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.
My thoughts exactly.
Eccl. 1:9 :)
Y're wroung thair, laddie. My grandad, from the pure Highlands of Scotland, would nae maer purch hisself on such wee rockies than he would forgo a dram!
I agree, but from a Conservative stance, I have seen Evolution thought processes used to justify Liberalism. Especially in younger parties. The community needs to mature -- though, as a large portion of Liberals supporting the community, I do not see this happening in the distant future without strict guidelines to include the heavy Christian Conservative population.
I view Evolution (non-micro or ID based) as an atheist philosophy by standard -- this is accepted true by non-liberal Christians.
I view the Christians as generally Conservative.
I see a large statistic of Conservatives as Christian.
What happens when Christianity is removed?
Any stats to back this up? In my experience, most creationists are black and D*m*cr*t. WJ Bryan was hardly a free market advocate. Darwin was.
Islamfascists too?
Then please allow me this attempt to "enlighten" {rant?} without sounding insulting.
To summarize;
Author claims "Darwinian science" is the enemy of leftists.
Post #34- I make light of Arnhart's claim by suggesting a simple observation.
Post #50- You respond by sarcastic sleight-of-hand i.e."That's a great idea! Let's determine what the content of 150 years of modern biology is by taking a poll of the citizenry's bumper stickers!" {Please note that you changed the subject here.}
You continue:
"No where else in the world do Conservatives have the anti-science stance which a small (but rather vocal) group of American social conservatives do. It's a pity, because we are otherwise all natural allies over issues of substance."
And may I point out..: If we are so "small but vocal", How did a few ignorant, anti-science, Bible waving hicks manage to roll the House, the Senate, and the Presidency while simultaneously battling our own party's liberals?
You and others seem to show some disdain for those who are the foundation for the conservative movement in America. We rightfully claim that position. We believe our rights are gifts from God, not government.{Lefties really hate that one.} It was a small group of social Christian conservatives who founded this country. Now I don't claim to know what constitutes a conservative in the "Queen's English", But let me assure you we aren't liked by leftists over here. I don't hear Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, or the RINOs wailing over "blue-blood and moderate" republicans, libertarians, or those Reagan democrats.
We may not like "divide and conquer" games, but we know how they are played.
I do believe you are wrong here. The only organism that can truly be said to be capable of deliberately choosing changes is Man. Since Larmarck claimed his principles applied to all living things, he could not have meant to apply it just to humans.
Anyway, the Commies meant to use it to create changes in all humans under their control, not just those who deliberately chose to go along.
Although you are correct that Larmarckian theory would in general fit better with Intelligent Design. It would allow us to design ourselves.
Certainly.
Which is why so many Christians have spent so much time and energy pointing out where exactly these are misapplications.
Any idea or ideology can be misapplied.
"You seem to believe that Christians are defined as Christian by not believing Evolution."
I do not know where you found me makin such claim, because this would be incorrect.
"You state in a post that you are an IDist. I hope you are aware that most IDists say they believe an alien race could be the designer. How does that fit in with your definition of IDist?"
In the least IDists integrate an intelligent force. They do not decline Evolution, but they do not decline an Intellient force. Evolution makes no such claim to protect Christianity, but defines life through various natural or random causes. Evolution has not implemented a protective layer for religion. (The generic Evolution theories that I have seen, or been forced to read in my educational process.)
"and there is no new thing under the sun"
What about this article or thread made you decide to move it to chat?
Name a single atheist who supported slavery.
Name a Christian or Muslim who did (or does).
Name a single Darwinist who supported slavery.
Name a creationist who did (does).
Name an atheist who is or was antisemitic.
Name a Christian or Muslim who is.
Name a Darwinist who is or was antisemitic.
Name a creationist who is.
"Because, ultimately, they really aren't conservatives at all? Sounds like blackmail."
Post 15 is what I was responding to:
"The Creationists/ID-iots are an embarrassment - and a clear, present danger - to the Conservative Cause. The primary difference between knowledge and ignorance is that knowledge has limits."
