Darwinian Conservatism: An Evolutionary Dead End (Book Review)

Intellectual Conservative ^ | October 11, 2006 | Seth Cooper

[Heartlander]

October 11, 2006

Darwinian Conservatism: An Evolutionary Dead End

By

Seth Cooper |

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. A review of The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy.

The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy
by Carson Holloway
Spence Publishing Company (January 30, 2006)
Hdbk., 209 pgs.
ISBN: 1890626619

Darwinists often insist there are no scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory; only moral or religious objections to it. Equating neo-Darwinian theory with science itself, leading public relations and policy proponents of Darwinism thereby posit that science deals with facts, whereas morality and religion are about personal feelings or the personal meaning that one gives to things. This is not an honest attempt by Darwinists to keep personal feelings from interfering with the scientific process, but is instead a criterion used to insulate neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory from any scientific criticism. This stated position is clearly contradicted by the contents of peer-reviewed and other mainstream scientific publications that challenge key aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The advance of scientific progress is impeded in any climate that eschews serious evaluation of the evidence.

The overly simple science/ethics dichotomy provided by many Darwinists is flatly contradicted by notable hyper-Darwinists who forthrightly proclaim a metaphysical message based on neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Richard Dawkins observed that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Said Tufts University professor Daniel Dennett in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Darwinism is to be praised as a "universal acid" that destroys "just about every traditional concept" of religion and morality.

The popular refrain that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is separate and irrelevant to morality or religion is further belied by a crop of prominent political scientists who have articulated an understanding of traditionalism and moral understanding based upon the theory. Noted scholars, such as Francis Fukuyama, James Q. Wilson and Larry Arnhart, have advanced a brand of "conservatism" based on neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory's insights into nature and into humanity.

It is precisely this kind of Darwinian "conservatism" that Carson Holloway tackles in The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy (Spence Publishing: 2006). A political scientist at the University of Nebraska (Omaha), Holloway examines and evaluates the arguments and underlying premises of Darwinian "conservatism." Through careful analysis, Holloway demonstrates that Darwinian conservatism cannot supply the moral and ethical foundation necessary for the continuing vitality of a democracy. Holloway goes on to show that Darwinian conservatism suffers from an internal incoherence that leaves it unable to provide a basis for universal human rights and unable to affirm the inherent dignity of humans in the face of biotechnological prospects to re-engineer a post-human race.

French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville and his early 19th-Century masterpiece Democracy in America provide a lens through which Holloway evaluates Darwinian conservatism. Notes Holloway, Tocqueville's praises of the new American republic were tempered by his warnings of liberal democracy's excesses. The problem for liberal democracy is not an inclination towards rampant criminality and anarchy. Instead, liberal democracy is prone to an overly individualistic, material-driven selfishness. According to Tocqueville, the antidote to this problem is to be found in the ethical restraints and moral obligations that democratic citizens draw from religion. (An additional but related solvent cited by Tocqueville is in the flourishing of free associations found in America.)

At best, argues Holloway, Darwinian conservatism can only purport to provide an account of the "decent materialism" that Tocqueville observes is typical of America's liberal democracy. This decent materialism includes human sociability and reciprocity, with an underlying respect for some kind of public order. But Tocqueville insisted that a sustained democracy needs more if it is to prevent a collapse into a selfish, radical individualism; decent materialism is not enough.

To its credit, Darwinian conservatism tries to take seriously a natural, biological basis for differences between the sexes. By attributing inclinations and attributes of humanity to its basic biology, the Darwinian conservatism would eschew the post-modern proclivity to treat sex differences as the product of mere social construction. Yet, nothing in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory renders human sex differences inevitable or permanent. Instead, sex differences only arose because they offered survival advantage, and entirely different human sexual dynamics may provide superior survival capabilities in the future. Darwinian conservatism is thereby unable to escape the relativism that it seeks to supplant.

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.

Domestic order is further undermined by the fact that Darwinian conservatism's endorsement of the family falls woefully short. Tocqueville asserted that beyond our biological nature, moral obligation grounded in religion improved the prospects for fidelity and lasting family commitments. But Darwinian conservatism does not countenance any moral restraints arising from religion, but instead relies upon biological drives alone. Writes Holloway: "There is little reason to suppose that the biological good at which the conjugal union aims would require parents to remain together longer than is necessary to raise children to an age at which they no longer require intensive parental care." He goes on to assert that, "If the Darwinian account of human nature does not support the notion of permanent marital commitment, neither does it point to a very strict standard of mutual commitment while a marriage lasts."

