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 think many don't like the time thing. Miracles should happen instantaneously, not take eons. They don't find creation as "miraculous" if it takes a long time.
As if the idea of time to God meant anything...Time is physical, and God is beyond that.
Like I said, Gandalf writ large (Chriss Angel writ large?)
Great point. Another example of making God in one's own image.
Appearances are determined the the reason and senses with which you have been endowed. Do you think them to be perfect and incapable of deceit??
After being asked the question many times, I am glad to see a little progress, though the question was still not answered.
By the way, you don't have to keep repeating your opinion over again, we can deal with that later.
I am quite aware without your unnecessary repetition that you think someone's God is a liar. (If you continue to repeat your opinion after you already have several times, it begins to look suspicious)
Also you don't have to 'hint', just step right up and say you don't believe God created man in His image and called him Adam.
Since you don't believe God created Adam I will ask the question another way. Although many other people had no problem answering for you I will give you another chance since you are the one who called someone's God a liar.
If the Bible is right and God did create a man who is called Adam, how old was Adam exactly one half second after he was created?
If you will have the courage to answer, we can test your opinion.
The form of the car's parts may be as early as 2004. The substance involved in those parts - science does not yet know how old it is.
The primary purpose of the fossil record from God's perspective is most likely to impress upon us the fact of mortality. I mean, what is the common denominator for every single fossil? Death. But to ascribe deceit to God because the appearance of things might be different than they are in reality? What kind of game is that when science doesn't have a way of ascertaining for certain how old matter is, let alone what time is?
You are grasping at straws.
The primary purpose of the fossil record from God's perspective is most likely to impress upon us the fact of mortality. I mean, what is the common denominator for every single fossil? Death. But to ascribe deceit to God because the appearance of things might be different than they are in reality? What kind of game is that when science doesn't have a way of ascertaining for certain how old matter is, let alone what time is?
Does this mean you ARE a drunk college sophomore? I'd hate to think about what you would do with the Galactic Linguistic Coincidence of the term "jinantonix."
Seriously, to use a psychobabble rant about the "nature of time" on a science thread is pretty weak. If you have a scientific challenge, present it. If you have a philsophical "if Helen Keller falls in the forest, does she make a sound?" type of discussion, take it to... wait, I don't know where on FR we have a spot for that kind of thing.
The same age as Martin Milner, just like in the movie.
"You have a lot of faith in yourself. Good for you. But what is it worth?"
A content and happy life?
You said that it was not deceitful for God to create a universe that appeared to be old but wasn't, because God was eternal. Please try to stay focused.
"It is also fairly clear the rest of us are."
Speak for yourself. :)
If you care to present a scientific argument please do. How old is the matter that comprises your body?
Look back at my post, Mr. perfect reason and senses, and you'll see that I asked a question. I did not make a statement. Why don't you answer the question yourself? How is it deceitful for God to create a universe demonstrating age when He is essentially eternal?
Complete non sequitur (as well as begging the question, argument ad absurdium and probably mopery and dopery on the high seas). Yours is a philosphical question. If you have scientific one, please place it. If not, then please don't pester the adults on this thread.
But I do appreciate you exposing your agenda as one of a besotted child running under the dining room table.
"Look back at my post, Mr. perfect reason and senses, and you'll see that I asked a question. I did not make a statement."
Yes you did, Mr. Postmodern Prevarication.
"How is it deceitful for God to create a universe demonstrating age when He is essentially eternal?"
If the age that is demonstrated is nowhere near the actual age then the God is a lying, deceiving SOB.
That being said, I see no evidence that such an evil God exists.
You're the One!!! You Did It!
You stole my time and changed my appearance! You changed my family's genetic codes to make me and my family untelegenic!
I WAS a tall Swedish blonde bikini model. Now I'm short and dumpy with glasses and adult acne!!!!!
600
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.