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.
I would argue the opposite, actually. One does not have to accept that Darwinian mechanics are the basis of all the diversity of life on this planet to accept that they are the basis for some of it. With Darwinian mechanics, it is possible for diversity within a species, or possibly a small family of species(*), to emerge from a small number of progenitors. Absent such a mechanism, there would be no way for an ark to hold enough animals to account for the postdiluvian diversity of life on this planet.
(*) It is possible for Darwinian mechanics to produce new species under certain conditions; I would expect that it could be accomplished with moderate effort under laboratory conditions (using insects or some other rapidly-reproducing species). If a geographical divide forms within a group of animals, environmental conditions could cause the two groups to evolve in a fashion which would result in them being incapable of breeding with members of the other group. Since breeding with members of the other group would be impossible due to geography, the fact that a particular evolving trait renders interbreeding impossible would not adversely affect the reproductive success of group members exhibiting that trait.
The difficulty with Social Darwinism is that it can be taken at least three different ways:
You have both made interesting points about 'Social Darwinism,' which really has to be considered as an episode in the development of political philosophy with no standing at all in science.
My own view (for what it's worth) is that there is a fundamental category error in seeing an analogy between biological evolution (over a span of some billions of years) and the 'evolution' of human culture and institutions (over a span of a few thousand years). There are some cute 'analogies' between the two processes, but no real commonality between the underlying mechanisms, and I think arguing political/cultural/moral issues on old Darwin's back is to wander on to thin ice.
I like to think (oh alright, call it my 'faith' if you must) that the nature of our species is such that rational solutions ultimately prevail, and that core conservative ideas are superior, more efficacious, and do ultimately prevail because they are more rational. We had to oppose the dangers of Communism by military means, but its ultimate 'extinction' (see how easy it is to slip into Darwinian analogy!) is coming about because we have won the argument on rational grounds. The deleterious effects of big government, tax-and-spend programs, and all the rest of the liberal ideological craziness is defeated in the same way.
I am sorry that a minority group of self-styled Christians have such an issue with Darwin, believe he is the source of 'moral decay' or whatever--and also annoyed that these folks just refuse to engage with the science and do not acknowledge that a majority of Christians have no issue here at all. But I guess that's what these threads are for
Evolution must stand or fall on it's own evidence, but it is not compatable with a Christian's literal interpretation of the Bible.
With genuine respect, may I say that at the time of Galilleo, the Church held precisely the position you make here, but about the 'controversarial' claim of science that the earth orbited the sun rather than, as the Bible seemed to state, the other way around. The Church believed then that was a heresy and tried to (brutally) suppress it, on exactly the same grounds that you have given here: if science says something contrary to a literal reading of the Bible, then the whole edifice of Christian belief was threatened.
Well, science was right about the heliocentric model--and the Church survived, came to terms with it: the earth does indeed circle the sun after all, and that does nothing to undermine or invalidate the teachings of Jesus or Paul or any of the other early Church Fathers about the path to spiritual salvation. And why should it? Jesus did not say anything that was contingent upon the sun circling the earth.
I will grant you that science does appear, in places, to rule out a 'literal' reading of Scripture--but there are several points to be made about this:
Much of physics (particularly quantum mechanics) is even more at odds with literal scripture, but does not give rise to the 'controversy' that evolutionary biology does because it is very difficult to begin to comprehend without advanced mathematics. Evolutionary biology is also a complex and demanding area of study, but large numbers of laymen think they understand it (as they think they understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity) on the basis of popular oversimplifications. The arguments 'against' are in fact directed at the popularised oversimplifications, and simply don't hold up
I am certainly no theologian (and the nature of my own religious belief is of no interest or consequence to anyone else, in any event), but it seems clear enough to me that the whole problem over the Evolution/Intelligent Design issue is nothing to do with science (which has established an overwhelming preponderance of data in favour of evoltuionary theory), but everything to do with a literal reading of scripture. By all means, have that argument/discussion in religious arenas, but please, it doesn't belong in the science classroom!
A final note (not directed at you personally, rightfielder): I am always surprised to encounter Christians who argue for a literal reading of Scripture but who themselves cannot read either Hebrew or Greek, the original languages of the Bible. If arguments about the literal readings were conducted within the framework of the original languages, much confusion would be avoided. But ultimately, the choice between literal and symbolic readings of the Bible are theological, not scientific matters
Final emphasis: most Christians do not insist on a literal reading of the Bible!
It's not prime, but it's the best!
Those who do insist on a literal reading are inevitably inconsistent about it. For example, when confronted with the scriptural description of pi as 3, or of the earth being immovable while the sun circles around it, the most imaginative contortions are employed to explain that scripture doesn't really say what it literally says. The same is true of some other passages that show up in these threads from time to time. Yet these interpretive skills are never applied to the creation account in Genesis -- which many denominations read as an allegory -- and which must be an allegory, considering all that we've learned about astronomy, geology, etc.
Why do literalists behave like this? Why draw the line at Genesis, and not at pi, or geocentrism? Because -- this is my opinion only -- some people literally enjoy such controversy, but even the Kathy Martins of the world dimly sense that it's clearly insane to insist that the "controversy" about pi should be in the schools. So they draw their battle lines at Genesis, poor ol' Darwin becomes their villain, and children are being systematically confused about how to think about reality.
