel” and its “redefining” of religion, which was being done at the same time the Progressives were trying to “redefine” law and the Constitution) were natural scientists who believed in evolution.
So it was not perversity.
The ordinary religous people in the United States encountered people who justified evil (gut twisting horror) by the doctrine of evolution.
So many of them came to see evolution as the enemy.
They were wrong – but their error was a perfectly reasonable one.
After all if your enemies are constantly quoting a doctrine (to justfy their wickedness) it is not unreasonable to assume it is a false doctrine.
Even today Progressives in the United States cite evolution to justfiy both their moral releativism and their collectivism.
So it is not unreasonable to make the ERROR of associating those doctrines with evolution (after all if the supporters of the doctrines say they are from evolution…..).
How many people make this error (at least what pro evolution people would consider an error)?
According to David Barton (the leading “fundementalist” educator) about half of American conservative Protestants do (and a rather lower percentage of conservative American Catholics).
So – yes one is going to encounter people (all over the place) who reject evolution.
Reject it NOT because they are committed to every word in the Bible being litterally true (including God telling Joshua to murder everyone in X, Y, Z, towns), or committed to the idea that God made Adam in 4004 BC and then made Eve from Adam rib and ……
But hostile to evolution because of the moral implications of the doctrine that SUPPORTERS of the doctrine have told them that it has.
Posted by Paul Marks at October 27, 2011 10:34 PM