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.
If you had a way to determine geologic ages by direct observation rather than through inferences and guesswork then you might have a case. As it stands, however, you only have foggy notions about the age of the form of those things you have been given to observe. You have no case for intimating God as a prevaricator. The case is much greater when it comes to the possibility that we are the ones inclined to deceive, not God.
Meanwhile, shame on Chrysler for being so deceitful as to build a car with retro design; a car that looks older than it really is. And shame on those deceitful people who apply antique finishes to new furniture for the very purpose of making it look old. Has it ever occurred to you that the appearance of old age might be a matter of aesthetics?
But then it is characteristic of the apostles of evolutionism to get hung up on appearances with little concern for the substance. Thankfully the better part of science is not so lazy and dogmatic at the same time.
If mine is a philosophical question, then yours is a philosophical statement: that if the earth is older than it appears then God is deceitful. You already seem entirely disinclined to believe what He says about Himself. It should come as no surprise you find little problem in setting yourself up as His judge, even though you haven't the faintest notion scientifically how old is the matter that comprises your body.
I draw conclusions based on the evidence at hand. If God plants false evidence, then it is trickery of the worst kind.
But I am not judging Him, because He didn't. You need to let go of your sophomoric "what is time" argument. We are starting to be embarrassed for you.
Stop evading. You said that it would not be deceitful for God to make the universe look old but be very young.
That's not a loving, honest, God.
Luckily he only exists in your mind.
This is over Fester. Your logical contortions are boring.
The "what is time" question is hardly sophomoric. It happens to have much to do with our interpretation of the evidence. You speak so confidently of your conclusions when in fact the tools of measurement you have are weak. For the most part you parrot what others say, accepting their word by faith and passing it along. Your conclusions about the age of the earth are little more than a wild guess.
No, I asked how it would be deceitful, and you, as usual, have not answered the question. It is you who are being evasive, not I. Tell me how it is that creating something with the appearance of age is necessarily deceitful, when in fact many people do the same thing just for the sake of aesthetics. Are you somehow privy to the motivations of God? Have you somehow directly observed the age of the earth? I didn't think so.
I think you have been the one who has evaded a question put to you many times. You could answer the simple question that has been put to you many times over. I can't see why you would be so afraid.
Oh, and why do you have to be such a smart aleck all the time. That is what they do at the democrat websites.
Have a good day.
Bye Fester. You're too boring today.
I didn't know you had it in you. (and if I did, I should have moved farther away).
Or listen to any George Carlin album. It would've saved a semester's tuition.
Odd statement considering that the title of Darwin's book on the subject is "The Origin of Species."
Again, the irony can't be missed.
You seem to have an anger problem. Get out of the house more, take some long walks and don't forget the meds you mentioned.
Have a day.
Bye troll.
You use the liberal tactic of resorting to insults and namecalling when you are afraid to answer questions.
Your manner and the things you tend to focus your anger on are the same as any average koolaid drinking ACLU member. In fact, there is no discernable difference between you and an extreme secular liberal.
Now, have some guts instead of just tossing around insults as an excuse to hide your cowardice.
Have a day troll.
Bye troll. :)
Don't forget to mail your monthly dues to the ACLU since you are one of them.
Now beat it Troll.
Bye Troll. :)
Beat it back to DU, troll, you don't belong on a conservative forum.
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.