Posted on 11/13/2006 2:07:20 PM PST by My2Cents
In the last couple of years, a number of conservative writers have urged conservatives to embrace Darwin's theory of evolution. Some of these "Darwinian conservatives" have even argued that Darwinism will help rescue conservatism. I happen to think that that the Darwinian conservatives are wrong, and in a new book to be released this month, I explain why. The book is titled Darwin's Conservatives: The Misguided Quest, and it is being published this month by Discovery Institute Press. Below is an excerpt from the book's introduction.
* * * * * * *
DARWIN'S CONSERVATIVES: THE MISGUIDED QUEST
INTRODUCTION
The debate over Darwinian evolution is usually framed by the newsmedia as a clash between “right” and “left.” Conservatives are presumed to be critical of Darwin’s theory, while liberals are presumed to be supportive of it.
As in most cases, reality is more complicated.
There always have been liberal critics of Darwin. In the early twentieth century, progressive reformer William Jennings Bryan fought for women’s suffrage, world peace—and against Darwinism. More recently, left-wing novelist Kurt Vonnegut, a self-described “secular humanist,” has called our human bodies “miracles of design” and faulted scientists for “pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn’t possibly have produced such machines.”
Just as there have been critics of Darwin on the left, there continue to be champions of Darwinism on the right. In the last few years, pundits such as George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and John Derbyshire, along with social scientist James Q. Wilson and political theorist Larry Arnhart, have strongly defended Darwin’s theory and denounced Darwin’s critics.
According to Will, “evolution” is a “fact,” and anyone who does not recognize this elementary truth endangers the “conservative coalition.” After the Kansas State Board of Education called for students to hear the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, Will castigated board members for being “the kind of conservatives who make conservatism repulsive to temperate people.” Charles Krauthammer has likewise berated proponents of intelligent design for perpetuating scientific “fraud,” and James Q. Wilson, writing for The Wall Street Journal, has insisted that “[t]he theory of evolution… is literally the only scientific defensible theory of the origin of species....”
Some of Darwin’s conservatives even promote Darwinian biology as a way to bolster conservatism. In his book The Moral Sense, James Q. Wilson draws on Darwinian biology to support traditional morality, and writing in National Review, law professor John O. McGinnis has championed Darwinian sociobiology as a counter to left-wing utopianism.
McGinnis opines that the future success of conservatism depends on evolutionary biology: “any political movement that hopes to be successful must come to terms with the second rise of Darwinism.”
No one has been more articulate in championing “Darwinian conservatism” than professor Larry Arnhart of Northern Illinois University, who argues that “[c]onservatives need Charles Darwin... because a Darwinian science of human nature supports conservatives in their realist view of human imperfectibility and their commitment to ordered liberty....” Like McGinnis, Arnhart suggests that conservatism may be doomed unless it embraces Darwinian biology. “The intellectual vitality of conservativsm in the twenty-first century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”
In his recent book Darwinian Conservatism, Arnhart offers multiple reasons why he thinks Darwinism supports conservatism, as well as responding to various objections to Darwin’s theory raised by some conservatives. As there is significant overlap between some of the reasons and objections discussed by Arnhart, I am going to group them into what I think are his seven main arguments: (1) Darwinism supports traditional morality; (2) Darwinism supports the traditional view of family life and sexuality; (3) Darwinism is compatible with free will and personal responsibility; (4) Darwinism supports economic liberty; (5) Darwinism supports “non-utopian limited government....”; (6) Darwinism is compatible with religion; and (7) Darwinism has not been refuted by intelligent design.
Analyzing each of these arguments in turn, this book will argue that the quest to found conservatism on Darwinian biology is misguided and fundamentally flawed. Contrary to its conservative champions, Darwin’s theory manifestly does not reinforce the teachings of conservatism. It promotes moral relativism rather than traditional morality. It fosters utopianism rather than limited government. It is corrosive, rather than supportive, of both free will and religious belief. Finally, and most importantly, Darwinian evolution is in tension with the scientific evidence, and conservatism cannot hope to strengthen itself by relying on Darwinism’s increasingly shaky empirical foundations.
Ping
Geee, do you think that the "Discovery Institute" Luddites will ever discover the scientific method?
In fact, WTH does darwinism have to do with conservatism at all? To paraphrase someone else, going into politics without darwinism is like going to war without your accordion.
The Discovery Institute is a propaganda organization masquerading as an objective scientific institution.
How can one author be so wrong on all 7 issues?
Yes. A modern-day version of the "Know-nothings", expertly playing on the fears of good Christians and extracting their cash to further ignorance.....
The theory of evolution is not a social or political movement, and, as such is limited to the realm of the biological sciences. Creationism or ID, however, is both a political and social movement concocted by those with purely a political agenda. Although evolutionary theory is neither conservative nor liberal (in the same way that the law of gravity is neither), to identify ID as being one of the conservative principles is about the same as saying conservatives support the Taliban.
Only through a mistaken idea of what is evolutionism/Darwinism. It's kind'a like associating most any other branch of science with a particular political or religious point of view. Meteorology only becomes political via economics of the gullah-bull (glow ball warning).
Reality just is, how you describe it is up to you.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people should be armed where they will, with wits and guns. NRA KMA
That's got to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. By that logic, because the Catholic Church supported a geocentric model 500 years ago, that must mean Christianity is wrong.
Exactly. The whole notion is nonsensical.
"Darwinism", if you must call the ToE that, is extremely conservative.
Last time I checked, those were conservative principles.
That's got to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. By that logic, because the Catholic Church supported a geocentric model 500 years ago, that must mean Christianity is wrong.
Exactly. The whole notion is nonsensical.
"Darwinism", if you must call the ToE that, is extremely conservative.
Last time I checked, those were conservative principles.
What, haven't you heard that the Soviets banned Darwinists, and taught their children and Party faithful Creationism?
Sorry 'bout that. Don't know what happened with my double-post.
Little heavy on the trigger today.
I would further argue that the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin is not political or ideological, so its evaluation should be scientific, not political. Doesn't matter whether you're conservative or liberal, as this book promo points out. Darwin's theory and other scientific theories should be tested and evaluated scientifically.
Darwin's theory and other scientific theories should be tested and evaluated scientifically.
Exactly.
That's just what has happened - the word "theory" means just that, no matter what snake oil the Discovery Institute tries to sell people.
Well, they are not real conservatives. Darwinism is completely irrelevant.
While there have been some very confused and giddy neo-conservatives who take comfort in social Darwinism for some strange reason, the rantings and ravings of Darwinists have no functional role in normal education or conservative politics. It is an obscure area for left-brained geeks in the graduate-level study of paleontology, biology, and genetics research to argue about with historians of science and philosophers to their heart's content, all the while imagining themselves morphing into Mr. Atlas, Captain America, or gargantuan divinites from Mt. Olympus.
It's not something that should be troubling high school or elementary school teachers who themselves lack sufficient training to deliberate on such oddities. There are no 8th-graders or 12th-graders whose lives are improved by worrying about fantasy graphs of Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus chasing antelopes just to give some secular humanist biology teacher something to do.
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.