Darwinian Conservatism: An Evolutionary Dead End (Book Review)

Intellectual Conservative ^ | October 11, 2006 | Seth Cooper

[wideawake]

Thanks for posting this.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a "theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a "universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong.

[TeenagedConservative]

If there is no God, then why do we have this desire to leave something around for future generations?

If there is a God, why invoke evolution to explain origins?

[orionblamblam]

> In his recent book, Carson Holloway demonstrates the inability of neo-Darwinian theory to undergird the moral framework that is essential to a liberal democracy's survival.

How about the Theory of Relativity? The Laws of Thermodynamics? Quantum Theory? The Germ Theory of disease?

Attacking a scientific theory because it does not provide a "moral framework" is stupid and dishonest, and any conservative should be ashamed and apalled to be associated with such a ridiculous effort.

[orionblamblam]

> why do we have this desire to leave something around for future generations?


Evolution gave us that. Some people think that evolution is all about creating some wonderful new critter... when all it really is is a means of preserving and propogating DNA. The purpose to all life on the planet is to pass on one's DNA. Consequently, having an interest in leaving a better world for your kids is an evolutionary advantage for perpetuating your DNA.

This bothers some people. Shrug. Some people were bothered by not being the center of the universe.

[Alter Kaker]

Seth Cooper is an attorney and former law and policy analyst for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.

A lawyer critiquing science...and creationists are surprised we don't take them seriously!

[Califelephant]

"The purpose to all life on the planet is to pass on one's DNA."

All this time I've been looking up to Jesus and Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II, but I guess they didn't do a very good job of fulfilling the "purpose" of their lives on the planet.

[VadeRetro]

If ID is winning, why are all these articles coming from the prestigious Discovery Institute with its non-transparent funding?

[highball]

Attacking a scientific theory because it does not provide a "moral framework" is stupid and dishonest, and any conservative should be ashamed and apalled to be associated with such a ridiculous effort.

Agreed.

I must confess to an astonishing naïveté in my past - I used to believe that only liberals insist that facts conform to political dogma.

Imagine my surprise and shame when I learned that some sefl-described "conservatives" eagerly do the exact same thing.

[orionblamblam]

> I guess they didn't do a very good job of fulfilling the "purpose" of their lives on the planet.

No, they did not. But they found some *other* purpose in their lives. Humans have evolved enough intelligence and consciousness to find other things beyond what is encoded within us.

[be4everfree]

The "moral framework" is what is essential for the survival of a liberal democracy.

The author is basically saying, "life is better with religon as a moral basis than neo-Darwinism" because there are no moral absolutes if they are Man-made.

[Revolting cat!]

Interesting review. Key paragraph:

Observing that the Darwinian understanding of human nature holds that morality "emerged to promote success in the conflicts between groups that prevailed during the period that our nature evolved," Holloway concludes that Darwinism contravenes any universal moral standards rooted in human nature. Since the Darwinian account of humankind maintains that moral obligations arise through desires and feelings we've obtained via undirected evolution, there is no basis for preferring a mere feeling of common humanity over a desire to oppress others to achieve gain for one's self or for one's family. The lack of any clear recognition of universal moral standards renders problematic any international order respecting human rights. It also undermines the demands of justice in any large domestic order. There is always the prospect of tyranny by the majority, and a Darwinian account of morality leaves no reliable basis for the minority to assert their own rights.

Evolutionaries are on the ropes!

[orionblamblam]

> The author is basically saying, "life is better with religon as a moral basis than neo-Darwinism"

Too bad it's a false dichotomy.

"Life is better with religon as a moral basis than Relativity."

"Life is better with religon as a moral basis than quantum mechanics."

Basically, what the author is arguing is that science should be dispensed with, especially when it presents a problem for religious ideology.

[VadeRetro]

I must confess to an astonishing naïveté in my past - I used to believe that only liberals insist that facts conform to political dogma.

Creationism has embraced the post-modernist "facts are whatever we need them to be" silliness, yes. "All your evidence for evolution is just your silly uniformitarian atheist communist INTERPRETATION," you know. There's absolutely no reason to favor one interpretation over another except our needs in the battle of Good versus Evil.

Whereas the very idea of science is that there does exist an objective reality and systematically analyzing it works.

[be4everfree]

Maybe scientists should stop digging up fossils, seems to be a forgone conclusion. They could spend their time working on real theories like relativity.

[orionblamblam]

A paleontologist or geologist would ahve a bit of trouble with Relativity. Just like a rocket scientist would make a poor brain surgeon (and vice versa).

A better solution: people should stop going to church. Same Bible has been in place for hundreds of years... just read the damned thing and be done with it.

[Oberon]

I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a "theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a "universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong.

You won't, because taken in those terms, Darwinism is precisely what Dawkins and Dennett say it is.

Darwinism is internally consistent and functions tolerably well as the basis for a naturalistic worldview. That it is also functioning as a naturalistic religion when viewed in that capacity is rather beside the point. That its inevitable outcome is nihilism is left more or less as an exercise for the student.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Basically, what the author is arguing is that science should be dispensed with, especially when it presents a problem for religious ideology.

In other words, he wants us to live in an Amish Paradise?

[stands2reason]

Because they are illogical.

[be4everfree]

I suppose if the Bible had changed as often as evolutionary theory has we would have more people studying the Bible.