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.
Unless you are intimately involved with quantum physics it is mental masturbation of the lowest order.
It happens to have much to do with our interpretation of the evidence. You speak so confidently of your conclusions when in fact the tools of measurement you have are weak. For the most part you parrot what others say, accepting their word by faith and passing it along. Your conclusions about the age of the earth are little more than a wild guess.
Radiometric aging works just fine. It tells us how many years (within a reasonable tolerance). If you want to say "what's a year?" then I will have to wake up and you will disappear.
Ah, yes, according to the article The chip genome "led to literally too many questions; there were 35 million differences between us and chimpanzees--that's too much to figure out," Jonathan Rothberg, 454's chairman (454 Life Sciences Corp of Branford, CT). Further, the article points out "There are no firm answers yet about how humans picked up key traits such as walking upright and developing complex language."
Yet, humanity is expected to believe that we descended from apes. Believe what you like, but when even scientists can't answer the questions on evolution, however they're using up lots of time and effort and money to try to explain it, it appears that evolution IS NOT the answer.
The irony is delicious. Since it a Cr/Ider tactic to attack and insult since they have no rational argumentation. CarolinaG is pretty restrained, given the attacks he (and the rest of us who understand TToE) has to endure.
You even insult him IN THE VERY POST WHERE YOU BERATE HIM FOR INSULTING!
To wit: the same as any average koolaid drinking ACLU member. In fact, there is no discernable difference between you and an extreme secular liberal
Willful ignorance and ad hominem attacks are not a Conservative value (although they appear to be Creationist Values).
First time on a Crevo thread?
Bye Troll. :)
Not that I agree with your attack on bwc, but in any case, WOOPS! ...bwc is an evolutionist.
Now, this is what I call irony.
You attacked an evolutionist, bwc, for exposing Carolina Guitarman as a liberal, and all the while you were thinking bwc was a creationist.
Placemarker
There's another sucker born every minute.
What part of the physical universe is not governed by quantum physics?
Radiometric aging works just fine.
Radiometric dating is no substitute for direct observation, but entails, among other things, the unsubstantiated assumption the decay rate has always been the same. Am I to believe you yourself have applied radiometric dating? I doubt it. And even if/when you did, what was it you were dating? The age of the material, or the age of its form?
Maybe you'd like to settle for radiometric dating and remain satisfied with its answer. Fortunately real science is neither as lazy or dogmatic as you.
I stand by my statement. bwc, you are ACTING like a Creationist.
For Shame!
One of the dumbest things ever said on these threads -- and that is saying something. ALL OF SCIENCE is based on theories that tie together information, MOST OF WHICH IS INFERRED. We can't directly see neutrons, gravitons, or a lot of things that science tells us about. Do you think string theory or even the red shift were formulated based on DIRECT OBSERVATION? Even the existence of the planet PLUTO was a result of inference.
If you rely on direct observation, you immediately take yourself out of any scientific discussion. As you have this one.
but entails, among other things, the unsubstantiated assumption the decay rate has always been the same.
No it doesn't. Please, stop. You are really, really embarrassing yourself with your complete lack of knowledge of the topics at hand. If you want to start a sophomore philosophy thread, go ahead. I am sure the other sophomores and a few of the freshmen will get together and talk about the importance of the phonetics of "Jinandtonix." But it is time for you to quit pestering the grown-ups.
I also hope you are aware, using the same standards, that the average male Human and the average female Human differ by 45,500,000 base pairs.
That means that you differ more from your spouse than humans do from chimps.
Using your logic it would be difficult to believe a male is related to his mother.
If you are going to play games with numbers at least determine where those numbers are valid before proceeding.
By any measure, chimps are human's closest relatives. The difference between Humans and Chimps is less than the difference between Chimps and their second closest relatives the Gorilla.
Courtesy ping to stands2reason.
"Ah, yes, according to the article The chip genome "led to literally too many questions; there were 35 million differences between us and chimpanzees--that's too much to figure out," Jonathan Rothberg, 454's chairman (454 Life Sciences Corp of Branford, CT). Further, the article points out "There are no firm answers yet about how humans picked up key traits such as walking upright and developing complex language."
"Yet, humanity is expected to believe that we descended from apes. Believe what you like, but when even scientists can't answer the questions on evolution, however they're using up lots of time and effort and money to try to explain it, it appears that evolution IS NOT the answer.
"You are aware, I hope, that if you consider each and every single nucleotide variance between the Chimp genome and the Human genome as a single reason, giving 35,000,000 reasons to doubt the relationship that leaves 3,465,000,000 reasons to believe the relationship?
I also hope you are aware, using the same standards, that the average male Human and the average female Human differ by 45,500,000 base pairs.
That means that you differ more from your spouse than humans do from chimps.
Using your logic it would be difficult to believe a male is related to his mother.
If you are going to play games with numbers at least determine where those numbers are valid before proceeding.
By any measure, chimps are human's closest relatives. The difference between Humans and Chimps is less than the difference between Chimps and their second closest relatives the Gorilla.
Courtesy ping to stands2reason.
Do you think Adam's resemblance to God was physical?
If you will have the courage to answer, we can test your opinion.
Why don't you go ahead and make your point so we can rip it apart logically. You are not fooling anyone, we know where you are going with this.
He answered the question, if you are talking about how old Adam was.
He doesn't believe Adam existed, that he was allegory.
Now tell me, how old was the tooth fairy when it was created?
If you complain about insults while using them, it looks rather hypocritical.
But whatever, right? "An eye for an eye" Jesus said.
And no, he didn't answer the question, he evaded the question and let loose with insults as a justification for dodging.
We can accept evolution without becoming the equivalent of the extreme liberal progressives who betray their anti religious fanaticism.
Don't forget, this is a conservative forum and the fanaticism against conservative christians under the veil of evolution sounds exactly like the fanatics at DU and is unnecessary.
Happy trolling.
Don't forget, this is a conservative forum and the fanaticism against conservative christians under the veil of evolution sounds exactly like the fanatics at DU and is unnecessary.
What fanaticism against conservative Christians? I don't see any.
Happy trolling.
Oh, so now I'm a troll?
bwc -- Since Mar 20, 2006
You have some nerve to use the "T" word for a longtimer, Newbie. Or should I say "retread"?
Quoting OL: Since you don't believe God created Adam I will ask the question another way.
OL then asked the question with the acknowledgment that Guitar did not believe there was an Adam. Guitar still would not answer the question.
He wasn't being asked to believe the story, only to answer a question about the story, big diffence. OL can correct me if I am wrong.
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.