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.
Incorrect. I want science teachers to teach theories I disagree with, IF they are objectively a part of science. And because science has a professional literature, which generally reflects the ideas and principles that are actually used by working scientists, this IS an objective determination.
Our sole problem with the way antievolutionary ideas are usually taught is that it entails outright LYING to students about the status of those ideas in the marketplace of scientific ideas.
And since antievolutionists themselves would be opposed to the TRUTH being revealed on such matters -- that antievolutionary ideas can't cut the mustard as science -- it's actually a concession on our part to insist on their simple exclusion. (Also including antievolutionary ideas as failed science would invite unscrupulous atheistic teachers to use their ridicule as a means of attacking religion, which would be just as unconstitutional as a creationist teacher misrepresenting antievolutionary ideas in the other direction to advance religion.)
Sticking to science is the best policy.
If, at some future time, some anti- or non- evolutionary idea does happen to prevail, on merit, in the professional scientific marketplace, then of course it can be taught. In fact it will be taught as a matter of course. If said idea were sufficiently successful to supplant evolutionary theory in the marketplace of scientific ideas, then I would advocate EXCLUDING EVOLTION, even if I personally happened to remain an evolutionist.
IOW I would far rather acquiesce in theories I might disagree with being taught in a science class, instead of having my favored theory included on the basis of intellectual affirmative action, and instead of embracing the wishy-washy relativism and weakening of academic standards that would imply.
If I believe a false theory is being taught and/or a correct theory is being ignored, but the curricula does objectively reflect the current scientific standing of the respective ideas, then my remedy is not to go pissing and moaning to the school board or textbook committees. My remedy is to prevail upon the scientific community to undertake original research that will potentially overturn the false theory and/or advance the true theory.
Of course this is the last remedy that antievolution activists consider (if ever). Which I think is very instructive.
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.
What? Huh?
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,
With you so far...except of course for that previous statement which is nonsensial to me,
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.
Lost me there. What's you point?
... and people wonder why seperation of Church and State occurred in our beloved historical past.
No. There should be a standard curriculum, which ought to reflect the consensus of biologists. Politicians should not be telling biologists what the evidence in their field says.
It would be good for interested students to learn something of the history of science and how its methodologies developed over time.
Disagree. See my #261. Most teachers could probably handle this reasonably well, but it would invite religion and antireligion partisans to engage in "spinning" the curricula and subverting your intent. It would only take a small percentage of teachers behaving in such opportunistic faction to make a complete fiasco of your scheme.
That's not fair! If students learned how to think, then creationism would be in deep trouble. It's gotta be slipped into the science books as if it were a scientific theory. That way the world will be a better place, crime will be only a memory, and teen pregnancy will be no more.
I'm sorry.
My original post was in reply to #247 from Dimensio, who claimed that he objects to teachers being told what to teach. In reality, he objects to teachers teaching anything he disagrees with. He is perfectly willing to use school boards to enforce what he agrees with, but objects to school boards forcing teachers to teach things he disagrees with.
My point was that his argument is not one of whether teachers are being forced to teach particular things. We are all in favor of that. It is with regard to which particular things teachers are forced to teach.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, he may have a defensible position. But it is one of which science is correct, not one of teachers being given full freedom to decide what to teach. So any claim to be defending teachers "freedom to choose" is simply a red herring.
Fine. I actually have no major objections to that. I was merely pointing out that portraying oneself as a defender of individual teachers "freedom to choose" what to teach inaccurate.
In your case, you wish to assign the choice of what will be taught to some defined or nebulous corporate groupt of teachers and/or biologists.
Fine, but don't claim this is a defense of academic freedom, which by definition applies to individuals. It is merely a dispute about who will control the power to force teachers to teach certain things.
Odd word usage. My family, a long line of nuclear engineers and biologists, thinking for themselves -- came to the conclusion of Creationism.
Are you assuming my family is less intelligent because of the thought process that lead them to this?
Sounds... elitist.
I haven't noticed a lot of people advocating teacher's right to teach anything they want. The question is whether science curriculum will be developed by people trained in science or by politicians.
But if "critical thinking" become required, it will be applied to things that are currently given light treatment, such as the age of the earth. I would love to see students learn the history of geology.
Tell them to register here and we'll be happy to chat with them. Perhaps they'll do better than you're doing.
Responding to teacher's rights to teach anything they want, isn't this along the lines of havin a right to "choose" what teachers teach -- unless touchy or biased teaching is eliminated?
Not to be paranoid, but, when do people have the right over the family? Sounds like another "Left" talking point. Maybe my school should implement classes on "Liberalism", because said hypothetical professors think it is the right thing to do.
Talk to an elitist pundit who lacks respect for others? Your mockery humors me. Why are you on a conservative board?
I have no idea what you are talking about. It certainly isn't in response to anything I posted.
Wrong individual! I had lost my place.
:)
Been there, done that.
"My family, a long line of nuclear engineers and biologists, thinking for themselves -- came to the conclusion of Creationism."
My family consists of 6 Noble prize winners, 3 presidents, and a few saints. They all accept evolution.
And my uncle has 4 doctorates.
Top that!
:)
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.