Posted on 07/23/2006 8:49:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
An interview by Jamie Glazov with Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University, about his new book Darwinian Conservatism.
Glazov: Larry Arnhart, thanks for taking the time out to talk about your new book.
Arnhart: It’s a pleasure. Thank you for inviting me.
Glazov: Tell us briefly what your book is about and your main argument.
Arnhart: I am trying to persuade conservatives that they need Charles Darwin. Conservatives need to see that a Darwinian science of human nature supports their realist view of human imperfectability, and it refutes the utopian view of the Left that human nature is so completely malleable that it can be shaped to conform to any program of social engineering.
Glazov: How exactly does Darwinian science of human nature demonstrate the imperfectability of humans?
Arnhart: In Thomas Sowell’s book A Conflict of Visions, he shows that ideological debate has been divided for a long time between what he calls the “constrained vision” and the “unconstrained vision.” I see this as a contrast between the “realist vision” of the political right and the “utopian vision” of the political left.
Those with the realist vision of life believe that the moral and intellectual limits of human beings are rooted in their unchanging human nature, and so a good social order has to make the best of these natural limitations rather than trying to change them. But those with the utopian vision think that the moral and intellectual limits of human beings are rooted in social customs and practices that can be changed, and so they believe the best social order arises from rationally planned reforms to perfect human nature.
Those with the realist vision see social processes such as families, markets, morality, and government as evolved rather than designed. Darwinian science is on the side of this realist vision of the conservative tradition. The main idea of the realist vision is evolution—the idea that social order is spontaneously evolved rather than rationally designed. Friedrich Hayek saw this. Steven Pinker, in his book The Blank Slate, shows how modern biological research on human nature supports the insight of the realist vision that there is a universal human nature that cannot be easily changed by social reform.
Glazov: Why do you think so many Conservatives and religious people have always been so afraid and disdainful of Darwinianism?
Arnhart: They associate it with a crudely materialistic and atheistic view of the world—a “survival of the fittest” in which the strong exploit the weak. One of the books promoted by the Discovery Institute is Richard Weikart’s book From Darwin to Hitler. He claims that all the evils of Nazism come from Hitler’s Darwinism. But I show in my book that Weikart’s arguments are weak, because there is no support for Hitler’s ideas in Darwin’s writings. In response to my criticisms, Weikart now says that he cannot show a direct connection “from Darwin to Hitler.”
Glazov: Then what do you think about a book like Ann Coulter’s book Godless?
Arnhart: Coulter’s attack on Darwinism as a threat to conservative values illustrates the sort of mistake that I want to correct. Her arguments against Darwinism as a liberal religion are shallow. It’s clear that she has never read Darwin and doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. She has memorized some talking points from the proponents of intelligent design theory at the Discovery Institute—people like Bill Dembski and Mike Behe. But she hasn’t thought through any of this. For example, she assumes that Darwinism promotes an immoral materialism. But she says nothing about Darwin’s account of the natural moral sense implanted in human nature. And she doesn’t recognize that conservative thinkers like James Q. Wilson have adopted this Darwinian view of the moral sense.
Glazov: Can you tell us a bit about Darwin’s account of the natural moral sense that is implanted in human nature? This in itself is an argument for the existence of a God right?
Arnhart: It could be. If you already believe in God as a moral lawgiver, then you might see the natural moral sense as created by God. In The Descent of Man, Darwin sees morality as a uniquely human trait that is a product of human evolutionary history. We are naturally social animals who care about how we appear to others. This natural human concern for social praise and blame combined with human reason leads us to formulate and obey social norms of good behavior. Darwin drew ideas from Adam Smith’s book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, particularly Smith’s claim that morality depends on “sympathy,” the human capacity for sharing in the experiences of others, so that we feel resentment when others are victims of injustice. Darwin thought these moral emotions of indignation at injustice would have evolved to favor cooperative groups.
Glazov: What do you make of the creation/intelligent design/evolution debate?
Arnhart: In my book, I explain why the arguments of the intelligent design folks are weak. They assume unreasonable standards of proof in dismissing the evidence for Darwin’s theory, and they don’t offer any positive theory of their own as an alternative. But, still, I don’t see anything wrong with allowing public school biology students to read some of the intelligent design writing along with Darwinian biology, and then they can decide for themselves.
The problem, of course, is whether this could be done without introducing Biblical creationism. In the case last year in Dover, Pennsylvania, school board members who wanted to teach a literal 6-days-of-creation story used the idea of intelligent design as a cover for what they were doing. In fact, the Discovery Institute actually opposed the policy of the school board because their motives were purely religious, and they had no interest in the scientific debate. In Ann Coulter’s book, she misses this point entirely.
