Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives need Charles Darwin
Darwinian Conservatism ^ | September 2005 | Larry Arnhart

Posted on 09/17/2005 11:39:07 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: conservatives; crevolist; darwin; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-183 next last
To: William Terrell
Does the HOE make you feel like an "intellectually fulfilled" athiest?

What's an "athiest" -- the most athy person in the room, who is athier than the rest?

61 posted on 09/17/2005 6:13:57 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
What's an "athiest" -- the most athy person in the room, who is athier than the rest?

"Athiest" is what they call a person who has drawn four athes in a limp-wristed game of poker, as in: "Ooooooo, you're the athiest!"

62 posted on 09/17/2005 6:27:57 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Arnhart

Here here.

as one poster often uses as a tagline:

"Liberalism is a cancer on America, and Creationism is a cancer on conservativism."


63 posted on 09/17/2005 6:33:33 PM PDT by Vaquero ("From my dead cold hands")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy; Arnhart

Don't listen to him. We're feirce, we're athiest, and we're in you're face.


64 posted on 09/17/2005 6:38:22 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

I we get to request myths, I'd like to request an Ojibwa creation myth.


65 posted on 09/17/2005 6:46:03 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: js1138
PH: "Athiest" is what they call a person who has drawn four athes in a limp-wristed game of poker, as in: "Ooooooo, you're the athiest!"

js: Don't listen to him. We're feirce, we're athiest, and we're in you're face.

We're fierthe! We're the athiest!
We're the Kevin Thpathiest! BluePithtolero thaid!

66 posted on 09/17/2005 6:48:26 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Meant to ping you to thixthy-thith.
67 posted on 09/17/2005 6:49:18 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: usconservative; Thatcherite
[Since evolution stands on literally millions of data points,]

Almost all of which are really assumptions

Nope. Please do not post *YOUR* uninformed ASSUMPTION as if it were fact. You are clearly quite unfamiliar with the actual body of evidence. Go and learn something about evolutionary biology and the massive amount of evidence supporting it, then come back and try again.

With many well published flaws that debunk evolution ...

Uh huh. Sure. Look, over the past thirty years, I've read literally THOUSANDS of attempts by anti-evolutionists to present what they thought were "flaws that debunked evolution". Every one of them (let me repeat that -- EVERY one of them) has fallen flat on its face, usually due to the person being astoundingly clueless about what evolutionary biology actually says, or what the evidence for it actually is, or how the principles of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. actually work in practice.

But hey, feel free to give us *your* stab at it, let's see if you can be the first creationist to actually have the "silver bullet" against evolution he believes he does. I'm always open to looking at any good argument or evidence, if you actually have some. But the creationist track record is VERY poor in that regard.

For instance, make sure that the material you have which you think "debunks" evolution actually hasn't already been previously considered and itself DEBUNKED a thousand times over before you came along. Here's an abbreviated list of some of the flawed anti-evolution arguments that have already been found to be flawed:

Index to Creationist Claims

edited by Mark Isaak
Copyright © 2005
[Last update: 19 Aug 2005]

Introduction

CA: Philosophy and Theology

CB: Biology

CC: Paleontology

CD: Geology

CE: Astronomy and Cosmology

CF: Physics and Mathematics

CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution

CH: Biblical Creationism

CI: Intelligent Design

CJ: Other Creationism

Authors
[and no significant data/evidence led dissent about its truth within the worldwide scientific community for more than a century]

Now that's absolutely incorrect!

No it isn't. If you think otherwise, feel free to present the *SIGNIFICANT* amount of *EVIDENCE-DRIVEN* dissent about evolution from within the scientific community from, say, 1880-1980. We'll wait.

You present these thesis as fact, when the reality is many of evolution's own proponents have decided that the evidence does not support evolution,

No they haven't. Feel free to name, say, five if you think you can (out of the "many" you claim exist).

and that too many assumptions and mathematical errors have been made over time to consider the theory of evolution valid.

Wrong again. My, you *have* been reading too many creationist tracts and not enough science journals, haven't you?

Every time a scientist decides evolution is bunk, you in the "darwin community" turn on them, deride them, then pretend they don't exist.

