Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,593
edits
Changes
→See Also
===American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism ===
===American Liberals and Recent Behavior in Accordance with Social Darwinism ===
As noted earlier, liberals are more likely to advocate the evolutionary paradigm than conservatives. Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> Professor Brooks found that [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals are significantly less charitable than American conservatives]] despite earning more.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> American [[Conservatives]] also donate more time and donate more blood. <ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> The results are not entirely surprising given that Darwinists have historically often displayed behavior in accordance with [[social darwinism]].
As noted earlier, liberals are more likely to advocate the evolutionary paradigm than conservatives. Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> Professor Brooks found that [[Liberals and uncharitableness|American liberals are significantly less charitable than American conservatives]] despite earning more.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> American [[Conservatives]] also donate more time and donate more blood. <ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> The results are not entirely surprising given that Darwinists have historically often displayed behavior in accordance with [[social darwinism]].
== Atheism and liberal Christianity alliances ==
See also:
== Atheism and liberal Christianity alliance related to evolutionism ==
See also: [[Atheism and liberal Christianity alliance]]
Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution]]ary position which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been [[Atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]].<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten, [http://creation.com/a-whos-who-of-evolutionists A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creation.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> See also: [[Atheism and evolution]]
In terms of atheists and politics, most atheists lean left politically (see: [[Atheism and politics]] and [[Secular left]]
The atheist [[Eugenie C. Scott]] served as an Executive Director of the pro-evolution organization [[National Center for Science Education]] (NCSE) and considerable amount of her time was spent working with liberal Christians as far as supporting the teaching of evolution in public schools.
At the same time, the atheist and evolutionist [[PZ Myers]] wrote about NCSE favoring liberal Christianity:
{{cquote|It’s still going on. [[Jerry Coyne]] [https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ncse-becomes-biologos/ repeated our common criticism that the NCSE spends too much effort promoting Christianity]; then [http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/12/stuck-in-modera.html Richard Hoppe fires back], complaining that his comment was held in moderation (Coyne has been sick for a while, you know…I wish people would have more patience), and then repeating the common and misguided defense that NCSE is not an atheist organization. We know. We’ve both agreed on multiple occasions that the NCSE should not be an atheist organization. But still we get this same tiresome objection.
:''NCSE’s main remit is defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. That defense is both legal (think Kitzmiller) and political (think the Dover PA school board election after that trial but before the verdict was in). One cannot win political battles without accepting alliances with groups with whom one does not agree on all aspects of all issues. To imagine otherwise is to live in dreamland.
''
Yes? Please look in a mirror, Richard!
As I’ve said before, said just above, am saying again, and will no doubt have to say a hundred times more, no one is asking the NCSE to become an atheist organization, and no one is saying that the NCSE shouldn’t make strategic alliances with religious organizations. I’d put it in 72 point type if I thought it would help, but I doubt that anything will.
The problem is that the NCSE is not neutral on atheism vs. religion, but has clearly taken a side in preferring one particularly fuzzy, liberal, soft version of Christianity as its ‘acceptable’ religious belief.<ref>[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/12/05/the-battle-over-ncse/The battle over NCSE]</ref>}}
==See Also==
==See Also==