This new Darwinian political theory is entirely lacking in the moral resources necessary for mankind to prevent its own abolition in the face of a biotechnological Brave New World. Today, advances in science and medicine present us with the possibility of re-designing the basic biology of human beings to create a post-human race. Technological advances also entail a dark downside requiring extensive use and harvesting of human life as raw materials and for experimentation. Human cloning, animal-human hybrids, fetal farming and the like are all on the table for our society to deal with. As Holloway notes, some of the leading proponents of Darwinian conservatism, such as Francis Fukuyama, write of their own deep concerns about the re-engineering of the human race and all of the attending consequences. But because of Darwinism's rejection of inherent purpose in humanness itself, we can rely upon no principled basis for defending human dignity and resisting eugenic experimentation and commoditization of human life. Holloway points to liberal democracies' strong preoccupation with the using technology to provide ease and comfort, and to minimize suffering. And so he writes that, "In the absence of some cosmic teleology that can account for the ultimate goodness of our hard condition, Darwinism can only offer prudential arguments against such modification." Given a Darwinian understanding that our species is the result of purposeless evolution, why should we recognize any limits to the aims of biotechnology? Only a strong moral account of human dignity can offer a satisfactory answer to whether we should steer advances in biotechnology in ethical directions or whether we should accept that Brave New World is simply the next stage of an undirected evolutionary process.

Holloway's analysis appears to take for granted the sufficiency of the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. No question is ever raised about whether extant empirical evidence more strongly supports neo-Darwinian theory or its emerging competitor: the theory of intelligent design. In recent years, a growing minority of scientists have proposed that the intricacy and specified complexity of molecular machines and other nanotechnology inside living cells may be better explained by an intelligent cause, rather than the undirected causes (natural selection operating on random genetic mutation) posited by neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. But ultimately, The Right Darwin is not a book about the Darwin vs. design debate. On its own terms, Holloway simply shows the inability of neo-Darwinian theory to undergird the moral framework that is essential to a liberal democracy's survival.

---

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

[ml1954]

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

Since when is a scientific theory's validity dependent on whether or not it undergirds morality? Was this test applied to Galileo's and Newton's and Einstein's (,.etc) theories back when they were introduced, or is this asserted requirement a recent thing?

My assumption is that it's recent, and that it's motivated by some people's religious objections to what they think the ToE implies about their religious beliefs.

This sounds like a lefty postmodern critical analysis deconstruction/reconstruction effort. Are all existing scientific theories now subject to a reexamination of their validity by the criterion of whether or not they undergird a particular religious version morality?

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Since when is a scientific theory's validity dependent on whether or not it undergirds morality?

You weren't supposed to notice that, or ask.

This sounds like a lefty postmodern critical analysis deconstruction/reconstruction effort.

(Apologies to Weird Al Yankovic for the following):

And YOU, sir, have successfully broken today's secret code! Doug Pardo, tell him what he won!

"That's right, ml1954, you won! And here's what you've won: a twenty colume set of the Encyclopedia International, a case of Turtle Wax, and a yeard's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat! But that's not all. You also made yourself look like a hero in front of millions of people. You brought honor and glory to your family name for generations to come. You get to come back tomorrow and compete for even more cash and prizes. You even get a copy of our home game. You're a complete winner!"

[Zionist Conspirator]

Thanks for pinging me.

My only objection to the tone of the article (and supposedly, the book it reviews) is that it approaches religion vs. Darwinism in a purely utilitarian light. Darwinism "doesn't work" and Theism supposedly "does." Yet it is precisely this utilitarianism that paves the way for the rejection of G-d by supposing that anything that provides the same "social utility" as G-d could replace Him. Furthermore, I of course reject the notion that the "idea" of G-d developed to fill a social need of any kind.

We have been treated to a number of posts and articles lately assuring us that "religious people" need have no fear of Darwinism because it provides a solid foundation for morality. Excuse me, but what kind of moron thinks that religion consists only of morality? We even had an article posted that chirped happily that religions gradually evolved in response to felt social needs and that therefore chr*stians can all be good Darwinists. Did this nincompoop actually think that anything called "chr*stianity" would survive the rejection of G-d or its reduction to the mere ethical teachings of J*sus? Maybe Thomas Jefferson could do this, but I thought he was dead.

