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

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

[curiosity]

It's interesting how inconsistent those poll numbers.

For instance, 57% of 18-35 year-olds say they believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor and that the fossil record proves Darwin's theory, but then only 25% say they believe in evolution. Wierd.

It seems as though they are confused about what the pollster meant by the word "evolution." Given that it's contrasted with the word "creationism," the most likely explanation of the discrepancy is that they were under the impression that by "evolution" the pollster meant some atheistic version of the theory, rather than the purely scientific one, which neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

At any rate, that 57% of 18-35 year-olds believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor does not bode well for creationists' political future, nor does it bode well for the future of any political party that would embrace creationist dogma.

[ModelBreaker]

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.

Unless evolutionary biology results in a fallen nature that may, on occasion, be overcome with the Grace of God.

The 'realist' view the author speaks of is a direct descendant of the Judaeo/Christian notion of the fall. It is a view of human nature that, if posed as a hypothesis, would have overwhelming historical support, just in the last century. It is not surprising that Burke, Locke and the founding fathers all grew up in overtly Christian nations. Their view of human nature was a Judaeo/Christian view, regardless whether it was explicitly grounded on scripture.

Fortunately, our nation was founded by folks with such a viewpoint and the consitution was designed for fallen man. That's the heart of the dispute about the 'living constitution.' Should we break and then remake the bones of our society to accomodate perfectable, new man?

Western world views are still stuck in the Locke vs Rousseau dispute. Until we come up with a pill that changes the nature of man, Rousseau's disciples will continue to inflict untold misery on their compatriots here on Earth.

[Junior]

Isn't that just a really dumb way to measure time?

No, not really.

[bobdsmith]

At any rate, that 57% of 18-35 year-olds believe that humans and apes share a common ancestor does not bode well for creationists' political future, nor does it bode well for the future of any political party that would embrace creationist dogma.

Or you could interpret it as the older people get the less they accept evolution.

[cornelis]

Hobbes vs. Rousseau?

Hobbes thought man was from the start and by nature uncivil, one against the other. Rousseau the opposite, as naturally Good.

The Christian view is holds man was from the start and by nature civil, for and with man and God, but that sin destroyed that perfection. The Christian view holds that Christ death and resurrection redeems this nature and promises a resurrection after death.

Regarding the nature of mankind, its moral perfectability is still a promise in the Christian view, but not without divine agency. You'd be right to say this is the view that is predominant for conservatives.

[DannyTN]

But clearly any party that embraced evolution dogma, would be instantly marginalized today. Republicans could lose up to 75% of their party, were they to drive off the creationists as many frevo's suggest.

[ToryHeartland]

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

..Because, ultimately, they really aren't conservatives at all? Sounds like blackmail.

I'm not entirely conversant with the situation in the USA. In the UK, although we have been under the bloody socialists since 1997, I am very optimistic about the next general election. Rational conservatism ultimately, I believe, captures the centre as well as the political right; Blair's trick was to wrap himself in Tory clothes and capture the centre (but he's losing it now); here, at least, it is the mass at the centre of the bell curve that swings elections, not the fringes.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" In any case, all such ideologies, built up as they are on the concepts of racism and statist totalitarian aggression and control, are direct products of the Darwinian doctrines of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest."

Nonsense.

"Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosophical father of these systems, was an ardent evolutionist,..."

He was rather ambivalent toward evolution, and certainly did not like natural selection.

"as were his spiritual children, Hitler and Mussolini."

Hitler never mentioned Darwin but did quite often speak of the Aryan race as being the perfect creation of God. He thought species were fixed.

" From the ‘preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’ (i.e., Darwin’s subtitle to Origin of Species), it was a short step to the preservation of favoured individuals, classes or nations—and from their preservation to their glorification."

The *races* had absolutely nothing to do with human races. They were biological sub-species/varieties. Darwin didn't even discuss human evolution in the Origin.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwinists are categorized as Leftists due to the idea that humans are... well... human."

Postmodernist definitions of leftist don't count.

"These supposed human animals are considered weak besides themselves, inferior of mind, and in need of the superior "controls" provided by society, whether such controls be to shape the human mindset, or to design yet another "superior" animal through nature."

Absolute BS. Where do you get this junk?

[DannyTN]

You might be reading too much into that younger demographic. The comparisons to 10 years ago, show that we are becoming less accepting of evolution as a whole. Unfortunately the time comparisons are not broken down by age range.

It's possible that the younger generation having been indoctrinated by the presentation of only one side in school, is more accepting of evolution. But once they turn older they reevaluate what they were taught.

The Harris Poll^® #52, July 6, 2005

Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God

Opinions are divided about evolution theories

Earlier this year, the State Board of Education in Kansas reignited an old debate – whether or not creationism should be taught in public schools – and shone the spotlight on a new theory, intelligent design. While many in the scientific community may question why this issue has been raised again, a new national survey shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. adults (64%) agree with the basic tenet of creationism, that "human beings were created directly by God."

