Conservatives need Charles Darwin

Darwinian Conservatism ^ | September 2005 | Larry Arnhart

[Arnhart]

The continuing debate over Darwinian evolution versus "intelligent design" reminds us that many conservatives fear Charles Darwin.

That's a mistake. Conservatives should see Darwin as their friend and not their enemy. Darwin's evolutionary theory supports the conservative realist view of human nature as imperfectible, in contrast to the Left's utopian view of human nature as perfectible.

Many conservatives fear Darwinism because they think it promotes an atheistic materialism. That too is a mistake. There is no necessary conflict between Darwinian science and religious belief. And far from being morally degrading, Darwinism supports the idea of a natural moral sense as part of the evolved nature of human beings.

More specifically, Darwinism sustains the conservative belief in ordered liberty as rooted in the social order of the family, the economic order of private property, and the political order of limited government.

I have elaborated my reasoning for these conclusions in a new book--DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM.

[spinestein]

[Libertarians and traditionalists generally agree on a realist view of human nature as imperfecti ble and on the need for the evolved, spontaneous orders of family life, private property, and limited government as the basis for ordered liberty. Darwinian science helps to explain how those spontaneous orders conform to the evolved nature of human beings.]



Hence my tagline, which is more than just some amusing slogan, as it is derived from a combination of game theory, religious, moral, and philosophical behavior, and scientific observations of these behavior among animal populations and how it benefits them.

Strict interpretation of Judeo Christian sacred text would seem to advocate for "the golden rule", which could be paraphrased as "treat others with kindness and generosity regardless of how they treat you".

There is also "the iron rule" (which is espoused by dictators and jihadists) and it could be paraphrased "treat others with cruelty and selfishness regardless of how they treat you.

"The silver rule" is a variation of "the golden rule", which provides an exemption that advises "be indifferent to those who treat you with cruelty".

And "the brazen rule" can be paraphrased as "treat others as they have treated you, repaying either kindness or cruelty with the same."


Modern evolutionary theory seems to suggest that animal (including human) populations benefit the greatest number of individuals within the population when "the brazen rule" is followed, along with a modification that serves to break up an unending vendetta in which an occasional cruelty is forgiven, if you believe the other individual is willing to reform. Some call this "the gold plated brazen rule".

This leads to the interesting idea that the science of evolution may actually have something to say about morality.

Here's a link to some pioneering ideas relating cooperation with biological evolution: http://pscs.physics.lsa.umich.edu/Software/CC/ECHome/ECCitationClassic.html

[newgeezer]

In fact, I suspect that the ID crowd is a vocal minority within the conservative movement.

So, you suspect a silent majority within the conservative movement looks at nature and the universe, the complexity and order, and figures it sprang from nothing, by chance, without a creator.

I suspect you're not only wrong, but that it's not even close.

[ml1954]

But Darwin demolishes Genesis, taken literally. And that's basically what it's all about.

[ml1954]

Did you know that many think that capitalizing all letters in a word is equivalent to finger wagging?

[ml1954]

If you aren't familiar with these threads, you will find that evidence, facts, reality, logic and science mean nothing when they run headlong into the darkness of willful ignorance.

You forgot megalomania.

[js1138]

I think it more than the reading of Genesis. Creationists are horrified by common descent. That was originally the big fear, and still is.

[ml1954]

One could say that Jesus and Paul were on the mark regarding theology, but wrongly interpreted the Creation account as literal

So they were unaware of evolution.

[Wormwood]

I suspect you're not only wrong, but that it's not even close.

Then I weep for this movement if it is filled with people whose only answer to the mysteries of the universe are "the magic man did it".

[ml1954]

Creationists are horrified by common descent.

You're right. I had a brain cramp. That's what it's really all about. How can we be created in the 'image of God' and be descended from apes?

[js1138]

That's interesting, becaus most of the ID advocates have conceded common descent.

[ml1954]

That's interesting, becaus most of the ID advocates have conceded common descent.

The spectrum of thought among those who oppose the TOE is wide. They could argue amongst themselves forever. The only thing they have in common is an irrational hate for the TOE.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Brazen Rule is equivalent to the game stratege Tit-for-Tat. (Which wins the iterated prisoner's dilemma every time.)

[Dimensio]

But make no mistake, you are denying the obvious if you think Darwinian science is compatable with religious belief,

Your religious beliefs are not the only ones in existence, and there are people whose religious beliefs do not conflict with evolution.

or that it is not morally degrading. Survival of the fittest is not a moral concept.

No concept in science is a moral concept. Science is not about morality.

There is no moral order to it. The powerful win. That's your only value.

That's not a value. That's not even a correct statement. The ones best able to reproduce in their environment pass on their genes. It's not about "winning" or losing. There's no defined goals, no defined standards of "good" or "bad". Science isn't about determining such things, it's just about explaining reality.

Furthermore, it reduces man to being equal with animals.

Argument from the consequences.

Man is no longer "created equal." Rather, man has evolved, and the strong are of more value than the weak.

So define "stronger". What makes a man "stronger" than another? Be specific. Explain how this makes the theory of evolution immoral. Is it immoral to explain observations on reality?

You are trying to change an intellectual point into an emotional point.

Funny. A great deal of creationist arguments -- ones that you've just put up -- are based upon appeal to emotion in an attempt to dispel reality by saying that you just don't like the implications.

[ml1954]

That's interesting, becaus most of the ID advocates have conceded common descent.

BTW, thanks for giving me the course correction. I've been wound up debating creationists and forgot about the ID guerrilla war.

[shuckmaster]

With many well published flaws that debunk evolution ...

I'm sure you don't mind refering us to one of these published flaws?

[Oztrich Boy]

1 Welcome to Free Republic

2. Be not downcast that the Creationists discovered your post first. There is actually a group of evolutionist conservatives here following the tradition of T H Huxley

3 If you remsain you will be accused by the TaliBornAgain of being a degenerate, atheist, communist and part of an organised evolutionist cabal attemptin to destroy the USA

4 Darwin Central (not an organised evolutionist cabal) has decreed that your title DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM. must be altered to DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM offer not valid in Kansas

Failure to do this will invoke the full force of Darwin Central (not an organised evolutionist cabal) sanctions

5. Welcome to Freeish Republic

[VadeRetro]

It wasn't Steve

... And it's exceedingly late to "debunk Darwin" (d. 1881).

[ml1954]

You are trying to change an intellectual point into an emotional point.

In fact, you are doing just the opposite.

[Arnhart]

Well, well. So I'm not the only Darwinian conservative in the world after all! Thanks to all for the welcome.

The "crevolist" looks great.

Although I am generally not persuaded by the "intelligent design" arguments, I enjoy debating the ID people. And I actually am open to allowing ID ideas into public school science classes. The best way to do this, I would say, is to "teach the controversy by teaching Darwin." Why not have high school students actually read Darwin and notice that he presents his "theory of natural selection" as the alternative to the "theory of special creation." The 3rd Edition of the Norton Critical Edition of Darwin, edited by Philip Appleman, even includes selections from Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe along with Darwin's texts.

Students reading Darwin would have to weigh Darwin's arguments against the alternative. They might actually be excited by the chance to think for themselves.