No, just point out the many errors they're making when they turn their engineering degree or whatever to a field they poorly understand. Or in Behe's case, when he inexplicably makes elementary errors in basic biology despite a biology degree -- I sometimes suspect he's "trolling" the creationists in order to make money from book sales. Heck, at times I'm tempted to do that myself, there seems to be a lot of money in it.

Let me see, who was the prominent scientist who was for evolution until he published an article in June of 2004 that debunked Darwin?

Got me. If you're thinking of Antony Flew, you're grossly misrepresenting what he *actually* changed his mind about.

You're free to believe what you like, however false and unproven it is.

Indeed, which is why the anti-evolutionists are free to do so. They believe a lot of utterly false things about science.

The facts are, the more science looks at the "new earth" theory, the "old earth" theory gets debunked and the Bible is proven correct.

...you're free to believe that, even though it's false. If you don't want to go learn any actual science, and just want to parrot creationist falsehoods about the state of the evidence without personally going and *learning* the subject yourself, that's entirely your right.

Just don't try to teach that horse manure in science classes. Telling students lies about science, telling them lies about the evidence, is not acceptable.

Look, you're clearly as much a victim of those lies as the students would be if this nonsense were to get into their classrooms. Someone has fed you garbage, polluting your mind with falsehoods. I blame them, not you. But you *do* have some responsibility in the matter -- now that you have been notified that you've been unknowingly repeating lies, like a too-trusting follower of Michael Moore, you need to go and learn more about the subject yourself, so that you can replace the propaganda in your head with actual knowledge of the topic, and so that you can innoculate yourself from future propagandists. And stop repeating material from the same unreliable sources, until you're able to personally *know* whether it's valid information, or more of the same dishonesties and ignorant presumptions.

68 posted on 09/17/2005 6:50:43 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Meant to ping you to thixthy-thith.

I've been having second thoughts about the tastelessness of my "4 athes" post, so I hit the abuse button and requested that it be deleted. But it's still there. Oh well ...

69 posted on 09/17/2005 6:56:30 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I think the fact you requested it to be removed says a lot about your character.


70 posted on 09/17/2005 7:03:37 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
If we get to request myths, I'd like to request an Ojibwa creation myth.


Creation of the World (Wisconsin Ojibwa)

Wenebojo, having outwitted the evil manidog by trickery, at last found himself stranded in the pine tree. He crept higher, begging the tree to stretch as tall as it could. Finally the waters stopped just below Wenebojo's nose. He saw lots of animals swimming around and asked them all, in turn, to dive down and bring up a little earth, so that he and they might live. The loon tried, then the otter and the beaver, but all of them were drowned before they could bring back any earth. Finally, the muskrat went down, but he too passed out as he came to the surface.

"Poor little fellow," said Wenebojo, "You tried hard." But he saw the muskrat clutching something in his paw: a few grains of sand and a bit of mud. Wenebojo breathed on the muskrat and restored his life, then he took the mud and rolled it in his hands. Soon he had enough for a small island and he called the other animals to climb out of the water. He sent a huge bird to fly around the island and enlarge it. The bird was gone four days [four is a magic number], but Wenebojo said that was not enough and he sent out the eagle to make the land larger. Having created the world, Wenebojo said "Here is where my aunts and uncles and all my relatives can make their home."

Then Wenebojo cut up the body of one of the evil manidog and fed part of it to the woodchuck, who had once saved his life. Into a hollow he put the rest of the food and when some of it turned into oil or fat, and Wenebojo told the animals to help themselves. The woodchuck was told to work only in the summertime; in the winter he could rest in a snug den and sleep, and each spring he would have a new coat. Before that, most of the animals had lived on grass and other plants, but now they could eat meat if they wished. The rabbit came and took a little stick with which he touched himself high on the back. The deer and other animals that eat grass all touched themselves on their flanks. Wenebojo told the deer he could eat moss. The bear drank some of the fat, as did the smaller animals who eat meat. All those who sipped the fat were turned into manidog and are the guardian spirits of every Indian who fasts. Wenebojo then named the plants, herbs, and roots and instructed the Indians in the use of these plants. Wenebojo's grandmother, Nokomis, also has a lodge somewhere in that land.

Source: http://www.mpm.edu/wirp/ICW-14.html
71 posted on 09/17/2005 7:05:22 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Indeed, it was utterly tasteless and without redeeming value except for being pretty original.
72 posted on 09/17/2005 7:06:28 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Thanks Coyoteman, I've given both this myth and the Cree myth to my wife, she thanks you as well.


