NYT: Does Conservative Ideology Need Darwin?
posted at 6:51 pm on May 5, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I know Allah would link this if he were here. It’s a rundown* of a debate within conservatism–NR’s gloomy gus John Derbyshire on one side, and religious conservatives on the other–about what Darwinism means for the conservative movement.
I think it means something very, very bad. Conservative Darwinists would like us to believe that because scientific evolution of species occurs, we must account for it in our political thinking. Nonsense. In matters of physics I accept the Theory of Relativity; it doesn’t follow that I accept Moral Relativism.
Conservatives, atheist and religious alike, believe that human nature and human interactions are, to quote Thomas Hobbes, solitary, poor, treacherous, dumb, nasty, smelly, sleazy, sleepy, Doc, and grumpy. Technology may change, but we do not.** The extent of those flaws and the reasons for them may be up for a little debate, but none of us see humans as perfectible. That is the hubris of Progressivism–in which a Gnostic certainty prevails among the ‘enlightened’ about the proper direction of mankind’s journey from the mud to the stars–and about their special obligation to get us there whether we want to go or not.
It was also the hubris of the eugenics movement and their nightmarish progeny.***
There is a point to be made here about the serious nature of this debate, with fundamentalists on both sides. I see it every time this subject comes upon blogs, especially here, as comment threads quickly degenerate into “If you would just READ the FOSSIL RECORD…” shouted back and forth. I’m SO SICK OF IT and it’s alienating a lot of people who ought to be conservatives and the New York Times is pointing and laughing at us. So please just stop it. Please, try to figure out what unites us and what people who call themselves conservatives have in common.
That said, though, I don’t think a love of social Darwinism should be a part of it at all.
* This was a pretty good job by the NYT of covering conservative news, I thought. Usually their coverage of conservative issues (as with much of the MSM) has a “Gorillas in the Mist” quality to it. Ironically this one didn’t, and on an issue about which there is so much left-wing blue state contempt; reporter Patricia Cohen simply reports both sides of the debate. It is appreciated.
** Maybe we do change, slowly, infinitesimally. I doubt it. I think the flaws in our nature are spiritual and are therefore immune to the ministrations of technocracy.
*** If you just click on one of these links, click that one.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
In other words, God makes us feel better, and I agree, but that doesn’t mean God exists.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Lysenko, cited in a post above, was not a Darwinist, but a classic example of the pitfalls PC science; that is, distorting science to fit your politics. It’s worth noting because Lysenkoism spreads here in America so fast.
Lysenko was not a Darwinist. To the contrary, his work advanced the “implication, contrary to the Mendelien geneticists, that acquired characteristics of an organism could be inherited by later generations. It is often suggested that Lysenko’s success came solely from the desire in the Soviet Union to assert that heredity had only a limited role in human development; that future generations, living under socialism, would be purged of their “bourgeois” or “fascist” instincts.” See Lysenkoism
petefrt on May 6, 2007 at 1:27 PM
I think you’re refering to Karl Popper’s falsification theory of the demarcation between science and non-science. More directly, Popper maintains that unless a proposition is open to the prospect that some conceivable piece of evidence could, in theory, render it false, it does not belong to the realm of science.
This was a response to the logical positivists’ verification theory, which had some known issues. And it’s certainly a good rule of thumb, just as many of Popper’s observations about the rhetorical tactics of those who’ve strayed from a scientific perspective remain insightful. However, strictly speaking, falsificationosm is little (if any) better than the verificationism it sought to address–which is to say, it’s inherently flawed. There simply are propositions that are clearly scientifically meaningful, but which are not in principle refutable by any conceivable piece of evidence (for instance, the proposition “Zebras exist”).
The real cognitive picture is much more elaborate, because we don’t actually evaluate our beliefs on a per-proposition basis, as both Popper and the Vienna Circle would have had us believe, but rather do so in light of not only the available evidence, but also with regards to one another. The result is not a mental list of independent propositions which we tick off as true or false, but rather what W. V. O. Quine liked to call a “web of belief” (which also happens to be the title of one of his more accessible and insightful publications).
In the end, there’s no easy measure of what makes a proposition scientific or not, though there is one thing that does seem to be necessary (if not always sufficient): It must pertain to the physical world.
Blacklake on May 6, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Creationists embarrass the party. You’re our cindy sheehan. Congrats.
triple on May 6, 2007 at 3:49 AM
News flash!!!: Creationists are the ones who are gonna step up to the plate on the domestic Islamofacist issue. So when your watching the street fighting on TV please don’t feel embarased for us.
sonnyspats1 on May 6, 2007 at 1:34 PM
All theories about gravitation, like all scientific theories, remain theories, and will do so forever. Theories only grow stronger or weaker in light of available evidence. At no point do they ever achieve a special epistemological state.
