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

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

[Restorer]

"Fitness" in the context of evolution is relative to environment with no absolute standard.

Absolutely. If eventually only Aryans survived, because they had killed everybody else, Aryans would by definition be the most fit.

[Junior]

Just read in Friday's local paper on an article that there are 35 million reasons why humanity didn't evolve from chimps ...

Huh? Methinks you either misread the article or are making this up. Science has never said man evolved from chimps. Man and chimps evolved from a common ancestor and split somewhere between 5MYA and 7MYA.

[Dimensio]

Absolutely. If eventually only Aryans survived, because they had killed everybody else, Aryans would by definition be the most fit.

It would remain to be seen if such extermination did not ultimately adversely affect the reproductive success of the Aryans.

[Restorer]

Free market capitalism is just Darwinism applied to economics.

It is a very odd fact that many of the most ardent supporters of biological evolution are equally ardent against its economic application, and that the reverse is also true.

Most American Creationists are big fans of the free market, despite the fact that a "planned economy" is in many ways an economic expression of Creationism.

[ToryHeartland]

Just read in Friday's local paper on an article that there are 35 million reasons why humanity didn't evolve from chimps and that scientists have turned elsewhere to explain humanity's evolution.

Not Darwin, nor any other scientist has ever claimed that humanity evolved from "chimps." Only Creationists state that--as a grotesque and ignorant paradoy of the actual theory of evolution.

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

[PatrickHenry]

If various modern concepts regarding the origin of life and the universe can be referred to as Darwinian, as they often are, despite Darwin's never discussing such issues ...

I'm not going to get involved in an argument premised on a clear misuse of terms.

... then on what basis can similar extrapolations on his work to the "racial struggle" be refused status as Darwinian in type simply because you disagree with their conclusions?

Darwin used the term "race" interchangeably with "species" and "sub-species," (or variety). Regarding humans, in disagreement with most educated opinion of his day, he clearly concluded that all humans were the same species. His biological theory has no connection to the racial prejudices of other people -- except that other people may claim such a connection.

[cornelis]

The primary difference between knowledge and ignorance is that knowledge has limits.

The biggest problem with limited knowledge is a presumption that what we don't know therefore doesn't exist. This can lead to the fallacy that Socrates pointed out: thinking to know something when you don't, which is called hubris.

[GarySpFc]

Though not much in vogue currently, the fascistic systems of Hitler, Mussolini, and others almost conquered the world a generation ago. There are even now neo-Nazi movements which bear watching, as well as various dictatorships of similar character around the world; not to mention the “new left” student movement which strangely resembles the early days of Nazism.

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. Friedrich Nietzsche, the philosophical father of these systems, was an ardent evolutionist, as were his spiritual children, Hitler and Mussolini.

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. Social Darwinism has often been understood in this sense: as a philosophy, exalting competition, power and violence over convention, ethics and religion. Thus it has become a portmanteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race .recent expressions of this philosophy, such as (Hitler’s) Mein Kampf are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here. And it is by an obvious process of analogy and deduction that they are said to derive from Darwinism. Nietzsche predicted that this would be the consequence if the Darwinian theory gained general acceptance.

Fascism is generally held to be a right-wing movement and Communism a left-wing. Both, however, are the variants of the same species, evolutionistic, totalitarian collectivism. In any case, it is clear that the basic rationale of Communism, just as that of Fascism, is the dogma of materialistic evolution.

In an age of social Darwinism, the combination of the ideas of struggle, of historical evolution, and of progress proved irresistible. The Marxists became merely a sect in the larger church . In urging these lessons, Marx and Engels set the pattern of all subsequent Marxist polemics by using what may be called the evolutionist’s double standard: when you do it, it’s wrong, because you are the past; when we do it, it’s right, for we are the future. The mood—borrowed from science—is that of a mighty ruthlessness. History like nature, is tough.

It is well known that not only the early Communists, such as Marx and Engels, were atheistic evolutionists but also that all the leaders of Communism since have been the same. Though they have fluctuated between Darwinian and Lamarckian biology in their application of evolutionary mechanisms to communist theory, they have never varied in their commitment to evolution itself.

[ModelBreaker]

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

[A0ri]

The article is nonsense and philosophically weak, as is to be expected of generic Leftist justifications or twists for social ideologies. Darwinists are categorized as Leftists due to the idea that humans are... well... human. Nothing more and nothing less -- a sort of animal and creature of raw or flawed nature that is in tremendous need of correctional measure. 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. Social "Left" would state that to reach perfection, the unintelligent and weak person(s) is/are in need of the superior scientific corrections provided.

[Coyoteman]

Though not mu [snip] tment to evolution itself.

Horsefeathers. This is evolution.

---

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[steve-b]

it is an interesting approach to claim Darwinism refutes leftism

The coterie of court philosophers responsible for propping up Soviet ideology understood this perfectly. That's why the Stalin regime sent people to Siberia for the crime of believing the evidence for Darwin rather than the Party's preference for Lamarck.

[Restorer]

Some quotes from Darwin that the Nazis would certainly have agreed with:

"A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection."

He was apparently not opposed to the idea that natural selection also applied to human groups.

"Many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species."

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world... The break between men and his nearest allies will then be wider."

The Nazi program in a nutshell, presented by Darwin as inevitable. He also pretty clearly viewed the "inferior races" as closer to the apes than us superior beings.

[labette]

I propose a simple test we can make.
Keep a notepad with you while driving.Whenever you see this on the back of a car:

Check the bumper for stickers indicating political affiliation.Be sure to keep an honest score now!

[steve-b]

they have fluctuated between Darwinian and Lamarckian biology

The latter being "Intelligent Design", of course.

[Restorer]

FYI, the author of this article is by no means a leftist.

[PatrickHenry]

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world... The break between men and his nearest allies will then be wider."

That's a classic out-of-context quote, often used by creationist websites. Darwin was discussing gaps in the fossil record, and he used as an example how some varieties go extinct, leaving an inevitable "gap" in the record. He never advocated genocide -- although loads of creationist websites attempt to give that impression.

[tallhappy]

Nothing like people trying to waste as much time on the aughts equivalent of navel gazing.

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[ClaireSolt]

I am generally opposed to most -isms and -ists. I find the work of Howard Bloom very interesting. He calls himself an evolutionist. Behe, on the other hand is a biochemist, I believe. Darwinism is too limiting.

[tallhappy]

Check the bumper for stickers indicating political affiliation.Be sure to keep an honest score now!

Hey man "Darwinists" do not want rationality or actual inquiry any more than any kneejerk fundamentalist.