Conservatives need Charles Darwin

Darwinian Conservatism ^ | September 2005 | Larry Arnhart

[jennyp]

"Their fundamental premise is that the natural world gives us no objective criteria by which to decide an act is "good" or "bad". IOW, they accept large parts of the left-postmodernist view of reality, where truth is merely a social construction."

An interesting yet twisted view of reality. A fascinating attempt to turn the tables, much like the dems wailing about conservative judicial activists.

The truth, of course, is that "the left-postmodernist view of reality, where truth is merely a social construction" has tossed aside all traditional authority structures, and is based squarely on the "fundamental premise is that the natural world," rather than any religion or <gasp> "god," does in fact "give us objective criteria by which to decide an act is "good" or "bad"".

You're simply wrong. Postmodernism denies objective truth. Under postmodernism, the closest you can get to true objectivity is to "know" "objective" "truth". IOW, to know objective truth, as truth is defined by a particular culture or interest group. In postmodernism, there is no TRUE objectivity.

But if there is no true objectivity, then no competing interest group's judgement can be privileged over another's in principle. Therefore the only way out of such a competition is: Whichever interest group is more ruthless in crushing its opponents, wins. Either that, or both sides sit down with an ironic smile, admit that their views of truth are just social constructions, and abandon their silly conflict altogether. The first alternative is horrible, and the second is naïve.

The fundamentalist agrees with this, but their solution to the supposed dilemma is: Everyone agrees to believe in the same religion, and believe that the Supreme Authority Figure will come down, like a deus ex machina in a badly-written Greek play, and decide somehow who wins & who loses.

To the creationist, evolution is dangerous because it undermines belief in God, who is the fundamentalists' choice for Supreme Authority Figure. Thus too many students accepting evolution will destroy society. QED.

[jennyp]

This isn't just me saying this. The Discovery Institute used to be very upfront about their philosophical stance (though AFAIK they've never called themselves postmodernists).

#4. Materialism, Naturalism, Darwinism, all these isms,what do they have to do with me and my life?

Materialism is a powerful philosophy of life today because it sets the boundaries for what is right and wrong in society. It explains the ''rules'' that govern our civilization. It goes to the very intellectual roots of society, the very foundation that our social and cultural institutions are built upon.

Indeed, if materialism is right -- as most intellectuals propose -- then ''God'' is merely a figment of our imagination. Therefore, God didn't create man; man created God. Doestoyevsky once said that ''if God is dead then all things are lawful. '' Might makes right. The State is the ultimate enforcer of rules.

[jennyp]

I'm curious to know if you agree with my analysis of the DI's motivation for pushing ID in post 25. AFAIK, they've never called themselves postmodernists, but right at the start of their fight they sure do seem to capitulate an essential premise to postmodernism - its moral subjectivism & the lack of objective truth.

When they plead for a deus ex machina god to declare a "right" & a "wrong" for us, they strike me as people who agree with postmodernism, but merely wish it weren't true. They're in the "bargaining with God" stage of mourning over the loss of objective truth. (As an Objectivist I find this capitulation to subjectivism tragically foolish. :-/ )