A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin: Does Darwinism support conservative philosophy?

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin
By PATRICIA COHEN
Published: May 5, 2007

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?

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 of Kansas; Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas; and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado — indicated they did not.

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, which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an intelligent power could have created it.

Yet it is that very embrace of intelligent design — not to mention creationism, which takes a literal view of the Bible’s Book of Genesis — that has led conservative opponents to speak out for fear their ideology will be branded as out of touch and anti-science.

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.

“I do indeed believe conservatives need Charles Darwin,” said Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, who has spearheaded the cause. “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.”...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us/politics/05darwin.html?bl&ex=1178596800&en=3362241afe12880d&ei=5087%0A

[wtmusic]

1. The "intellectual vitality of conservatism"?

What has conservatism ever embraced that wasn't born of fear? :shrug:

[melody]

2. Someone who made this boneheaded statement is a poli sci prof at a university???

>The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century


Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.

John Stuart Mill (IQ somewhere over the rainbow)

Sadly, the reason they seem "stupid" is because they don't seem to know what "conservative" means.

[wtmusic]

3. NIU is not exactly the center of the PoliSci universe. nt

[melody]

4. Nevertheless, you'd expect someone at a university to at least have opposable thumbs n/t

[yurbud]

9. it's frustrating to talk to Cons because I'll cite Grover Norquist or Frank Luntz and they

won't know who the hell I'm talking about.

[melody]

10. Believe me I know, yet they feel somehow entitled to a vote based on opinions spawned by ignorance

It makes me nuts.

[yurbud]

11. was there ever a time in history when ignorant people were ashamed of their ignorance?

[melody]

13. That's kind of the identifying feature of "ignorance" n/t

[ixion]

14. nor do they understand what the term 'intellectual' means

as the conservative philosophy seems to embrace ignorance over intellect. Intellectual curiosity and intellectual honesty are anathema to contemporary conservatives.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. Darwin would have been horrified by these people

He and his extended family were generally very progressive.

[C_U_L8R]

6. the most hilarious thing i can imagine

might be an election where evolution is the central issue.
It's sick but these backwards backwash republicans just crack me up.

[yurbud]

12. the religious conservatives buy social darwinism because it fits their Tony Robbins, get rich quick

theology.

So there is no conflict.

[ixion]

15. well, actually, there is. they buy into the social darwinism stuff only insofar as

it aids in framing their debate. Actually, they loathe true social darwinism (unless they control the definition), because the more intelligent amongs the species have an advantage. They use their brains.

[bemildred]

7. Conservatives have always liked social darwinism.

It's sort of the whole point of conservatism. The only people that have trouble with scientific darwinism are those that want to insist on the literal interpretation of two thousand year old religious propaganda.

[dave_p]

8. Yep, it's that old nazi fave ...

... the same old "social darwinism" come back to haunt us. Of course there's nothing "darwinist" about it - Darwin was about natural selection, which kind of goes out the window when you've an organized society of rules, policies, institutions and questionable assumptions determining who gets how much of the pie - all backed up by the proviso that if you exercise your ultimate "social darwinist" option of just stealing the stuff you go to prison where you can't reproduce your enterprising genes.

If these guys want social darwinism here's how to do it. Everybody starts life with the same. Same housing, same wealth, same educational opportunity. Then we'll see who's the "fittest". Is that conservative enough?

[Briar]

16. How ridiculous

Darwin proposed a scientific theory, not a political ideology. Deciding whether or not to take such a theory seriously on the basis of whether it fits one's political (or religious) assumptions or biases or not is beyond silly. That's the real conflict - between those who look at the world attempting to see it as it is, and those who never look beyond their engrained delusions.