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

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

[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.

[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.