And where this specific example is concerned, physicists understand quite explicitly that all current theories of gravity are not only quite assailably, but must be flat-out incorrect (Einstein himself pointed this out, even while he was offering the best current explanation!).
There are profound, currently unexplained disconnects between Einsteinian notions of gravitation and quantum theory. Resolving these disparities is arguably the central problem of modern theoretical physics.
Blacklake on May 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM
You’re correct. It’s one of those “necessary but not suficiant” things.
For the Christian the profound feelings of significance and purpose are a result of a relationship with God. A mere mental ascent to the existance of God isn’t enough; rather, knowing God, like you know your spouse, is eternal life.
Mojave Mark on May 6, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 4:25 AM
All science can do is observe and interperate and manipulate. Using the natural forces (laws) for in most cases for the betterment of mankind.HA HA Newtons laws of gravity! Uh well I dropped something and it fell to the ground hmm and since I am a lonely loser with time on my hands starving for attention with a huge ego I will write a new law. When you drop something in goes toward the earth. He is observing Gods Creation the rest is his own insane details of what already exists!
sonnyspats1 on May 6, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Let me see if I have the position of the anti-Evolution folks down correctly:
There are “problems” with the Theory Of Evolution science has not resolved.
Because of these “problems”, the entire theory is utterly useless
Therefore, creation as described in Genesis is good, correct, right and flawless. Not the creation myths of the various Meso-Americans and Amerinds. Not the Myths of the Hindus. Not the very cool Norse and Greek myths. Just the creation myth of the Judeo Christian world. Somehow, I just don’t see a symposium with a bunch of scientists trying to figure out if we are on the back of a turtle, or we were vomited up by a “firebird”.
Creationism is the attempt to pass off mythology, albiet a fairly popular mythology, as concrete fact. Intelligent Design is creationism with science words thrown in to confuse the ignorant.
ID is not a science. It does not meet the critera for a science. It will never be a science. If you call it a science, then you have no idea what science is.
Krydor on May 6, 2007 at 1:56 PM
Wow. Making fun of Newton; congrats.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Think about what you’re saying. “If it’s not evolution it’s not science.” That doesn’t sound very, well, scientific to me.
Modern science was brought about by Christians who believed that God created the universe. If it weren’t for Christians you wouldn’d have modern science, plain and simple. The greats of modern science reads like a who’s who of Christianity. Yeah, I know not EVERYONE has been a Christian but the vast majority were.
The Darwinist sees the Ferrari in the field and says “Gee, I wonder what explosion created that!”
Mojave Mark on May 6, 2007 at 2:10 PM
we have not witnessed any of these things, but through the use of logic and evidence we are able to know what happened.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Kinda goes full circle. I THINK I AM THEREFORE I AM!
sonnyspats1 on May 6, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Wow. Making fun of Newton; congrats.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM
LOL. OK so in the event all science is valid. How would that effect your views on the political landscape as we know it today?
sonnyspats1 on May 6, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Even then, the whole 4.5 Billion years and Zicron Crystals is still very much in debate. While most scientists are refusing to look at it, there is very good evidence that the period of decay is not 4.5 billion
Again, I’ll link to Thousands not Billions
Tim Burton on May 6, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Do ignorant Material Monists have any grasp on any of the work that REAL creation scientists have done?
Starlight and Time
A scientist from Sandia Labs has attempted to answer the problem and while some find certain priori less than favorably proven they have accepted that it is a very valid theory.
It doesn’t, it actually repeatedly calls for man to look at the heavens and wonder at the (infinite) power of God.
It isn’t rocket science to say that an infinite God could create this. In fact, it is basic logic (which seemingly huge number of Material Monists ignore).
If God is Infinitely Powerful, He could.
If God is Infinitely Good, He would.
If He could and He would, then He must.
If He must, then He did.
Therefore it is rational that he created the universe.
Now, you may reject that, but you must remember that that logic problem comes after these:
On Eternality:
If none is eternal, then all must be temporal.
If all is temporal, then all must have came into being.
Being from non-being is rationally self-defeating, therefore at least Some or All is Eternal.
On Material Monism being irrational:
The major premise assumes:
1) That there must be something eternal and what is eternal is not dependent on anything for its continuing existence. If all is matter then matter must be eternal.
2) That if something is self-maintaining it will continue without any change or if it changes it is a matter of recycling.
