Posted on 10/17/2006 9:47:15 AM PDT by Heartlander
Seth Cooper |
The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy 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. Darwinian Conservatism: An Evolutionary Dead End
By
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.
by Carson Holloway
Spence Publishing Company (January 30, 2006)
Hdbk., 209 pgs.
ISBN: 1890626619
Seth Cooper is an attorney and former law and policy analyst for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.
The question isn't whether evolution (even macroevolution) happens, but whether this can be retrojected into the distant past and assumed to be how the world came into being. It is a fact that my watch ticks, but that doesn't mean it ticked its way into existence.
It is also a fact that I am a Catholic who believes exactly what Genesis 1:1 states.
I prefer being called a creationist for that reason but I suppose "theistic evolutionist" might well describe my views if one does not conflate theism with deism.
I understand where you're coming from. But you will, I hope, understand my confusion. IDers say G-d used evolution to create, and are jumped on by other "Theistic evolutionists" who say the exact same thing (except that G-d is a speculative possibility rather than an objective fact). Then there's the fact that some evolutionists ridicule religion as unnecessary while others (while rejecting ID's version of how G-d guided evolution) say that G-d is still a possible explanation for what is behind everything. I've observed that most non-ID Theistic evolutionists never criticize atheist evolutionists and that most atheist evolutionists never criticize non-ID Theistic evolutionists but rather criticize the same positions. It's therefore only natural to ask "did or did not G-d use evolution to create the world? Is religion unnecessary or perfectly possible provided G-d doesn't guide evolution by "interfering" with it?" The proponents of these two opposed views never argue with each other, but only with people like me.
You are one of the few Theistic evolutionsts that would rather be considered a creationist than implicitly deny G-d's actual creation of the world, however He did it.
Not playing, Fester. You redefine words and I'm not going to go around and around with you trying to determine what your definitions are.
You set up a condition. I give you an answer that objectively fullfills your condition then you criticise my answer.And most of the disbelievers I know are very interested in the world around them. We must travel in different circles. <shrug>Why do you as a disbeliever work to create a world that affirms life instead of destroying it? I mean that makes you a pretty unusual disbeliever. Most of the disbelievers I know are pro-abortion and quite self-centered materialist -- looking out for number 1 and all that.
No, what I'm getting at is that this claim (which I've heard more than once 'round these parts) that a believer loves other people or does good things because God wants them to sounds to me like an unnecessary rationalization. Why not just admit that you try to make the world a better place because you have to live in it, and that you love enough of your fellow humans that you want them to be able to continue to live in a good world as well?Grimly telling myself: "Just a few more years, and I'll be in Heaven & this'll all be over... grrrrr... stay... the... course... be... nice... to... these... losers..."
You've had some pretty unusal experiences with religion.
That kind of reasoning seems just so - obvious - to me. I'm baffled why many Christians here feel the need to tack on a secondary justification for feeling this way, as if it weren't somehow good enough, or they needed to excuse this behavior. ("It's not my fault I love my fellow man, God made me do it. Blame him." Weird.)
Um, because our brains are too big to let us stop there? <shrug again>Being humans, we generally have more forward-thinking life goals than simply procreating.
Why?
The free will vs. determinism cunundrum bothered me for a while in college. But I got over it when I realized that a problem for which every solution seems to lead to absurdity can't be a valid problem in the first place.
"Sir, we know we have free will, and there's an end on't"
- Samuel Johnson
jp, you seem to be missing a very essential point, namely: At some level, one does not choose what one believes.But the only reason I ever believed in God in the first place was because Mom, Dad, and my teachers all told me such a person existed. I didn't need them to lecture me into believing that Mom herself existed.Let us say that you decide that you no longer want to believe in something that is common to your everyday experience...say for example your mother.
After a few weeks go by and the phone starts ringing because you haven't been in touch, will you sincerely wonder who it is who keeps calling you? No. You will, deep down, know that it's your mother, trying to get in touch with you.
It's the same with God. God is real to me, as your mother is real to you. I cannot stop believing in God simply because I decide to. I believe in God, whether I like it or not.
Mom, a mere mortal, is able to convince me, without really trying, that she exists. God, OTOH, needs a huge infrastructure of believers inculcating each new generation in belief that he actually exists.
Something about that just doesn't compute. :-) But hey, I'm not about to try to disabuse you of your personal conviction. :-)
Your experience is different from mine, is all. I might caution you about making assumptions about mine...I don't believe in God on the basis of innumerable lectures.
Jenny, most of the disbelievers I know are limousine liberals. They are interested in it for themselves. They are not sincere. The "do-gooder" stuff they advocate almost always turns out to have a strong correlation to self interest, and usually ends up causing significant suffering to others.