At the same time, approximately one-fifth (22%) of adults believe "human beings evolved from earlier species" (evolution) and 10 percent subscribe to the theory that "human beings are so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them" (intelligent design). Moreover, a majority (55%) believe that all three of these theories should be taught in public schools, while 23 percent support teaching creationism only, 12 percent evolution only, and four percent intelligent design only.

These are some of the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,000 U.S. adults surveyed by telephone by Harris Interactive^® between June 17 and 21, 2005.

Other key findings include:

• A majority of U.S. adults (54%) do not think human beings developed from earlier species, up from 46 percent in 1994.
• Forty-nine percent of adults believe plants and animals have evolved from some other species while 45 percent do not believe that.
• Adults are evenly divided about whether or not apes and man have a common ancestry (46 percent believe we do and 47 percent believe we do not).
• Again divided, 46 percent of adults agree that "Darwin’s theory of evolution is proven by fossil discoveries," while 48 percent disagree.

Factors such as age, education, political outlook, and region appear to guide views on this debate.

• In general, older adults (those 55 years of age and older), adults without a college degree, Republicans, conservatives, and Southerners are more likely to embrace the creationism positions in the questions asked.
• Those with a college education, Democrats, independents, liberals, adults aged 18 to 54 and those from the Northeast and West support the belief in evolution in larger numbers. However, among these groups, majorities believe in creationism.
• Despite the significant numbers who believe in creationism, pluralities among the demographic subgroups examined still believe all three concepts (evolution, creationism, and intelligent design) should be taught in public schools.

TABLE 1

DID HUMANS DEVELOP FROM EARLIER SPECIES?

"Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?"

Base: All Adults

	March 1994	June 2005
	%	%
Yes, I think human beings developed from earlier species.	44	38
No, I do not think human beings developed from earlier species.	46	54
Not sure/Decline to answer	11	8

Note: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding

TABLE 2

PLANT AND ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT FROM OTHER SPECIES

"Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?"

Base: All Adults

	June 2005
	%
Yes, I believe plants and animals have evolved from some other species.	49
No, I do not believe plants and animals have evolved from some other species.	45
Not sure/Decline to answer	7

Note: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding.

TABLE 3

DO MAN AND APES HAVE COMMON ANCESTRY?

"Do you believe apes and man have a common ancestry or not?"

Base: All Adults

	July 1996	June 2005
	%	%
Yes, apes and man do have a common ancestry.	51	46
No, apes and man do not have a common ancestry.	43	47
Not sure/Decline to answer	5	7

Note: Percentages may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding.

[labette]

"No where else in the world do Conservatives have the anti-science stance which a small (but rather vocal) group of American social conservatives do. It's a pity, because we are otherwise all natural allies over issues of substance."

If only you fully realized what you just said.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

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

Your great debating skills and willingness to back up your claims no doubt terrified them.

[freespirited]

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)

Danny, the numbers you put up a few posts below contradict her thesis about liberalism being godless. According to the chart, 32% of liberals accept human evolution; 48% believe in creationism.

Liberalism makes me nuts, but it's not intellectually honest to equate it with godlessness.

[A0ri]

These discussions remind me too often of ELITEST Leftist threads where they ridicule the opposing view (Creationists) to gross measures. Keep science out of politics unless it actually "matters" to the politics -- the majority of Conservatives are of a differing opinion than "elitist" troll posters.

Simple question:

What value is human life to an Evolutionist versus that of a Christian? How do Evolutionists view abortion?

I gaurantee their views are not those of the common Conservative.

[cornelis]

How does this relate to the theory of evolution?

The theory of evolution, which is about biological motion, has precious little to do with the understanding of original sin. Original sin, however, is very influential in conservatism, pinpointing the cause human nature's fallibility as well as the source of human nature's perfectibility.

[PatrickHenry]

What value is human life to an Evolutionist versus that of a Christian? How do Evolutionists view abortion?

What value is human life to a physicist versus that of a Christian? How do physicists view abortion?

[ToryHeartland]

If only you fully realized what you just said.

It would be more courteous to enlighten rather than attempt to patronise me. But your choice.

[DannyTN]

"Danny, the numbers you put up a few posts below contradict her thesis about liberalism being godless."

I agree with you. The majority of the democratic party majority still believes in God. But many of their positions like abortion and homosexuality, seem to indicate that they treat the Bible as irrelevant. I think some of those positions reflect the democratic parties leadership, and not the democratic party membership.

[stands2reason]

Well, the main problem with the left is they hate that man creature. They hate his family, how he thinks, how he lives and they want to change it all up.


But it is not possible to change the nature of man.

[A0ri]

Who cares? It hasn't the relevance to what I had asked.

I would be certain though, if the physicist were an evolutionist, his tendency to view the subject of abortion would be to side with it.

Mighty large assumption eh?