I responded to the first sentence, which I think is totally absurd, with a what if question. Creationists make up a good percentage of conservatives and all I was saying was what if they got up and left the conservative cause. We're not going to step away from conservatism at all.
Yet that view is incorrect.
It seems very odd that you are defining Christian by political view rather than by belief in Christ. Why are you arbitrarily inserting politics into religion? Is there no separation?
"What happens when Christianity is removed?"
In what context?
No, I have no stats, but every Creationist advocate I've ever seen on TV was a black guy wearing a suit. I've never seen a single black person promoting the idea.
Probably because the MSM loves to portray anybody challenging evolution as an idiot, and it is verboten to portray black people as idiots.
It is pretty obvious to me that most people who intentionally get involved in the Creationist issue are fundamentalist Christians. I have no stats, but I suspect blacks are pretty sparse among this group.
OTOH, the stats others have posted here make it pretty clear that most Americans, given the choice between evolution and creation, reject evolution. Personally, I believe most of these would be more than happy to accept the compromise that God can have used evolution as a tool in his Creation.
The general portray of evolution in the media is that it requires disbelief in God, which of course is totally untrue.
"I believe that Christianity can still be believed, even if Evolution is true." ~ C. S. Lewis
"No science is ever frightening to Christians. Religious people don't need the science to come out any particular way on IQ or AIDS or sex differences any more than they need the science to come out any particular way on evolution...If evolution is true, then God created evolution." ~ Ann Coulter -- P.277 Godless
"The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily." ~ Rush Limbaugh
"Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant." ~ Kurt Wise
Towers Online - The News Service of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary April 13, 2006 By Jeff Robinson
Excerpts:
"Trustees at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on April 11 unanimously approved the creation of two new theological study centersthe Center for Theology and the Arts, and the Center for Theology and Law, during the board's annual spring meeting.
Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. said the new study centers aim at equipping pastors and church leaders to think biblically about pivotal issues which dominate contemporary culture.
"One of the ways we want to lead Southern Baptists is through helping evangelicals and Southern Baptists in particular to engage some of the most critical issues of our day," Mohler said.
"This is not a time for Christians to be out-thought by the world, but in general that is what happens. We find the church behind the times in thinking about some of the most crucial issues of our day."
Mohler also announced the appointment of two new faculty members to lead the centers. [snip] ...
...Mohler also named Kurt Wise as the new director for Southern's Center for Theology and Science, and professor of theology and science. Wise currently serves on the faculty of Bryan College in Dayton, Tenn., where he is also director of the Center for Origins Research. Wise earned both a doctor of philosophy and master of arts in paleontology from Harvard University. He and his wife Marie have two daughters.
Wise replaces William Dembski... "With the addition of Kurt Wise, we are recognizing that creation is a ground zero theological crisis point right now in American culture and even in our churches," Moore said. [snip] ..
*
A couple of items I found on the web regarding Kurt Wise:
[1] 7/3/2003: "Ok, I just got a email from Dr. Wise. This is what he said:
"I am a young-age creationist because the Bible indicates the universe is young. Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant. .." ~ Kurt Wise
Post # 7:
"...there is new breed of YEC out there, of which Kurt Wise is an example, who recognize that there are scientific problems with their Weltanschauung. I knew Kurt was exceptional, but there are more of his stripe. Affectionately, I'd like to refer to them as neo-YECs, as opposed to the Wieland-Ham-Morris-Safarti-Jorge YECs for which I would propose the oxymoronic moniker paleo-YECs."
"It seems very odd that you are defining Christian by political view rather than by belief in Christ. Why are you arbitrarily inserting politics into religion? Is there no separation?"
Take note that the particular religion and its values play a grand role in defining the Conservative party. In the context that it is removed, or in the context that the common non-Christian populated evolution and Liberal stance -- shows that something is wrong here.
Why are Evo's supporting a "strong" means that supports the conservative party?
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.