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

The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

[edsheppa]

The conclusions of evolutionary biology about human nature at their core, restate the doctrine of Original Sin.

That's an interesting view but I disagree. The analogy fails because sin is a choice whereas one can hardly be said to have chosen ones evolutionary history.

[Erasmus]

Everyone be nice.

As always, Rotsa Ruck!

[Dimensio]

I spent years trying to reason with atheistic brick walls to no avail.

How does this relate to the current discussion or justify your inability to provide evidence for your claims?

[DannyTN]

"But she (Ann Coulter) hasn’t thought through any of this.

If conservative darling Ann Counter doesn't agree with evolutionists, then it must be because Ann just hasn't thought through it. Yeah, that's the ticket. It's not possible that she evaluated evolutionist arguments and found them wanting, she must just not know what she's saying. She needs more education. No rational person could possibly dissagree with evolutionists. It's just unthinkable. (saaaaaaaaaaaaarcasm off)

[b_sharp]

"Somebody wasted an awful lot of time compiling "35 million" reasons for refuting a strawman."

LOL.

That's the image that initially came to mind as I read the post. A pointy headed propagandist hunched over his poorly lit desk, pencil in hand, enumerating his hate and fear.

This is just another creationist misuse of data. They correctly assume that any numbers presented, no matter how misleading, will resonate and be believed by their audience.

For some reason they think counting the single nucleotide differences between Homo sapiens and Pan will give them an accurate account.

[Erasmus]

Man and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and split somewhere between 5MYA and 7MYA.

Isn't that just a really dumb way to measure time? Next year we'll have to revise that statement to say,

"somewhere betweeen 5.000001 and 7.000001 MYA."

[Liberal Classic]

Excellent thread on the larger political issue. Thank you for posting it.

The utopians believe that the perfect, world-wide society can be orchestrated, if only the right people are in charge. They believe in government by intelligentsia design. Realists understand that social institutions such as markets and juries and so forth have come about through an arduous process of trial and error over the centuries. Languages and societies evolve. It is so hard to realize this is a reflection of the natural world around us? Coming to this realization emphasizes the worth of traditional social institutions such as marriage and religion.

[Dimensio]

If conservative darling Ann Counter doesn't agree with evolutionists, then it must be because Ann just hasn't thought through it. Yeah, that's the ticket. It's not possible that she evaluated evolutionist arguments and found them wanting, she must just not know what she's saying. She needs more education. No rational person could possibly dissagree with evolutionists. It's just unthinkable. (saaaaaaaaaaaaarcasm off)

Conclusions regarding Coulter's lack of knowledge of the subject of evolution are drawn based upon demonstratably false claims on the subject, including appeals to commonly debunked creationist lies. Statements regarding her ignorance on the subject are not made simply because she rejects the theory and it is not honest to suggest such.

[b_sharp]

"Dimensio if main stream scientists does accepts that evolution does not "explain how life came into being"... what area of science it is looking in to what that non-evolution life creating means is and if so does it continue to operate in parallel to evolution"

Abiogenesis, which is primarily made up of biochemists. It is thought that the original pre/proto-life were subject to Evolutionary mechanisms but that hasn't been verified.

The mechanisms of the SToE have been well studied, tested and verified to work with life. It is unknown to what degree it works with pre-life.

[Gumlegs]

Even misapplications of these ideas are therefore Darwinian in some sense.

Are misapplications of Christianity Christian in some sense?

[jwh_Denver]

"The Creationists/ID-iots are an embarrassment - and a clear, present danger - to the Conservative Cause."

Did you give it any thought if your "clear and present danger" people just up and left the conservative cause?

[D-fendr]

Darwin thought these moral emotions of indignation at injustice would have evolved to favor cooperative groups.

This is still a conditional or relative-valued morality. Logically, you would have to also support injustice as "moral' if it were more useful in survival/reproduction.

You can't get to an absolute (non-conditional) morality from here. So in this instance Darwinism supports the left's moral relativism.

