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.
I suspect they're similar in that nobody really knows what went into making either one. I suspect they're not similar in that mystery meat actually exists in some situations, as opposed to the mystery text, whose existence is...questionable ;)
Since abiogensis is not usually discussed in Biology class, I am not surprised. The Big Bang has never been introduced in any biology text used in a public school I have ever seen. Please provide a link to the passage about the Big Bang introduced as part of TToe.
Not once did it say "God". The fact that the textbooks are silent on God's intervention is because we don't teach Religion as a factual subject in public school (that pesky 1st Amendment). As I said, that doesn't make it God-LESS, it makes it God-NUETRAL. God isn't mentioned in Archeology, Astronomy, Chemics, Physics or anywhere else His presence might have contributed to.
Do you really want to have every Creation Myth spelled out in every science class? It would take a hundred years to get out of High School!
Who is to say God did not desin Earth to look 4.5 odd billion years old? Amazing how evolution removes such theories from the picture.
That's not a "theory." You don't know what a "theory" is, do you? To posit such a guess (it doesn't even rise to "hyposthesis") tells us you don't know anything about science.
So, lets look at the tale of the tape:
This is why your evolution argument is flawed,
Science invokes a natural cause and natural law element to explain evolution and design. How far must one travel back in time to reach the Biblical position of a "beginning".
*Note: Odd dimensional theories do not skip origin.*
Which beginning is it? Evolution's beginning, or Creation's? If you state Creation, then you admit intelligent design explaining a nature of the universe.
That is Cosmology not Evolution.
"Not once did it say "God".
Of course not. Science doesn't address the God question - theology and philosophy do.
Wel, my 363 pretty much sums and wraps it up.
I suggest we abandon thread.
I may have erred!...{My comparison to football}....Perhaps I should have suggested tag team wrestling?
A lying trickster God?
Are you a Christian making this judgement? I see you must have some great Bible knowledge.
Lets start with this question. How old was Adam exactly one half second after he was created?
It is becoming a bit difficult for me to read and respond at the same time. Quite a few variations.
Ah, here we go with the old, old, tired argument, that the earth really is not old, God just designed it to look old...that is of course, like the same old tired argument, that Dinosaur bones, are actually not real in the sense that they provide evidence of such creatures that really existed...its just that God put them there to test man, or the Devil put them there to deceive man...
These are nothing but old arguments that have been around for such a long time...but it never fails, that someone brings them up..I wish they would come up with some newer and more creative and inventive stories...
I now await, someone to pop up, and tell us that Darwin recanted on his deathbed...we havent hear that old story for a while, its about due to pop up any time now...
Another philosophical addendum for everyone here. Is God even necessary for said universe to have taken shape?
"I may have erred!..."
True.
You got that right...There's this place...It's hot as Hell!..and we're doin' our best to stay away from there!
And miss all the philosophizing? :)
He's a creationist. He gets to make up anything he wants...
*Yet they fail to respond.*
Hey, there's some mighty big floors at NASA. Somebody's got to sweep & mop 'em.
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.