Meanwhile the chorus of "you religious people have nothing to fear because you can keep your morality" has been answered from the religious camp only with thundering, overpowering silence. Are the nervous nellies afraid to tell their atheist colleagues that religion is more than morality, that it involved dogmas about the world, or that it claims to be based, not on philosophical speculation, but on Divine Revelation? Perhaps some of our resident geniuses will assure us that religion can survive the rejection of the notion of revelation because the only thing that really matters is morality.

The whole issue of whether creation, ID evolution, or atheist evolution is "science" is the wrong issue. The issue is what happened, not how things are classified. And if Divine Revelation is an objective historical fact then it cannot be thrown out in the name of a more modern understanding of the natural world. The whole argument between ID Theistic evolutionists and other evolutionists (whether "Theistic" or atheistic) is that while G-d might conceivably be behind everything, this remains pure speculation and belongs in the philosophy classroom. Yet almost every religion insists on being the product of an objective supernatural revelation, not the philosophical speculations of great minds.

What the evolutionists will never admit is that 1)religion is more than morality and 2)religion is/claims to be based on objective supernatural revelation rather than philosophy or a society's evolution to meet utilitarian social needs. If they were to admit either of these then they could no longer claim that "evolution does not contradict religion," since this whole claim is based on equating religion in its entirety with morality and ascribing all religion to philosophical speculation.

Most atheists claim to believe in "freedom of religion," but what they actually believe in is "freedom of speculation," which is not the same thing at all.

See my tag line for this week.

[ml1954]

"That's right, ml1954, you won! And here's what you've won: a twenty colume set of the Encyclopedia International, a case of Turtle Wax, and a yeard's supply of Rice-A-Roni, the San Francisco Treat! But that's not all. You also made yourself look like a hero in front of millions of people. You brought honor and glory to your family name for generations to come. You get to come back tomorrow and compete for even more cash and prizes. You even get a copy of our home game. You're a complete winner!"

Wow...I never won anything before. Today must be my lucky day. Maybe I should go buy some lottery tickets. The only other time I ever tried to buy a lottery ticket the machine was broken. But since it's my day, I bet it won't be broken today.

[Matchett-PI]

"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." ~ wideawake

Would you recognize coherency when you hear it? :)

Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life by Alister McGrath
http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-Genes-Memes-Meaning/dp/1405125381

[orionblamblam]

> I suppose if the Bible had changed as often as evolutionary theory has ...

That's the beauty of science, and the dark side of religious dogma: when new evidence comes along, science adapts. Religion sticks its fingers in its ears, shuts its eyes real tight and hums real loud.

[Matchett-PI]

"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." ~ wideawake

Here's a response you may find helpful:

It's not too tough: There is a significant number of people who understand & accept a Darwinian version of evolution whose faith is, nevertheless, undissolved.

Qualifications:

1) Do you need a list of names & publications? It shouldn't be hard for anyone who's at all familiar with work in the science-religion area to compile one.

2) By "Darwinian version of evolution" I mean a scientific theory of evolution in which natural selection plays a major role. If "Darwinism" means a totalizing philosophy of everything then the "triumphant claims" are tautologically true but also uninteresting.

3) I think that Dawkins' statement - or at least the one I recall - was that Darwinism "made it possible for a person to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." That is considerably weaker than the claim that it "creates a truly fulfilled atheism."

Shalom
George Murphy
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

[Matchett-PI]

"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." ~ wideawake

Here's another response:

Let's put this in logical form. Darwinism is a "universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and creates fulfilled atheism is equivalent to:

All Darwinists become fulfilled atheists.

To disprove this one only needs to find is a single counter-example. I exist. The statement is false. Q.E.D.

Thus, all TEs need to do to have a coherant argument against this is to breath. ~ Rich Blinne - asa@calvin.edu

[Diamond]

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

Since when do any of these theories purport to account for human origins, including the origin of morality?

Cordially,

[Sloth]

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.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument from anyone showing that they're right.

[be4everfree]

I think, if you do some research, you'll find that Christians in particular, have nothing to fear from science and discovery and in fact there are a whole lot of Christians studying evolution.

They simply have not been convinced by the evidence that has been presented to date. This is not because they are not looking or that they are refusing to accept the facts because it will change their "belief". It is simply because what is currently known relies on way to many assumptions and that is not science.

[elmer fudd]

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.