The minor premise is:
The physical universe is highly differentiated in terms of hot and cold. These differences interact until sameness is reached. Once sameness is reached, differentiation can not return.
If differentiation is returned, then it is either from an external cause or from an uncaused event. Hence it is irrational to believe that the universe is eternal.
There are about 4 other arguments against Material Monism based upon logic. One even rationally proves that all is not matter.
I have church, so I have to go, but if I get a chance before I travel tonight I’ll post them.
Tim Burton on May 6, 2007 at 2:53 PM
No, I’m saying that if you include magic beings in areas that are not fully understood, it isn’t science. ID is, being REALLY charitable here, a God of the Gaps theory. Whatever is not explained by the theory is due to God.
“How’s that work?”
“I don’t know.”
“Well then, it must be proof of God!”
I think the Greeks, Romans, Persians and Chinese might have something to say about that. You know what drove the Enlightenment scientists? In no small part, it was St. Augustine. Well, that an a loosening of Church influence on sciences. It was blasphemy to even posit that men and women had the same number of teeth and ribs. Even then, serious scientists had to be careful that their research conformed to doctrine.
I had no idea that’s what we did. See, I thought the Ferrari came about after centuries of development. That deveolpment can be traced back, in a linear fashion, to early Greek engineering, transitional forms and all.
To be a jerk, though, I would say that Ferrari was created by an explosion of human thought and applied science. I don’t see the Amish riding around in Ferraris.
ID is not a science. ID attempts to use junk science to prove the validity of the Bible. Evolution is the template for all modern biological sciences. All of them.
Krydor on May 6, 2007 at 2:58 PM
The problem of wheter there is or isn’t a God or if Darwin is or isn’t correct is besides the point.
If any of the propositions were true, would that change the basic principles we want to be governed under? Is it going to change the way we want to treat and be treated by others? Is it going to change the basic principle of coservatism which (to me) is responsible liberty? All it would do is to change the manner in which the princlpe is taught.
Iblis on May 6, 2007 at 3:02 PM
>no where near as weak as the Bible… which is the only evidence the religious have
Except for, well, real personal experience with God and other elements of the divine. Here. Today. Now.
How many Darwinists/evolutionists have actually interacted with a Neanderthal? (And no, Democrats don’t count.)
Come back when you have, and I might take you seriously.
Doghouse on May 6, 2007 at 3:45 PM
Doghouse,
No modern man has interacted with Homo Neandertalis, because they are extinct. Our ancestors had a hand in the extinction. They were, by some neat new theories, an entirely different human species.
Are you implying that they never existed?
Are you in personal, one on one contact, with the almighty?
Krydor on May 6, 2007 at 4:07 PM
If not specifically Darwinist, Lysenko’s thinking was definitely in the general Darwinist camp – that organisms adapt (which is true enough) and mutate (which is wide open) based on pressures of the environment in which they are located. Lysenko thought he could transform winter wheat into spring wheat by stressing it, then the wheat would develop and pass on the adaptive characteristics – essentially create something different – a garbled mix of adaptability and mutation.
Your comment points to why Lysenko did so well – his ideas were extremely attractive and easily adapted to support the “New Man” concepts of the communists.
That’s a good thinmg to remember. Just replace Lysenko with Al Gore:
“Lysenko not only distorted the development of science, with his pseudoscience of “agrobiology”, but also had a destructive impact on Soviet agriculture. As a result, many scientists lost their jobs, biological education was gutted and research in genetics came to a halt.*”
AL Gore not only distorted the development of climatology, with his psuedoscience of “global warming” but also had a destructive impact on American economic production. As a result, many meteorologists lost their jobs, climatology education was gutted and research in climate systems came to a halt.”
(*paraphrsed from The Lysenko Affair, David Joravsky.
naliaka on May 6, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Prove it.
I submit that the entire concept of religion is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated by man. To date, there is no independently verifiable evidence to confirm the existence of any of the various deities claimed by the numerous religions.
Precisely. When you have proof for your particular myth, get back to me.
Rusty Bill on May 6, 2007 at 4:47 PM
I agree. But let’s suppose that these difficulties are resolved in the future, and physicists finally HAVE their Holy Grail. The theory of everything (TOE), or grand unified field theory, or whatever you want to call it. So what have they accomplished? All the genius of Einstein, Stephen Hawkings, and Roger Penrose leads to one thing, viz. the explanation of “how things work and/or how they came about.” How empty. How devoid of meaning. What an exercise in futility. Because, you see, the fundamental question of life remains unanswered, viz. Why? WHY? It is THAT nagging question that remains unresolved. It is the reason for the existence of religions, and for faith in God.