Glazov: Ok, kindly expand on why you think conservatives should welcome Darwinian science rather than fear it.
Arnhart: Sure. I argue that Darwinism can support some of the fundamental conservative commitments to traditional morality, family life, private property, and limited government. For example, a Darwinian view of human nature would reinforce our commonsense understanding of the importance of parent-child bonding and family life generally as rooted in our evolved nature as human beings. Or a Darwinian view of human imperfection might support the need for limited government with separation of powers as a check on the corrupting effects of political power. Religious conservatives fear Darwinism because they think it has to be atheistic. But that’s not true. There is no reason why God could not have used natural evolution as the way to work out his design for the universe.
Glazov: Can you talk a bit more about on the theory and possibility of how God may have engineered a natural evolution? And why would anyone think this is not a religious concept? Even Pope John Paul accepted the reality of evolution.
Arnhart: Yes, the statement of John Paul II in 1996 assumed that all life could have evolved by natural causes. Traditionally, Catholics have had no objections to Darwinian evolution, because they believe that God works through the laws of nature, which could include the sort of natural evolution identified by Darwin. The religious objections toDarwin come from fundamentalist Christians and Muslims who read the opening chapters of Genesis literally, so that God created everything in six days. But very few religious believers take that seriously. Even William Jennings Bryan, at the Scopes trial, admitted that the six days of Creation did not have to be 24-hour days.
Glazov: Larry Arnhart, thank you for taking the time out to talk about your book.
Arnhart: Thank you for having me.
Hey, we are having fireworks tonite, a Sunday nite, down at Capitol Lake in Olympia Washington, as the ending to what we call Lakefair, a festival of rides, lots of food, and crafts...
Oh, gosh darn it, I am stuck here at home, and cant see them because I dont want to drive down there, and hunt for parking, miles away...so I get all the pain and none of the 'fun' threads...
See there, I can whine and cry with the best of them...
What I said about our Lakefair was absolutely true...we went year after year after year, when the kids were young...now that I am a 'senior' lady, I chose to stay home...
You are the one who is being evasive and everyone can see for themselves.
I have been asking you a sincere question over and over, yet you fear to respond.
I will ask you again and if you have the courage to test your opinion, then you will answer for all the lurkers.
How old was Adam, exactly one half second after he was created?
Those who support evolution, never include how the universe took shape into evolution...
That is the job of the creationists...they INSIST that evolution talks about the beginning and formation of the universe...they want to INSIST on this, because they somehow think its strengthens their own particular views...
I am beginning to believe, that you have no idea what evolution actually states...
We have many biologists on FR, who can give you a reasonable description of evolution, and will certainly assure you that evolution does not discuss the beginnings of the universe...
Its only the creationists that insist that evolution addresses the beginning of the universe....
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Amazing. Talkorigins describing the nature and origins of the early universe.
I keep hearing about how I've "failed miserably", You must think I'm President Bush?
Throw me a clue here, which post{s} do you have in mind?
"I keep hearing about how I've "failed miserably","
Because you have.
"You must think I'm President Bush?"
No. Unlike you, I don't think that Bush has failed miserably.
"Throw me a clue here, which post{s} do you have in mind?"
All of them have failed to answer my points.
I notice you keep offering little sidesteps but you fear to answer the question.
If you can gather the courage here is the question again.
How old was Adam exactly one half second after he was created?
You must mis-understand science when it tries to fit the pieces together. To explain a concept you must pull together the pieces.
Thanks for the ping!
Please support this claim with evidence.
What do you want evidence for? That kneejerk fundamentalists do not want rationality or actual inquiry?
Not surprised you'd take umbrage at that given you are a perfect example of kneejerk fundamentalist.
We only need to back to post 130 of this thread to observe a classic case of irrationality and lack of any desire for inquiry on the part of a kneejerk fanaticist.
"It was your opinion, you offered it."
No, it wasn't. Please show where I said that God could create the world to look to be 15 billion years old but only be 6,000 years old.
"I notice you keep offering little sidesteps but you fear to answer the question."
Maybe I concluded the question was stupid.
Still waiting. Twist my words some more, maybe they'll come out in Latin.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other here..I am understanding you to mean, the creation of earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, all the heavenly bodies, is what you meant by the origins of the universe...you seem to be applying origins of the universe to biological entities, which I am not...
Please clarify...
I didn't know they were going to do that -- and it certainly startled me.
And I do need my beauty sleep.
Badly.
You got a demigod - wow!
"You got a demigod - wow!"
It's not as great as you would think, he's so full of himself...
Talkorigins is required to limit itself to one scientific discipline?
Why?
(ps. I did a bunch of years of grad school, half in evolution and related fields. The big bang and the rest of that never came up. Different field of study!)
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.