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.
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.
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.
No, not really.
Or you could interpret it as the older people get the less they accept evolution.
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.
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.
..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.
"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?
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
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:
Factors such as age, education, political outlook, and region appear to guide views on this debate.
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.
If only you fully realized what you just said.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
What value is human life to a physicist versus that of a Christian? How do physicists view abortion?
It would be more courteous to enlighten rather than attempt to patronise me. But your choice.
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.
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.
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?
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.