I tend to agree with you on that point, but just because the evidence points to an unwanted answer doesn't mean that answer is not correct.

[jennyp]

Seth Cooper (& presumably the book he's reviewing) assumes that the only way there can be a secure basis for morality is if we're all marionettes. The only alternative they can think of is absolute moral chaos: nihilism.

But two facts explain the third option: We operate in a universe whose laws of nature are fixed (as far as we've ever been able to tell), and we have free will. This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.

Please don't fear the world of adulthood. We have to figure out how to live to ensure the long-term flourishing of ourselves & everyone else in this world who we value, instead of blindly following some uber-parent in the sky. And yet, our free will gives us the ability to do exactly that. We are up to the challenge. There's no need to pine for the artificial surety of childhood!

[Oberon]

This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.

However, it fails to address the question of why we should bother to create a world that affirms life instead of destroys it. What's to be gained? Chemistry is chemistry, whether it's conscious or not. You can't just strike your intellect against the ground and declare that your existence has meaning simply because you say so. That makes you conscious chemistry with hubris.

[jennyp]

To its credit, Darwinian conservatism tries to take seriously a natural, biological basis for differences between the sexes. By attributing inclinations and attributes of humanity to its basic biology, the Darwinian conservatism would eschew the post-modern proclivity to treat sex differences as the product of mere social construction. Yet, nothing in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory renders human sex differences inevitable or permanent. Instead, sex differences only arose because they offered survival advantage, and entirely different human sexual dynamics may provide superior survival capabilities in the future. Darwinian conservatism is thereby unable to escape the relativism that it seeks to supplant.

That is a very poor argument, and is similar to what we see argued on these threads all the time. Sex differences (which are asserted to be more moral than no differences) are useful to humans, but if humans were different then the utility of sex differences would be different, therefore evolution must conclude that sex differences aren't "objectively" moral.

Hey, if things were different then things would be different. How the heck could anybody think that this is some kind of moral problem??? The mind boggles:

John Smith murders 4 innocent people, so he's hanged. But if John Smith hadn't murdered those people, then we wouldn't have hanged him. So therefore, our concept of crime & punishment is relative! We need an "objective" morality that would order us to hang John Smith even if he hadn't murdered anybody.

Do you begin to see, people, how utterly misguided is this quest for an arbitrary morality that's unconnected to its effect on people's actual lives here in the real world?

[jennyp]

However, it fails to address the question of why we should bother to create a world that affirms life instead of destroys it. What's to be gained? Chemistry is chemistry, whether it's conscious or not. You can't just strike your intellect against the ground and declare that your existence has meaning simply because you say so. That makes you conscious chemistry with hubris.

But I could ask you: Why should we bother to try to please God? What's to be gained by living an infinitely-long life in Heaven as opposed to living an infinitely-long life in Hell? (Or having our lifeless body thrown onto the garbage heap, never to be reanimated, or whatever...)

Obviously we both instinctively respond to our respective questions: Because I want to live long & be happy!

Our desire to live long & happy lives is part of our nature as living beings. Our desire to see other people also live long & happy lives is part of our human nature. These are givens, and are axiomatic. All moral questions dissolve into absurdity if we don't assume that our fundamental goal is to live long & prosper & to see our loved ones do the same.

[Oberon]

But I could ask you: Why should we bother to try to please God?

You can only posit that question because you think of God as an intellectual construct, equivalent to the intellectual construct of meaning in a naturalistic universe.

If you actually thought of God as being real, rather than theoretical, the question would answer itself.

As for your assessment of our desires "...to live long & happy lives" and "...to see other people also live long & happy lives" is entirely subjective. These desires of yours are most assuredly not universal; I've known a few people who would be quite happy to see themselves prosperous and everyone else suffering, or perhaps even nonexistent. And by what basis should we consider their point of view less valid than yours? Isn't either opinion merely the expression of some unusual chemistry?

[Zionist Conspirator]

It's not too tough: There is a significant number of people who understand & accept a Darwinian version of evolution whose faith is, nevertheless, undissolved.

"Intelligent Design" is all about Divinely-guided evolution, which most anti-IDers claim to believe in. However, they object to claims that the role of G-d is objectively verifiable. Instead they posit a closed universe of causes and effects behind which (theoritically) G-d may be hte ultimate force. But this type of "Theistic evolution" accepts religion only as speculation, not as fact.

I notice you didn't read my post.

[Matchett-PI]

Would you describe yourself as an atheist?