Why not just admit that you try to make the world a better place because you have to live in it, and that you love enough of your fellow humans that you want them to be able to continue to live in a good world as well?
Because I have this hunch that if I did not see the truth of Jesus and was not inculcated in a society with Christian values, I'd be on a horse on a plain with like-minded companions seeking to rape, slaughter and pillage people who didn't dress like me. At least if I were a little younger.
Regardless, there is very real pleasure in doing what is right and seeing others happy, so my motive is not fear of authority. It's more like the joy of seeing the truth and understanding the purpose.
Um, because our brains are too big to let us stop there?
Elephant brains are bigger. :-)
No one needs to redefine the words "natural" and "supernatural" to understand neither has any scientific validity. But it is to your advantage to join your cheerleaders and quit while you're behind.
You are just confirming what most of us already knew.
The best situation? Compared to what? What are you comparing the universe to for a value judgment of "best"? You are assuming a standard not in evidence - on your presuppositions, a prescriptive standard that you cannot account for in evolutionary, descriptive, or merely naturalistic terms. Chemistry is amoral. There are no good and bad atoms or molecules. So why is there an obligation in the first place to that keep us all in a positive-sum game of cooperation that keeps civilization possible?
You can't explain morality simply by postiting a prior moral rule. It's circular. It doesn't explain anything and doesn't account for this pervasive sense of objective moral incumbency that we observe in ourselves. It is an assumed standard so pervasive in fact as to be practiced and appealed to as authoritative on this very thread, and even by atheists whose world view provides no rational, coherent foundation for it.
Cordially,
If I believe that I am only an ongoing chemical process in a naturalistic universe, I can do what pleases me.
What pleases me is food in my belly, drink in my mouth, and a woman on my [you get the idea].
This is my idea of morality, under the circumstances. What makes your morality superior to mine?
No one needs to redefine the words "natural" and "supernatural" to understand neither has any scientific validity.
Like I said, you admit no distinction making the words equivalent. This is a redefinition.
We are not just chemicals. We're chemicals arranged into a self-sustaining, higher order entity: People.The best situation? Compared to what? What are you comparing the universe to for a value judgment of "best"? You are assuming a standard not in evidence - on your presuppositions, a prescriptive standard that you cannot account for in evolutionary, descriptive, or merely naturalistic terms. Chemistry is amoral. There are no good and bad atoms or molecules. So why is there an obligation in the first place to that keep us all in a positive-sum game of cooperation that keeps civilization possible?
That we are persons, with all that that implies, is a self-evident fact. Explaining such a self-evident fact (people are made up of chemicals) can never end up explaining it away.
No. I admit no scientific validity to the words because the distinction is subjectively applied.
Like I said.
If I believe that I am only an ongoing chemical process in a naturalistic universe, I can do what pleases me.What's wrong with those values? :-)What pleases me is food in my belly, drink in my mouth, and a woman on my [you get the idea].
Of course, morality comes in when you contemplate how you're going to achieve & keep those values. Morality really comes into play when you go beyond thinking about these things in an immediate sense, and realize that you have a whole life to live during which you want to maximize these values, not just one day.
This is why a morality of enlightened self-interest is much harder to live up to than the self-serving focus of immediate self-interest.
Ok. So what if not everybody wants what's in their long-term best interest, and not everybody cares about people other than themselves or their immediate loved ones or their countrymen. Why is there an obligation in the first place to keep us all in a positive-sum game of cooperation that keeps civilization possible?
Cordially,
The same thing as is in operation when one believes his moral precepts are divinely inspired: human belief. That you believe the basis of your morality is "objective" doesn't make it so. Your acceptance of the claim that these moral tenets have a divine foundation (and, also, the moral tenets themselves) is wholly subjective.
Ok. So what if not everybody wants what's in their long-term best interest, and not everybody cares about people other than themselves or their immediate loved ones or their countrymen.There's some tipping point below which it becomes a negative sum (traditional prisoner's dilemma) game, and above which it becomes a self-sustaining positive sum game. A good moral system that recognizes individual rights seems to be rather resilient, and it doesn't require everybody to be perfect for civilization to still flourish.
Why is there an obligation in the first place to keep us all in a positive-sum game of cooperation that keeps civilization possible?In a sense you could say there's no obligation per se, but rather a clear choice with totally different outcomes, and I'll do anything in my power to try to get as many people as possible to recognize the value of keeping the game going that produces life instead of a system that produces death. That's the only way I and everyone else I value can thrive in the long term.
That's a good point. In the end, the best moral systems should win out, but while we're living in the here and now ultimately it's a bet we all make based on our best judgement no matter where we think our beliefs come from.
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.