We can all agree that there are some passages that are only poetry, or allegory -- and they usually signal quite plainly that such is what they are. But there are other passages (pi and geocrentricism) where we are left clueless by the text alone.
That's where science comes in. Science is an investigation of nature -- or of creation -- God's first book. The universe is in God's original handwriting. Un-transcribed, un-translated, un-edited. It's the primary source, the real deal. It's the context in which scripture should be understood, and not vice versa.
You make some excellent points here.
Much (most?) of the 'heat' in the arguments from the Creationist side seem to me to arise from basic misunderstanding of the scope, methodology and findings of ToE. These points are best addressed by patient reiteration of the sources
Some of the 'heat' comes from fear--and for that, I have much sympathy. Much that we all hold most valuable--family values, personal freedom, democratic government--has indeed been under ferocious assault by liberal ideology, with disasterous consequences. Much of this assault comes from the school of Marxist dialectical materialism, which I think becomes conflated in some people's minds with scientific empirical materialism. But of course there is no actual commonality: Marxism starts from a ideological stance which it falsely attempted to dress up with the trappings of science (in a manner very similar to the pseudo-scientific packaging of Intelligent Design), whereas science is exclusively concerned with examination of Nature--the material world.
Arguments from analogy are hazardous, I know, but they are beloved by some in the ID camp. So here is one:
The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (for whom I hold no brief, btw) once declared something along the lines of, "I simply do not understand why people once thought that the sun circled the earth." A colleague at once answered him, "But Ludwig, that is not surprising at all--after all, that is what it looks like!" But Wittgenstein professed to remain baffled. "It does? But, would would it look like if a spinning earth was orbiting the sun?"
His point, of course, is that it looks precisely the same. To me, when someone says that "But just look at something complex like the eye--how could that arise except by the hand of God/Allah/Flying Spaghetti Monster (delete as applicable)?" one really must answer, "But what does it look like according to the mountains of evidence for evolution?" Precisely the same. It's just that one model is correct, and one is demonstrably false.
I think you're correct. I didn't have any time to get into the subject so my post was misleading.
Still don't have time this morning.
The biggest discrepancy between the two "Darwins" is that third world cultures, that we would think as needing to go away, are actually out reproducing first world cultures. Europe is a good example, and I think without immigration from third world Mexico the US would be in that boat as well.
But cultures are like a species. They do change over time, and subsequent generations "inherit" many of the features of the previous. It's just that we may not like which cultures "survive" and which don't.
It's worth noting that no "advanced" civilization has survived for long. Although apparently subsequent advanced civilizations do push the state of advancement farther.
Wishing does not make a thing so, creationists! There is a real world out there and it isn't anything your momentary convenience dictates.
Just another thing to shoot for.
Science, religion and philosophy have all been used this way.
A rational person would deduce that bad people cloak their deeds in the most respectable cloating available at the time.
That's exactly what the theocratic charlatans at the Discovery Institute want. I think it's a terrible idea. No different, really, from teaching astrology in astronomy class, demon possession in health class, etc. The only place for teaching superseded, debunked, and discarded notions is in something like a "history of science" class. And I don't think high school students are ready for that until they've already had a few solid science classes, and have developed an appreciation for the scientific method.
Many thanks, Ichneumon, for posting these sources; I have a lot of reading to do!
Three things do tend to 'burn' me somewhat. One is when someone claims that ToE is 'incompatible' with core conservative values, so ergo I am not a 'true' conservative. I wish these same people would please make this observation about me to the work colleagues who generally brand me a war-mongering reactionary Neo-Con
Another is when people charge that evolutionists 'believe' in Darwinism as if it were religion. I'm starting to think that this one is so foolish, maybe we better just go along with it, buy ourselves mail-order ordination ($19.99 gets you a legal ordination and a minister parking sticker at http://jonci.com/ReligiousProductsOrdination.dsp) to put that one to rest. Except, we'll all have to legally change our names to 'Steve' first, and I guess that's gonna bump up the cost.
The third 'burn' for me is soi disant Christians claiming to speak for all Christians. Most Christians don't have an issue with Darwin, some do. Which means that most of the heat and none of the light in these threads really does come from a dispute between religious factions, not between religion generally and science.
Or, brother Ichneumon, as it is written in the Book of Mark Issac, CH102, 'The Bible is literal'
Which, of course, reveals that the so-called Biblical literalists interpret the Bible idiosyncratically, not literally. Indeed, it is perfect nonsense to claim that there even is a literal interpretation of the Bible that can be uniformly discerned, much less claim that one adheres to such a chimera.
From what I have seen on these threads, the self-proclaimed Biblical literalists who argue an inherent incompatibility between Christianity and the theory of evolution are in fact arguing nothing less than an inherent incompatibility between Christianity and physical reality. They give every indication of being the most inept and disingenuous group of Bible readers extant today.
Covered in The List-O-Links:
Isn't it amazing what a little imagination and a personal crusade can accomplish?
If the man isn't important enough to really use as an authority, make him out to be one anyway.
But, but, but... he was an atheist - and we all know that evilutionists are all atheists - who rejected his atheism, there bye rejecting evolution.
Yes, I know. I don't understand the logic either.
If Hitler were alive today, he'd take this post and say: "100! Hauptzahl! Mein!"
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.