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.
"Those who support evolution, never include how the universe took shape into evolution..."
Contrary to the evolutionists I have seen, which was why I posted the link.
Well, we have been startled since before the July 4th celebrations...fireworks for personal use are legal here...and they start selling them a few days before the 4th, and there is a time frame during which time they can be set off...but the kids are still setting off some, which they held back from the holiday...we never know when something will go off...
And since we live near the Indian Reservations, there is a endless suppy of firecrackers, M-80s and quarter sticks of dynamite...Illegal stuff, mind you, but they set it off nonetheless...
And of course, I live near Ft. Lewis, so we have to put up with all the artillery shelling practice..they always post in the papers, when artillery shelling will begin and end, but we always forget, and when it starts its quite a shock...
Evolution applies integration of science and related studies.
I will ask you again.
How old was Adam exactly one half second after he was created?
What does the Bible say?
Its true, that many who support evolution, also have 'opinions' on how the universe began...but that is not included in a discussion of evolution...unless a creationist insists on it...evolution discusses 'living' entities, not the earth, nor the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, nor anything else in the sky...
You have obviously confused the beginning of the physical universe(the sun, the moon, the stars, etc), with 'living' beings...no matter how much you want to insist that the 'how', of in what manner, the physical universe came to be, to be included in the discussion of the evolution of living beings, they are two separate and distinct areas of study...
Oh, for goodness sake, he was 20-30 yrs old, according to many creationists I have talked to...(just how they claim to know this is a mystery to me, since they were not there to view Adam)
Now if God could create a man to appear to be 20-30 yrs old, 1/2 second after he was created, God could also create dinosaurs only a few thousand years ago, but make them appear to be much older(millions of years old), in much the same manner as he created Adam...
Is this the gist of the question, and expected answer?
Here, I was gloating at having Atilla the Hun in my family, but a demigod - you win!
It is a part of evolution theory and you disagree. Not too surprising. Do you understand what properties lead to the evolution you understand it to be? It appears you do not recognize the importance of the theory's scientific entire chain..
Son, I have been plying the roads of biology for more years than you are old (probably) and I know thousands of biologiasts of assorted stripes. I know of none that includes the origin of the universe in their view of the theory of evolution. I don't know what circles you travel in, but I'd get out a little more.
What in the heck are you talking about ...the formation of the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, is now part of the theory of evolution?....
You are the one who fails to understand...
So, like you have deemed yourself competent to determine who and who is not a true 'Christian', as you did earlier on this thread, you now have decided who does and who does not 'really' understand the evolution...
Quite amazing...
Great. I have been in biology too. I beg to differ that said communities do not make such claims. It is called "atheism".
Maybe you are too old to see cearly.
*Sarcasm*
If you'd like, I'll take a stab.
Adam and Even is an allegorical story.
There never was an Adam, so his age after "creation" is meaningless. But I believe AAMM gave the answer you wanted. Nonetheless your point has no effect on Carolina Guitarman's original point. A god that would trick and purposely fool his worshippers concerning the age of the universe, the age of the Earth and the fossil record, is more than a little wanting.
Maybe you fail to read what was written. I make no claim as to what makes a person Christian -- I make claim to the population/religion/politics break-down of the thought process associated with each.
To you, perhaps. To the faculty where I attended grad school, where part of my study was evolution, fossil man, human osteology, etc., it was not the case. They did not include cosmology and astronomy and the abiogenesis parts of biology in my studies.
Now, this may be a disappointment to you and other creationists, because you seem so sure that evolutions are all trained in these fields, but that we are just lying to you and covering up when we claim otherwise.
You know, one of the problems we have in discussing these matters with you is that so few of you have studied these fields of science. Many of you, perhaps, are in computer related fields. mathematics, or engineering, but so few of you are in the biological, paleontological, and related sciences which deal directly with evolution. As a result, many of you are unaware of the actual course of study which is currently taught.
Try searching online for some college catalogues. I would be very surprised to see astronomy or cosmology in many of the biological or evolutionary science curricula.
Here you go, one of the first definitions I web-searched,
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evoldef.htm
And you still make a judgement...which holds true for your particular beliefs, and nothing more...
For your enjoyment,
"Cosmology is the branch of astronomy which deals with the origin and formation of the general structure of the universe.
Abiogenesis refers to first life - the production of living organisms from inanimate matter.
Micro-evolution or speciation refers to populational and species change through time. There are many published examples of speciation, if by the development of a new "species" we mean the development of a new population of individuals which will not breed with the original population to produce fertile offspring. Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists, dispute.
Macro-evolution or general evolution refers the progression to more complex forms of life. The mechanisms of macro-evolution, including whether or not micro-evolution over a long enough time leads to macro-evolution, can be regarded as a "research topic" (Berra 1990, 12)."
First, that isn't the doctrine as I understand it. Second, unless you're maintaining that some human ancestor species was in a state of grace, you can't speak of man having a "fallen nature."
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.