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.
uh....welcome to FR...I think
I agree with this. Democrats are unnatural. They believe in crippling the fittest and promoting practices that rather than propagate the species would lead to its extinction.
They even advance notions such as humans become euphoric during starvation/dehydration even though that would have guaranteed the extinction of humans shortly after they appeared.
You are trying to change an intellectual point into an emotional point. That may make you feel better, but it's a denial of the logical philisophical and religious implications in your beloved theory.
There is total conflict between 'Darwinian science' and (my view of the) truth.
Thus, I have no need of Darwin or his theories.
Democrats are unnatural. They believe in crippling the fittest and promoting practices that rather than propagate the species would lead to its extinction.
They even advance notions such as humans become euphoric during starvation/dehydration even though that would have guaranteed the extinction of humans shortly after they appeared.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am often surprised at the number of people who mistake OUTCOMES for STRATEGY AND DESIGN by the democratic Socialists that call themselves democrats.
The fact is that the power hungry leaders of the democratic party, and of the International Socialist movement WANT people in chaos, turmoil, and war. It then allows them to rise to dictatorial power and control.
The reason that leftist leaders salivate at the opportunity to create a "welfare state" is that it centralizes government power. It has NOTHING to do with helping people. That's merely an excuse to tax more and create more dependency.
In the end, the Democrats are the most cunning of all of the Darwinists. They use deception, guile, manipulation, and destruction to achieve their ends. Power is all that matters to them and many of their leaders would (if they haven't already) sell their souls to Satan for that power.
It is not a Darwinian reaction to "turn the other cheek" and accept the deception, guile, manipulation and destructiveness of Democrats.
"There is no necessary conflict between Darwinian science and religious belief."
I suppose that depends what your religious beliefs are. A Christian, for example, can believe the Bible is literally true and also in Micro-evolution (variation within species). This is what the Bible means when it says, "God created according to kind."
That is where it would stop, however. The Bible teaches that God formed man unique as a seperate act, and blew His breathe into the man. Man has a soul, different than the soul of a chimp. That's why men write poems and have a desire for meaning, and monkeys don't.
Also, regarding Jesus the Messiah and paul the apostle, they referred to the Creation account, and/or Adam and Eve as literal. If Jesus and Paul were wrong about that, maybe they were wrong about salvation, too?
Evolution must stand or fall on it's own evidence, but it is not compatable with a Christian's literal interpretation of the Bible.
Beginning with Adam Smith and Edmund Burke, the conservative intellectual tradition has been based on the claim that social order arises not from rational planning but from the spontaneous moral order of instincts and habits. Darwinian biology sustains that conservative claim by showing how the human capacity for spontaneous order arises from social instincts and a moral sense shaped by natural selection in human evolutionary history.
I don't see anything morally degrading in this. On the contrary, I see a science of human nature that supports spontaneous moral order as natural for human beings.
For example, when conservatives defend marriage and the family as natural because they are rooted in the natural human desires for sexual mating and parental care, doesn't this appeal to the biological nature of human beings?
Welcome to Free Republic!
Heh. I've always thought that crevo Conservatives and preachers needed Darwin because he gave them a good way to drum up votes and money.
Welcome to FR!
Relax, not everyone here is hostile to the theory of evolution. In fact, I suspect that the ID crowd is a vocal minority within the conservative movement.
Very interesting article, by the way.
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.
Let me introduce you to a mini tradition. When the CS/ID folks get too adamant I post alternate creation stories.
Why, here's one now (just in case)!
At first there was only Nun, the primal ocean of chaos that contained the beginnings of everything to come. From these waters came Ra who, by himself, gave birth to Shu and Tefnut. Shu, the god of air, and Tefnut, the goddess of moisture gave birth to Geb and Nut, the earth god and the sky goddess. And so the physical universe was created. Men were created from Ra's tears. They proved to be ungrateful so Ra, and a council of gods, decided they should be destroyed. Hathor was dispatched to do the job. She was very efficient and slaughtered all but a remnant, when Ra relented and called her off. Thus was the present world created. Against Ra's orders, Geb and Nut married. Ra was incensed and ordered Shu to separate them, which he did. But Nut was already pregnant, although unable to give birth as Ra had decreed she could not give birth in any month of any year. Thoth, the god of learning, decided to help her and gambling with the moon for extra light, was able to add five extra days to the 360-day calendar. On those five days Nut gave birth to Osiris, Horus the Elder, Set, Isis, and Nephthys successively. Osiris became the symbol of good, while Set became the symbol of evil. And thus the two poles of morality were fixed once and for all.
As a scientist, Darwin could not affirm the specific theological doctrines of Christianity. But he could acknowledge God as First Cause and "the laws impressed on matter by the Creator." He could also speak of the powers of life as "originally breathed by the Creator."
As conservatives, we should agree on the moral importance of religion in shaping social order, which Darwin does. But as conservatives, we cannot agree on specific theological doctrines. After all there are Jewish conservatives, Catholic conservatives, Protestant conservatives, and even skeptical conservatives. A skeptical conservative like Friedrich Hayek would say that "life has no purpose other than itself," and yet he could also recognize the importance of religion as the "guardian of tradition."
Since evolution stands on literally millions of data points, with numerous successful predictions under its belt, and no significant data/evidence led dissent about its truth within the worldwide scientific community for more than a century then I guess "a Christian's literal interpretation of the Bible" must be false.
You create the dichotomy, and you've got to live with the conclusion that must be drawn.
Don't exclude the atheist conservatives, please. (and then I won't exclude the believers)
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.