A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin

New York Times ^ | 5 May 2007 | Patricia Cohen

[shrinkermd]

...On one level the debate can be seen as a polite discussion of political theory among the members of a small group of intellectuals. But the argument also exposes tensions within the Republicans’ “big tent,” as could be seen Thursday night when the party’s 10 candidates for president were asked during their first debate whether they believed in evolution. Three — Senator Sam Brownback; Mike Huckabee; and Tom Tancredo of Colorado — indicated they did not.

...The reference to stem cells suggests just how wide the split is. “The current debate is not primarily about religious fundamentalism,” Mr. West, the author of “Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest” (2006), said at Thursday’s conference. “Nor is it simply an irrelevant rehashing...Darwinian reductionism has become culturally pervasive and inextricably intertwined with contemporary conflicts over traditional morality, personal responsibility, sex and family, and bioethics.”

The technocrats, he charged, wanted to grab control from “ordinary citizens ...so that they alone could make decisions over “controversial issues such as sex education, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and global warming.”

For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design...

Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.

...“The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”

[retMD]

If you knew anything about the history of science, you’d know that the WORLDVIEW of origins has next to NOTHING to do with scientific advancement, because some of the greatest advances in science were made by those believing in intelligent design, including young earth creationists like Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal. If you knew anything about recent History, you’d know that atheistic evolutionists comprise the overwhelming preponderance of the greatest butchers of human life the world has ever seen. They were their own gods, determining for themselves good and evil, who shall live and who shall die. Truth is something they make up as they go along.

First, you seem to associate "atheistic" and "evolutionist" as a given, which several people on FR and some on this thread have contradicted. Evolution is not incompatible with faith for many people.

Second, associating a scientific theory with a dictator or butcher doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the theory - I dare say they believed in the theory of gravity as well. It's a common fallacy to try to discredit a theory or fact by citing the faults of its adherents.

Finally, I know this about recent history, and maybe you should too - that the Soviet Union rejected genetics and evolution in favor of Lysenkoism, an ideology-driven repudiation of science. Political adherents of Lysenkoism denounced the dissenting biologists as "fly lovers" and "people haters" instead of showing real scientific evidence to back up their claims.

Sounds depressingly familiar that people never learn. Science is what you find, not what you want to find to back up your personal beliefs. I only hope we wake up before our economy starts down the road of the USSR.

[retMD]

Stalin was INDEED an evolutionist! It was Darwin’s book that changed his life. Stalin was a Seminary student when he read Darwin’s book. In a letter he declared, “You must read it!”

Stalin may have started out that way, but when in power, obviously his ideology won instead of scientific facts. Stalin supported Lysenkoism, praised Lysenko, and placed him over the other biologists. Lysenko persecuted those who disagreed with his theory; some were arrested and sent to gulags. Lysenko was not relieved of his position until after Stalin's death.

Which tells us that during the time Stalin was a tyrant and a butcher, he wasn't an evolutionist, but a Lysenkoist. Using your logic, that discredits Lysenkoism and endorses evolution. But science doesn't need to do that - the scientific evidence quite clearly debunks Lysenkoism and supports evolution.

[gondramB]

>>I don’t want to get into flame wars again, but evolution is scientifically unsound (macroevolution, not microevolution), there are many legitimate scientists that reject it, and its fruit has produced nothing but evil in our society.<<

I also don’t want to flame but I would point out that I interface with many scientists from many disciplines and i never see any one of them with any doubt about evolutionary theory in general (i.e. that life began on earth as very simple life and evolved over a long time into a variety of complex life including man.)

I met last week with a group of Christian science educators from Protestant schools and I’m meeting later today with a mixture of Catholic biologists and the leaders of a secular science education foundation.

This topic comes up all the time and the debate isn’t about evolution but how to deal with people who want to prevent good science from being taught.

And they are all concerned. Even the computer science guys and the math teachers. They are concerned that if one group is prevented from teaching on the evidence that they may be next.

[gondramB]

>>it makes me quite sad. We can agree to disagree, but evolutionism only validates our culture of death and amorality.
If we were not created, then owe nothing to a creator, and have no rules to follow. Anyone’s morals or lack thereof are equally valid, as they all evolved from the same system. Hence abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and the like are not morally depraved choices, but just continuing evolution. This leads to moral decline and eventually the death of our society.<<

I believe life wa created. We know from the bible that God works through famine and the God works through war. Why is it odd that He would work through biology?

In any case, he has given us the tools to explore the world and its really clear that life evolved from simple to complex. That doesn’t change my faith because I’ve had a personal experience with God and he asked me to do two things. I’ve tried to do those things and my life has beomce much better.

I could die happy now although I am in no rush. I owe him more than I could ever repay and the particular mechanism of science that turns out to be true won’t effect that.

[upcountryhorseman]

Was not Darwin’s “servival of the fittest” the basis for
Natzism?

[gondramB]

>>Oh I can prove gravity to you real quick,my question is can you prove evolution to me !!!<<

You can prove gravity?

Just to be clear, you are talking about the theory of universal attraction, with the classic formula




So how would you prove universal attraction? And how this gravity thing get from one place to another? Is it particles? Is it waves? How fast does it travel? How do you know it always works? It sounds like Gravity is just a theory and an incomplete one at that. And since you can't prove it, its not real, right? Seriously, there can be all kinds of details about a theory that need to be worked out after its clear that it works in general in our local area. Sometimes new conditions will be observed that make changes (as happened with gravity after 1905) but even then the new theory still has to explain the old conditions too. The basic principle of evolution, that life evolved on earth from the simple to the complex looks pretty darn secure.

[Obie Wan]

I don’t believe human beings evolved from a mud puddle,I believe in what the Book of Genesis says, so you go ahead and be secure in your evolution theory and I’ll go ahead and be secure in my belief of Scripture !!!

[Coyoteman]

Was not Darwin’s “servival of the fittest” the basis for Natzism?

"Survival of the fittest" was not Darwin's term. It was introduced some years later by a different writer.

And the popular idea of "survival of the fittest" is wrong anyway.

[ndt]

"Since they wrote the basis of our national identity, I think their example ought to suffice for thinking people. "

I have. Link Benjamin Franklin I fart proudly and am fond of older women.

"If not, how is it that icons of science such as Newton, Galileo and many others were creationists?"

Because we have learned a great deal since 1687.

[gondramB]

>>I don’t believe human beings evolved from a mud puddle,I believe in what the Book of Genesis says, so you go ahead and be secure in your evolution theory and I’ll go ahead and be secure in my belief of Scripture !!!<<

I can’t tell if you are trying to be a parody or not.

So I’ll give a straight answer in case you are being serious.

I also don’t believe that the first life evolved from a mud puddle.

As for Genesis. When God spoke to me he did not reveal any new science. If his pattern is consistent (and it appears to be from people’s interactions with God) it seems he does not reveal science but talks to us in a way we can understand.

When the Pentateuch was written down by Moses, he was limited by his time. As modern educated Americans have so much trouble understanding what a billion years is, its not reasonable to expect Moses to truly understand the age and scope of the observable universe.

[gondramB]

>>”Since they wrote the basis of our national identity, I think their example ought to suffice for thinking people. “

---

I have. Link Benjamin Franklin I fart proudly and am fond of older women.

“If not, how is it that icons of science such as Newton, Galileo and many others were creationists?”

---

Because we have learned a great deal since 1687.<<

In the interest accuracy...

1. A piece we call “Old Mistresses’ Apologue” was written by Ben Franklin in a letter to friend considering marriage. How broadly he felt that sentiment is another issue.

2. Each generation has a great scientist who misses what’s coming next. Classic examples are Lord Kelvin dismissing atomic theory and Albert Einstein not appreciating chaos. That doesn’t diminish them - it means the great among us are still human. When you extend that over multiple generations it becomes difficult for anyone to fully anticipate what will be discovered. There is no blame there. It the people who deny (after appropriate skeptical inquiry) that are diminished. For example Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo just eliminated themselves for being qualified to be President, IMO.

In

[betty boop]

Darwinian reductionism has become culturally pervasive and inextricably intertwined with contemporary conflicts over traditional morality, personal responsibility, sex and family, and bioethics.”

Which is why this reductionism isn't science, it is a bid to become a moral philosophy in the hands of a thoroughly secularized political elite. And when the darwinian reductionists get hold of moral philosophy and have the power to exploit it, you get the Francis Galtons and Margaret Sangers, not to mention the Hitlers and the Stalins, et al., of this world.

To me it is senseless to say that because conservatives assume that evolved social traditions have more wisdom than rationally planned reforms that this is somehow evidence that Darwinism is "true." Social traditions are not subject to natural selection at all. And Darwinism has nothing to say about "wisdom," or thought or even consciousness in general. Nor does it explain the origin of life. It says a whole lot LESS than meets the eye....

Plus the father of genetics, Benedictine monk Gregor Mendel firmly believed that his own experiments on selective breeding constituted irrefutable proof that Darwin's theory of natural selection was untenable.

I agree with George Gider's observation that "Both Nazism and communism were inspired by Darwinism. Why conservatives should toady to these storm troopers is beyond me."

In my personal view, Darwinian evolution theory has been turned into a modern myth; in this popular guise, it has long ceased to be bona fide science. It is an alternative cosmology that as West put it, "fundamentally challenges the traditional understanding of human nature and the universe."

Among other things, it wipes out any notion of a human nature that is relatively constant persisting over time, in favor of an evolutionary process that transforms human nature over time, into -- ????? Superman? Some other species?

Moreover, it is not science's job to explore the moral implications of sex education, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and global warming in the first place. Even as science, what Darwinism might have to do with global warming is perfectly unclear to me.

I think it is a bad mistake for conservatives to use NeoDarwinism as a basis for policy or for rationalizing policy: It just gives distinction to where distinction isn't due. Darwinism simply has no competence in public policy areas, as we have already seen repeatedly, at enormous cost in terms of blood and treasure....

Well Kevmo, my two cents' worth, FWIW. Thanks once again for plugging our book! :^)

[WorkingClassFilth]

My we’re witty.

Need some examples of fine, upstanding evolutionists that were/are sick puppies? Not too hard to find, y’know.

The point remains...views on human origins have nothing to do with governance - period.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Please explain how this diminishes their value as Presidential timber? Are national leadership issues rooted in origin beliefs?

Let’s all get real and remember there is a larger world beyond the fishbowl of evolutionary dogma - FR threads on this issue notwithstanding.

[ndt]

"The point remains...views on human origins have nothing to do with governance - period."

And position in the govenment has nothing to do with the accuracy of science.

[gondramB]

>>Please explain how this diminishes their value as Presidential timber? Are national leadership issues rooted in origin beliefs?

Let’s all get real and remember there is a larger world beyond the fishbowl of evolutionary dogma - FR threads on this issue notwithstanding.<<

So much of the strength of the U.S. come from science and engineering. Its the source of our military strength and our healthcare and much of our economy. Someone who flatly rejects evolution doesn’t have the right mindset to be President, IMO. He is either lying to pander or he is genuinely deficient in understanding of the the world. That’s fine is he’s a stockbroker or a salesman etc. Its not fine for the leader of the free world.

I’ve read the words of Jesus over and over and cannot find where we are called to ignore learning or observation. But that’s what’s required to reject basic science.

[Westbrook]

I work as an engineer.

I have been a linear circuits designer and a software architect.

Nowhere in any high-tech industry in which I have been involved has any Theory on Evolution had any impact on circuit design or software devolopment.

All engineering takes place on purpose by intelligent design.

Engineering implies a designer, and code implies an author.

[gondramB]

I hope there wasn’t something in that post I was supposed to disagree with.

[Westbrook]

Actually, it was intended for retMD, who also doesn't seem to think that ideas have consequences.

Evolutionism is an ideology. It is a worldview through which facts are filtered in order to exclude a Creator.

It renders the sacrifice of Christ as meaningless, since that sacrifice was made to conquer Sin and Death.

If Death, the engine of natural selection, is God's means for humankind to emerge from less sentient species, then Christ is unnecessary.

If Man was not CREATED in the Image and Likeness of God, then there is no basis for any moral code other than convenience and opinion.

Evolutionism makes morality subject to the vicissitudes of popular culture.

Evolutionism denies absolute Truth outside of Evolutionism.

Evolutionsm is at the head of a logical trail that goes like this.

• Everything came from nothing out of nowhere for no apparent reason.

• Life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing and uncaring Cosmos.

• When you die, you are just so much compost.

• Ergo, the best you can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction.

I used to believe that.

But as the beneficiary of Biblical scale miracles in my own life, and the witness of God in all that I experienced since giving my life to Jesus, I can not subscribe to any of these premises any more.

In fact, I see them as patently absurd.

[Mom MD]

I agree with most of what you say.

We disagree on the mechanism, after studying biology, physiology, etc as well as the Bible, I am convinced that creation happened as laid out in genesis, but if it does turn out that God worked through evolution it does not threaten my faith.

The situation I was addressing was those who because of a belief in evolution have no belief in or need for a Creator - hence no moral compass, etc. If you believe everything evolved essentially out of nothing, and there is no creator, then every moral system is as valid as any other, because all evolved equally. There is no absolute Truth in that case, and hence amorality and depravity results.