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.

[Oberon]

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.

I don't entirely agree; there is considerable evidence in favor of the existence of a Deity, should you wish to consider it. However, as it is true that my faith generally doesn't depend on these evidences but rather is based on my subjective experience, I'll grant you that point for the sake of this discussion.

Oh...and where did I claim that the basis of my morality was objective? =]

My morality (battered as it may be), my faith, and my experience work for me, and I wouldn't presume to expect them to work for you.

But to the point: I may or may not be correct that there is a God, and that our behavior matters to Him. However, if it turns out that I'm correct on these two points, then the existence of an absolute morality (I prefer the word "ethics," actually) is prima facie evident, a done deal, whether what I think of it is right or wrong.

If one is willing to accept for the sake of argument that there is a God and that He cares what we do, then our next task isn't to construct a moral code, but to discover for ourselves the one that God intends for us. You can disagree enormously on what the code is...people do all the time...but you can't deny its existence.

[jennyp]

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.

LOL, well then thank goodness for the police, army, & courts!

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.

It is indeed good to believe that one's natural inclinations to empathy & fairness are somehow fundamentally good instead of wrong. To me this means that it's in my and the world's long-term best interest. Personally I don't need any more justification for it than that.

Let me ask you this: You say that your willingness to uphold moral standards of behavior comes from "seeing the truth of Jesus" and being "inculcated in a society with Christian values". But let's say you were inculcated in a similar society's values, but this society instead taught that the reason behind those values is simply enlightened self-interest. Wouldn't you still be comfortable believing in your moral lifestyle? You'd be inculcated in these values, you'd see that they resonated with your "very real pleasure in doing what is right and seeing others happy", and on an intellectual level you'd be confident that this lifestyle isn't ultimately destructive to the kind of civilization you live in & prosper under.

I don't think there'd be a need for the extra justification that you're obeying the commandments of some posited supernatural Authority Figure.

[WildHorseCrash]

But, see, this is all putting the rabbit in the hat. By saying, "I may or may not be correct that there is a God, and that our behavior matters to Him[, but if so,] then the existence of an absolute morality... is prima facie evident...", you are basically saying that if there is an objective, divinely inspired morality, then there is an objective, divinely inspired morality. But belief in the notions that: 1) that there is a God, and 2) that he cares what we do, are both absolutely subjective, as those notions themselves are purely subjective, if not speculative. (I guess we'll have to disagree as to whether there is any credible evidence as to the existence of any Deity.)

Why does a Christian believe his divinely inspired, objective ethics, rather than the Muslim's divinely inspired, objective ethics? Because he (subjectively) believes his is right and the Muslim's is wrong. The Muslim believes the reverse, also subjectively.

If one is willing to accept for the sake of argument that there is a God and that He cares what we do, then our next task isn't to construct a moral code, but to discover for ourselves the one that God intends for us. You can disagree enormously on what the code is...people do all the time...but you can't deny its existence.

But, again, you have to accept those two predicates, which cannot be objectively established, rendering the whole enterprise an exercise is subjectivity. And even if we accept those two predicates, people still subjectively construct (whether individually or in groups) codes that reflect what they believe God intends. Again, they do so subjectively. (When you are dealing with so-called divine revelation, the shape of that subjective moral code is limited, it is only loosely limiting, if history is any guide.)

The point is, an absolute morality might be possible as an intellectual construct, there is no objective basis for believing that it actually does exist. (Aside, again, from subjective wishing it were so.)

[WildHorseCrash]

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.

Good point. I think this is correct. And I think that the common "basic" human moral code: don't kill, don't steal, help those who help you, don't copulate with another person's mate, etc., exist now as the basic moral code because they did won out in the past, so to speak. Those who believed them were more reproductively successful than those who didn't. All part of the human extended phenotype...

[Tribune7]

:-)

[Tribune7]

But let's say you were inculcated in a similar society's values, but this society instead taught that the reason behind those values is simply enlightened self-interest.

Human nature will trump philosophy every time. In the real world Hank would never put up with Dagny dumping him for John. Hurt feelings are real.

[WildHorseCrash]

In the real world Hank would never put up with Dagny dumping him for John. Hurt feelings are real.

Please don't piss in the soup by bringing up the childish scribblings of that woman... :-)

[Gumlegs]

[Heartlander]

We are not just chemicals. We're chemicals arranged into a self-sustaining, higher order entity: People.

Jenny,

Let’s cut to the chase here… Let us say that you are hypothetically correct and; there is no god(s), the universe formed accidentally without reason, and ‘life’ is the result of a undirected chemical process that is obviously without intelligence which ‘people’ call evolution.

1. There is no higher order ‘entity’. Why would humans be a ‘higher order’ than stars, planets, water, or fire? Furthermore there might be some form of virus or bacteria that could wipe our life thus becoming the ‘fittest’ per evolution. What is the ultimate basis for this imaginary great chain of being for superior or inferior life forms? The universe that formed accidentally obviously doesn’t see it – bacteria, ants, algae and snowflakes don’t recognize a higher order.

2. Again I state that if this were true, all moral constructs become merely imaginary. It’s not just morality though, its beauty, design, reason, hope, and even the accidental formation of chemicals that ‘people’ label as life that is imaginary. Love becomes a made up ‘belief’ that we like to believe but is no different than Aphrodite. Morality becomes Santa Claus and we wish it into existence for the gifts we believe it might bring if we behave. Beauty is a bunny that hops around and brings eggs for us to admire…

Personally, I’m too old to believe these fairy tales and I leave you with the natural scientific scripture of Dawkins…

I have argued that the discontinuous gap between humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of survival and extinction had been different, the gap would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as if cast in stone.
- Dawkins

[jennyp]

<sigh>

[grey_whiskers]

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.

Some people do not share that goal--masochists, sadists, even some people who are insane.

For the nonce, have you perused C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man? He treats of your very topic along the way...

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

What a joyless obligation that must feel like. Day after day, doing the right thing only because some Authority Figure commanded you to do it, when you'd rather be doing bad things to people. I'd be filled with resentment against this Authority Figure and against all those other people whose welfare I've been commanded to worry about. 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..."

???

Christianity looks very different from the inside than it does from the outside.

I had very much the same objection to Christianity (there were others too!) when I was an atheist. From your posts, I don't know for sure if you are an atheist or not, but it reminds me of how I thought when *I* was one...

What is most telling to me (no personal animus here, I just happened to notice in your post) is the idea of cringing in fear or abject servitude before a slave-master. Not all obedience is like that! Think of the honor guard outside Air Force One, as Ronald Reagan exited the plane. Think of a loyal Laborador Retriever hunting with its master...

Just a little countervailing perspective.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

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.

There are many reasons behind this, some practical and some theological. Try getting the Norton Anthology of English Literature and reading John Donne's Batter My Heart, Three-Personed God:

Reason, your viceroy in me,
me should defend,
but is captured,
and proves weak or untrue

It is a point of Christian theology that the moral sense--and according to some, reason--has been subjected to the fall, so that the, well, accuracy on spritual matters is no longer up to snuff.

Something about that just doesn't compute. :-) But hey, I'm not about to try to disabuse you of your personal conviction. :-)

From the first point above, the idea, so beloved in many circles, that "our moral sense" should
a) prove an infallible guide to God
b) starts us off on an equal footing with one another, with none of those untidy cultural or genetic advantages

does not comport with Christian theology.

That is *one* of the reasons many of the "common-sense" or "man-in-the-street" arguments about "well, if God existed, He would do it like *THIS*" seem to contradict Christianity.

They are good refutations of simplistic theism: but Christianity is not simple.

...and come to think of it, that makes some sense. If kinematics (say) is counter-intuitive [real physics vs. what we see on Road Runner cartoons], and it gets worse from there (say quantum mechanics), why should we automatically assume that our untutored first impressions of how *God* ought to work are automatically right. Even if you rely on the reason, you don't have enough raw material to experiment on God. How many angels do dance on the head of a pin? How do you know your instrument is sensitive to angels ONLY and not stray quarks?

And even if you do the experiment, God is sentinent, and has explicitly reserved the right to refuse co-operation with experiments.

What to *DO* about the above conudrum is another matter :-)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

What to *DO* about the above conudrum is another matter :-)

And how to fix my midnight spelling problems is yet another...

Cheers!

[Heartlander]

<shrug>

<shrug>

[Diamond]

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.

The problem you've got is that if there is no obligation, or objective duty, to value life rather than death then there is no morality worthy of the name. Morality is about what is right, as opposed to wrong. It is an obligation for which one is accountable.

I asking you to think about how you account for the moral law of which we are conscious, the claims of which upon ourselves we both acknowledge even in the face of our lack of conformity to it. If your value judgment is merely a subjective product of human imagination then value judgments are nothing more than personal preference and are meaningless. I prefer chocolate ice cream and you prefer vanilla. Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we assume they do. Moral criticism would make about as much sense as "you're wrong to prefer vanilla ice cream." If each person is right from his own moral perspective then no moral judgment would ever be wrong, each person being subjectively right, in which case contradictory views could both be right because opposites could be equally correct. This is clearly absurd. Therefore, there must be an absolute moral law.

You cannot derive absolute moral law from the natural world, merely from what is, because morality is prescriptive. The natural world simply offers you no standard for your comparative measurement of "best". If you say it's best that everyone feels empathy towards everyone who's capable of experiencing the same or, it's best where everyone is capable of thinking things through to see the long-term effects of possible actions, then you are implying an absolute moral standard by which such things can be measured. It is not possible to know what is better or worse unless we know what is best. And since in your view we 'persons' are nothing but a product of the natural world there is nothing to compare the natural world to, other than the natural world, which is no comparison at all, which leaves you with no standard of comparison. Yet you presuppose one. Why is that? It is logically inconsistent with your world view. That's why I asked you, 'best' compared to what? What are you comparing the natural world to? Your naturalism offers you no basis for the comparative standard you are using.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

... the present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of survival and extinction had been different, the gap would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as if cast in stone.

Dawkins

At least Dawkins is being logically consistent, as far as he goes. The problem is that whatever ethic he advances (and he does) makes about as much sense as supposing that a thunderstorm producing an accidental concatenation of hailstones on the ground appearing as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" conveyed an actual moral command that should be respected and obeyed.

Cordially,