73 posted on 09/17/2005 7:07:44 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Jeeeez! You dropped the nuke on 'em!

(Have no fear, they won't read a word of it.)

74 posted on 09/17/2005 7:09:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Just a note; we have a small town called Nokomis here. Shows you the influence the Ojibwa have in this neck of the prairie.
75 posted on 09/17/2005 7:10:41 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
... says a lot about your character.

Opinions vary. Anyway, the post still stands, so my lapse in taste is there for all to see.

76 posted on 09/17/2005 7:11:05 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Just a note; we have a small town called Nokomis here. Shows you the influence the Ojibwa have in this neck of the prairie.


Many towns, counties, and not a few states, are named for Indian groups. Used to be that you could even name sports teams for local groups!

77 posted on 09/17/2005 7:13:24 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Speaking of taste, what about your post numbers?


78 posted on 09/17/2005 7:30:21 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Just to add a couple of new points about to be added to the database. _____________________________________________________

Claim CC381. There are too few Stone-Age remains for a long history of humanity.

Evolutionary anthropologists say Stone-Age people, who buried their dead, were around for about 185,000 years, at a population between one and ten million. If these numbers are correct, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies, but we have found remains of only a few thousand. That is more in line with an age of only a few hundred years before history.

Source:

Humphreys, D. Russell. 2005. Evidence for a young world. _Impact_ 384 (June): vi. http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842

Response:

1. The fact that some people buried bodies does not mean all did. Even today, common funerary practices include incineration, exposure to the scavengers and elements, and burial at sea.

2. Burial alone does not preserve a body. In acid soil, all organic matter can easily decay in 1,000 years. Moisture, plant roots, digging animals, or a combination of these can also speed decay to the point where nothing would remain after a few thousand years. Fossilization is not a common process.

In the Stone Age, enduring artifacts would likely have been buried only with people of high status, so we would not expect them to be common. _______________________________________________________

"Claim CA115.1: Design arguments converted atheist Anthony Flew to theism.

Design arguments have caused philosopher Anthony Flew to renounce 66 years of atheism and admit that the universe is created. Specifically, he was convinced by the [CI101]complexity of life and the [CB010] improbability of abiogenesis.

Source:

Yahya, Harun. n.d. The scientific world is turning to God.
http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70scientific_world.html

Response:

1. Anthony Flew's conversion was not to theism, but to deism, a belief that a creator set the universe in motion but has not participated in any way since (Carrier 2004).

2. Flew's one and only piece of relevant evidence for accepting a deistic god was the apparent improbability of a naturalistic origin for life (Carrier 2004). Flew, by his own admission, had not kept up with the relevant science and was mistaught by Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and Jewish theologian (e.g., Schroeder 2001). He later conceded, "I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction" (Carrier 2005). Thus Flew's conversion is, by Flew's own admission, baseless.

Flew remains a deist but calls his belief a "very modest defection from my previous unbelief" (Carrier 2005).

Links:

Carrier, Richard. 2004. Antony Flew considers God--Sort of. _The Secular Web_ (Oct. 10), http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Young, Matt. 2005. Antony Flew's conversion to deism: An update. http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000723.html (Jan. 9).

References:

1. Carrier, Richard. 2004. Antony Flew considers God--Sort of. _The Secular Web_ (Oct. 10), http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

2. Carrier, Richard. 2005. Antony Flew considers God--Sort of; Update (January 2005). _The Secular Web_ (Oct. 10), http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369#January2005-1

3. Schroeder, Gerald. 2001. _The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth_.

79 posted on 09/17/2005 7:30:40 PM PDT by b_sharp (Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Arnhart
There are a great many reasons conservatives should pay attention to evolution.

Evolution is a generic theory that can pertain to engineering tasks as well as culture.

"Social Darwinism" has gotten a bad name for the reason that it tends to justify tinkering with society against the will of the people. But that doesn't mean that social darwinism doesn't operate.

There should be no excuse to forcefully tinker with society. But we need to recognize that the world our grandchildren will live in WILL be changed because of cultural evolution.

I'll elaborate on this later.

80 posted on 09/17/2005 7:45:31 PM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-183 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson