Filed under: Conservatism, Darwinism, Religion — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on May 5, 2007 @ 7:55 am CEST
A very interesting article at the New York Times about conservatism and darwinism.
Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the right about whether God or science better explains the origins of life. But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?
To me it does, to a degree, support conservative ideology. Evolution is a slow, slow process. Where we are today, is because of what our parents decided and did yesterday: the ‘rules’ have come into existence extremely slowly, weak traditions and ideologies have gone away, died out so to speak, and we have kept that which is strong. All of this means that change should only come very slowly: no radical changes.
In essence, of course, this is the case Hayek made: he was not a Christian as far as I am aware, but he did support the morals, customs, traditions, etc. because he realized how they came into existence and that one should be very careful before getting rid of them / changing the customs, morals and traditions in a country.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments
policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or
willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email.
1 yonason
May 7, 2007 @ 2:54 am CESTTHEY SAY WHAT?
“Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?”
Untangling the mess.
Does Darwinian
[what do they mean by ‘Darwinian’? since most scientists don’t accept the mechanisms origianally suggested by Darwin anymore, like for instance . . .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4702336.stm
. . . so the term is ambiguous]
theory
[it’s not properly a theory because it is untestable in any meaningful quantitative way, even as a mathematical model, and they themselves admit ‘no one knows how life arose’.]
undermine conservative notions of religion
[there are lots of conservatives, and not all have the same ‘notions’ of religion - and what do they mean by the quaint and patronizing term ‘notions’ anyway]
and morality
[conservatives are probably in closer agreement on details of morality than in specific ancillary religious details of ceremony]
or does it actually support conservative philosophy
[whew! does that mean the author is equating ‘conservative philosophy’ with the ‘religious and moral’ ‘notions’ of it’s adherents, as if that’s a ‘given’?]?
What a tar baby!
2 yonason
May 7, 2007 @ 4:24 am CESTBOUNDERS (I OF II)
Sure, there is a connection between conservative philosophy and morality that is founded on religious belief. And I suppose that the author deserves some credit for making the distinction between the values of the Right, however unspecific he is about them, and the implicit contrasting relative pseudo-morality of the Left founded on it’s fundamental ‘religious’ faith in an inherent randomness that denies any enduring values. But I take issue with the author for not specifying which ‘religious; or ‘moral’ ‘notions’ he means when using those terms. I think it is critical to a proper analysis, though being more than a little vague is probably critical to his.
But I think the author is more than a little dishonest in saying that Evolution is compatible with Conservative thought, at least the way he presents it. What do I mean?
Although I know that macroevolution is not how life arose because the Torah says so, I don’t have a problem with postulating evolution as a scientific possiblity because science and religion are seperate endeavors. The problem I have with those who inist that evolution is ‘proven’ is that it is not. If they would honestly teach the problems with evolution along with what they postulate as most likely, I don’t see how any reasonable person could object. By not teaching evolution’s weaknesses (quite a few) they are dishonest and are undermining not only the minds of the young but future scientific endeavor as well.
Also, I disagree (but not for the reasons the NYT suggests) with insisting that evolution should be replaced by ‘intelligent design’, because even though ID is highly suggestive (and more sensible and satisfying than Evolution) it is also not science. The whole problem might be avoided if evolution were honestly taught, but it is not.
What all this strikes me as is that evolutionist activists want to provoke the ‘intelligent design’ folk’s response to them in order to have a windmill to tilt at to give the illusion of authority when they are ‘victorious’ over an alternative hypothesis.
3 yonason
May 7, 2007 @ 4:28 am CESTBOUNDERS (II OF II)
Finally, it’s silly to say that most real Conservatives have anything in common with the negative philosophical consequences of Evolution, and that can be illustrated by example better than armchair theorizing. Specifically, . . .
. . . look at what leftists themselves say. . .
http://newsbusters.org/node/7333
(note the reliance on an ad hominem attack as opposed to demonstrating where his opponent was wrong.)
. . . and what they do . . .
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8418
Realistic conservatives are for science, and certain elements of evolution research are solid enough to be called ‘theory’ and hence scientific. But when it comes to matters of faith, like life arising from inert dead matter in the blink of an eye on the cosmological scale they use, evolution has overstepped it’s bounds as much as ID has it’s.
4 domajot
May 7, 2007 @ 10:06 am CESTIMO Yonasson’s long treatise misrepresents scientific theory, evolution, conservatism and faith -all in one fell swoop.
5 David
May 7, 2007 @ 10:44 am CESTIf evolution is reduced to the popular slogan “survival of the fittest” I would not wish to claim it for conservatism. It seems more suited to eugenics and breeding a master race.
Clearly there is more to the theory than the slogan, after all in the USSR they had a Communist version of evolution, which suggested that it was the survival of the most co-operative.
In 200 years our modern theories of evolution will probably look as outdated as the theory of the spontaneous generation of life from mud, so I do not think that it is a good idea to build too much of a political philosophy on them.
6 domajot
May 7, 2007 @ 11:00 am CESTDavid-
Scientists don’t reduce the theory of evolution to slogans of any kind.
7 yonason
May 7, 2007 @ 7:34 pm CEST“IMO Yonasson’s long treatise misrepresents scientific theory, evolution, conservatism and faith -all in one fell swoop.” — domajot
Sorry, I said it was a “tar baby” and I jes couldn’t hep smackin it.
8 yonason
May 7, 2007 @ 7:42 pm CEST?”I do not think that it is a good idea to build too much of a political philosophy on them.” — David
Yes, I completely agree.
But the problem is the the Left HAS used it as the cornerstone of their world view apon which their political is based. The Right, on the other hand (sorry, I couldn’t hep that neither), in general doesn’t subscribe to evolution, or at least doesn’t use it to justify their morality or lack thereof.
9 yonason
May 7, 2007 @ 7:44 pm CESTOh, and Demajot, if you could pick one thing that I “misrepresented” I would appreciate knowing what it is and why you think so.