Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.

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: 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.

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.

AARON Mason, a teacher in a Washington State school, was suspended for two days without pay for showing a creation video and arranging a creationist guest speaker to present scientific evidence supporting creation and a young earth to his eighth-grade class.

However, the ironically named humanist thought police, the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote to the district superintendent complaining that this was not enough, since Mason had ‘shattered the foundation for the students’ further science education’. The ACLU noted that Mason had ‘crossed the line’ before — while working as a highschool wrestling coach, he had worn a shirt depicting Jesus.

‘Teacher’s creationism lesson causes stir’, Philadelphia Inquirer, USA, August 22, 1996.

Also, here's another article about a teacher being punished for admitting he believes in creationism and discussing some of the possible flaws in the theory of evolution. http://www.aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=348

The fact is that current curriculum standards almost everywhere prohibit discussion of ID or creationism, and in many cases even discussion of the weak points of the evolutionary theory. The media cases you mention are all attempts to allow other theories to also be discussed.

My grandad, from the pure Highlands of Scotland, would nae maer purch hisself on such wee rockies than he would forgo a dram!

Fortunately, he had the good sense to abandon the blasted heath which was his ancestral portion -- where the cruel north winds were constantly ruffling his kilt and chilling his arse, not to mention his haggis -- and to marry a comely lass from the Midlands. Sensible fellow. But then, no true Scotsman would have left such a paradise.

"You seem to believe that Christians are defined as Christian by not believing Evolution."

>
Now you are moving to a different subject, and I think you are intentionally doing such for the sake of jumping around and making this more confusing. Believing in Evolution, does NOT make you or unmake you a Christian -- as belief in Christ as one's Lord and Saviour DOES. However, Evolution makes no stance to protect Christians, in the sense that ID, or Creationism does. The Bible states that God created all-things. Evolution states nature did such. Common sense would assume an issue here.

>
In response to your other misguided quotes, you are taking the broad term Christianity out of the context of the situation of MY response.

> Saying you are Christian does NOT make you Christian.

> There are various TYPES of Christian denominations. Often-times you have to be specific. There are Liberal communities (as evolutionist claim, and use, to support their cause), there are Conservative communities (who are heavily anti-evolution). These communities differ in beliefs according to their interpretation of the Bible. Supposed conservative evolutionists here fail to recognize this.

>

'Evolution has not implemented a protective layer for religion.'

"Why should it?"

Because of the reasons aforementioned, and because it is easier to justify many of the Left's arguments through such means.

"The only thing anyone on the pro-evolution side wants is this: politicians stick to politics and biology to the biologists. Stop telling biology teachers how to do their job."

So you would be ok with biology teachers deciding for themselves whether to include in the curriculum criticisms of evolution or intelligent design or creation?

In other words, you do not really wish to leave the decision as to what will be taught in science class up to the individual teacher. You would put some group, or perhaps just yourself, in charge to decide what is science and what is non-science and religion.

That's a defensible position, but if it is yours please don't inaccurately portray yourself as a defender of teachers' rights to decide what to teach. You are just as determined to force teachers to say only what you agree with as are some of the Creationists and ID'ers.

You may even be right. But the issue between you and the IDers is not one of freedom for the individual teacher. You are both opposed to that. The issue is merely one of what the teacher will not be allowed to teach.

all such ideologies, built up as they are on the concepts of racism and statist totalitarian aggression and control, are direct products of the Darwinian doctrines of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest

Hitler never cited evolution as a reason for the fascist state, or in reciting the flaws of liberalism and the liberal state. Never. And the fact of the matter is that Hitler seldom mentioned evolution in connection with Nazi race theory or antisemitism, nor did other important Nazi race theorists such as Alfred Rosenberg.

When Hitler and other Nazis did cite evolution it was usually (and in superficial and facile fashion) in connection with militarism, and justifying the desirability of strife and struggle. And this was not a Nazi innovation. German leaders and generals made the same connection before and during WWI.

In other words, you do not really wish to leave the decision as to what will be taught in science class up to the individual teacher.

Would you wish to leave the decision as to what will be taught in any class the individual teacher?

What do you mean by "weaknesses" of the theory of evolution?

Probably much the same as what was mentioned in an earlier post as "undermining the theory of evolution."

This is all very odd. Nobody gets upset if a teacher discusses the possibility that string theory and other proposed theories may someday be shown to "disprove" our present understanding of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Yet any discussion of the facts of life that appear to be difficult to explain using evolution get peoples panties in a serious twist.

Of course, the opponents of evolution don't generally explain the difficulties by anything but an "Intelligent Designer" having done it, which isn't really an explanation at all.

"I agree with you Matchett, that Creationists should not fear science. As far as I know most of us don't. Out of all the sciences, there is this one small field of evolution that creationists find unconvincing, but we look at the starting assumptions, and aren't convinced that evolution is the correct explanation for the associated observations. I'm confident that the more science advances, the less palatable evolution theory will become."

What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany ..." [snip]

Lesson to All

A final lesson and warning applies to the Church, Science, and the modern Creationist movement today. Beware of holding steadfastly to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error. For instance, there are various scientific challenges to the Young-Earth Creationist position. We should hold many of our scientific views and their corresponding Biblical interpretations loosely. For we will never have all the right answers this side of heaven.

"Nature herself in times of great poverty or bad climatic conditions, as well as poor harvest, intervenes to restrict the increase of population of certain countries or races; this, to be sure, by a method as wise as it is ruthless. She diminishes, not the power of procreation as such, but the conservation of the procreated, by exposing them to hard trials and deprivations with the result that all those who are less strong and less healthy are forced back into the womb of the eternal unknown. Those whom she permits to survive the inclemency of existence are a thousandfold tested, hardened, and well adapted to procreate in turn, in order that the process of thoroughgoing selection may begin again from the beginning. By thus brutally proceeding against the individual and immediately calling him back to herself as soon as he shows himself unequal to the storm of life, she keeps the race and species strong, in fact, raises them to the highest accomplishments." Mein Kampf

This certainly appears to be an attempt to apply Darwin's theory of natural selection to Man and more precisely to human races, which Hitler appears to have viewed as more like species. (Which of course just points up his misunderstanding of biology.)

It's a shame that so many who pretend to be conservatives here expose themselves as head in the sand Luddites ...

There's nothing conservative about being anti-science, and nothing liberal about being pro-science. These so-called conservatives are the grandchildren of the democrats who wildly cheered for William Jennings Bryan, who championed the income tax, creationism, and prohibition. He was also a critic of banks and railroads, and a leader of the "free silver" movement. If he were around today, he'd probably be a Dennis Kucinich democrat. And as long as he preached creationism, most of these people would support him.

Generally, no. But then I don't post statements claiming that I am defending their right to do so against those who would attack it.

The issue is one of who will decide what teachers will be allowed to teach. Few people would be in favor of complete freedom for individual teachers, yet some of them are willing to inaccurately claim they are defending such a right, when it supports a status quo of which they approve.

So you would be ok with biology teachers deciding for themselves whether to include in the curriculum criticisms of evolution or intelligent design or creation?

Criticisms of intelligent design or creation in a biology class would be a waste of time...they shouldn't even be mentioned...they're religious beliefs, not science. As for criticisms of evolution, what do you think scientists have been trying to do for 150 years? They've tried to poke holes in it and it's been spectacularly resistant.

The fact is that current curriculum standards almost everywhere prohibit discussion of ID or creationism, and in many cases even discussion of the weak points of the evolutionary theory.

And who sets curriculum standards for biology? Biologists and biology teachers. If some rogue teacher wants to stray from the curriculum and teach pseudosceince, whether it be Aristotelian physics or creationism, he shouldn't be allowed to.

My point is simply this: let biology teachers set the biology curriculum. You can't let each individual teacher set his own curriculum, nor should politicians meddle in the process. You have to have one standard, which should be set by the pre-eminent biologists residing in the state, not politicians

Every case I've heard of has been either politicians who no nothing about biology meddling in the curriculum, or a rogue teacher going against the overwhelming consensous of his collegues.

The media cases you mention are all attempts to allow other theories to also be discussed.

Wrong. They were attempts to force unwilling biology teachers to discuss unscientific "alternatives" to a sound science.

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.