[DannyTN]

"The religious objections to Darwin 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. "

Evo's are always trying to marginalize Creationists as "fundamentals" or as "a curse on conservatives". But the polling shows a dramatically different story.

Table 8 from the following link, shows that only 27% of Republicans believe that humans developed from other species. Overall only 36% of people nationwide believed this.

Harris Poll on evolution- See table 8 for a breakdown by political party

Polling Report

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. August 25-26,1999. N=902 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. .
"Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on Earth: the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists, the biblical account of creation as told in the Bible, or are both true?"
%
Theory of evolution 15
Biblical account 50
Both 26
Not sure 9

77% of Republicans believe in the literal truth of the Bible whereas 59% of Democrats do.

Another poll

[ValenB4]

"The religious objections toDarwin come from fundamentalist Christians and Muslims"

Ouch. That's gotta hurt.

[DannyTN]

TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION – BY PARTY ID AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Base: All Adults

	All Adults (n=1,000)	Party ID			Political Philosophy
		Republican (n=391)	Democrat (n=439)	Independent (n=170)	Conservative (n=538)	Moderate (n=103)	Liberal (n=359)
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT FROM EARLIER SPECIES
Yes	38	27	48	36	25	40	56
No	54	65	44	53	65	52	37
PLANT AND ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT
Yes	49	37	61	47	38	50	65
No	45	58	33	42	53	46	31
MAN AND APES HAVE COMMON ANCESTRY
Yes	46	30	61	44	37	36	63
No	47	62	32	47	56	52	31
DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION PROVEN BY FOSSIL EVIDENCE
Yes	46	37	55	43	36	40	62
No	48	58	40	45	58	43	35
HUMAN EVOLUTION
Belief in evolution	22	16	27	25	16	22	32
Belief in creationism	64	73	58	57	75	63	48
Belief in intelligent design	10	9	11	7	7	4

TABLE 9

SUMMARY OF KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION – BY AGE AND REGION

Base: All Adults

	All Adults (n=1,000)	Age			Region
		18-34 (n=258)	35-54 (n=374)	55+ (n=340)	Northeast (n=213)	Midwest (n=220)	South (n=349)	West (n=218)
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT FROM EARLIER SPECIES
Yes	38	46	38	29	52	37	28	41
No	54	46	53	61	38	57	64	50
PLANT AND ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT
Yes	49	51	50	46	63	47	41	51
No	45	45	44	46	28	48	54	42
MAN AND APES HAVE COMMON ANCESTRY
Yes	46	57	45	39	60	43	40	44
No	47	37	48	52	32	50	52	48
DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION PROVEN BY FOSSIL EVIDENCE
Yes	46	57	48	35	58	43	36	52
No	48	41	44	58	37	47	56	47
HUMAN EVOLUTION
Belief in evolution	22	25	25	16	30	17	17	28
Belief in creationism	64	60	59	73	52	72	71	56
Belief in intelligent design	10	11	9	9	13	9	8	10

Methodology

[cornelis]

Good point, D-fendr

Add to this yet another key understanding of conservatism: it recognizes the imperfectability of human nature and therefore rejects the false hope of an ideal order (so often promised by modern isms) that it would produce "given time plus chance."

According to Edmund Burke, a principal forerunner of conservatism, the moral perfectibility of human nature in this life is atheism, the moral imperfection of human nature theism.

[DannyTN]

When Muslims are less than 1% of the population, his mentioning them appears to be an attempt to equate Christians with Muslims.

[Dimensio]

Add to this yet another key understanding of conservatism: it recognizes the imperfectability of human nature and therefore rejects the false hope of an ideal order (so often promised by modern isms) that it would produce "given time plus chance."

How does this relate to the theory of evolution?

[RightWingNilla]

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.

The crux of the biscuit. Great article.

[PatrickHenry]

Yes, the crux of the biscuit.