You just cited one of the principal reasons why I avoid medical doctors like the plague of 1347 AD. (And NO, I am NOT a scientologist, FYI. I only visit these quacks when I have absolutely no other alternative.) Medical doctors, biologists, biochemists, palentologists, archeologists, even geologists (and many other “scientific” disciplines including branches of physics) have plunged headlong into the abyss of mysticism and religion, not science. I think
the the American Medical Association should rigidly enforce a rule that before a medical doctor hands out yet another prescribed pharmaceutical to one of his patients, that he must be required to wear a bone through his nose, don a grass skirt, and dance around an open fire chanting mumbo-jumbo — right there in the doctor’s office. THAT is how primitive and misguided that I think that their “science” is. I rather be bled by a leech. Yuck!
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 4:52 PM
Even if you were right, you’d be wrong. The GREATEST fraud ever perpetrated on mankind is the humanist doctrine that:
“Man is basically good.”
(All the evidence of recorded human history flys-in-the-face of this religious belief.)
and the second greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humankind is the communist belief that:
“Man can build utopia on earth. Therefore, there is no need for God.”
(Sorry. It just AIN’T gonna happen. Deal with it.)
Have you people considered hanging out at a web-site that is more in-line with your beliefs? I understand that Daily KOS gets every bit as much traffic as HotAir.
(Have I alienated EVERYONE here yet?)
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I don’t have any use for them, either.
No, but you’re working on it.
Rusty Bill on May 6, 2007 at 5:37 PM
BTW, define “you people”. Be specific. Even without knowing your definition, I am absolutely sure of one thing. In my case, you are wrong.
Rusty Bill on May 6, 2007 at 5:38 PM
CyberCypher,
Well, I’ll be sure to notify my father that his angioplasty, cancer drugs (interlukon & inteferon) and anti-viral medication to control a particular form of menigitis were figured out by the equivalent of a bunch of quacks in grass skirts.
Seeing as how you dismiss all modern science with a wave of your hand, would you care to share the alternative?
Krydor on May 6, 2007 at 5:39 PM
You don’t have to believe in Darwinism to contribute to scientific breakthroughs. Many prominent scientists were also Christians. This is the problem with atheists, they believe that if someone has faith they can’t contribute to science.
Rose on May 6, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Alas **sigh** once again I am misunderstood. I don’t dismiss all of science out of hand. I just call a spade, a spade.
Good science is like good faith in God. It is rare. Not very many people value it or pursue it with a purist passion/fervor. All too frequently, science is polluted by greed, by human egos, by dubious political agendas and other vices. The Christian church/faith suffers and has suffered throughout history in a likewise fashion. There is PLENTY of corruption to go around. Both in science and in religion.
Yeah, yeah, I know. CyberCipher is a cynic, possesses an overall dismal outlook on EVERYTHING, and has no tact. But I don’t see it that way. I just try to be honest with myself and with everyone else. I believe that when errors and abuses are exposed, they should be corrected, not glossed over and accepted as “inevitable.” Whatever happened to our passion for excellence? Is it apocryphal? Did I imagine it? Is it one of those great frauds that we were talking about?
It is SHAMEFUL the way modern medicine has compromised itself with the greed of the pharmeceutical companies and the insurance companies. It is SHAMEFUL the way that the ambulence chasers in the legal system have brought calamity down upon us in the field of medical care. Things are so bad, the whole system DESERVES to have Hillary Clinton become President. It’s just that we (the patients) don’t really deserve it. (But I’m not bitter, or anything.)
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Bingo! Took the words right outta my mouth!
I hope it didn’t sound like a nitpick, naliaka, but as you point out so well, Lysenko’s Russia is reappearing before our very eyes. Best we learn this history well.
Al Gore is to climatology as Lysenco was to biology. And though Gore is the most glorified among them, there are many Lysenkos now, sheltered by the academic PC subculture and fed largely by government research grants.
petefrt on May 6, 2007 at 6:02 PM
petefrt on May 6, 2007 at 6:02 PM
Enjoyed running with your comments. You’ll enjoy this I’m sure from Joravsky’s book The Affair Lysenko:
Russian “boltologiia” = jabberology.
naliaka on May 6, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Well, personally, just because someone isn’t a good debater does not mean they’re automatically incorrect. Bush can’t speak an entire sentence without messing up, and he’s right about a lot of things. I think the biggest problem with debates between evolutionists and creationists could be that evolutionists are always coming up with new things (because they constantly have to adjust their stories and findings to suit their beliefs) which makes it hard for creationists to keep up in order to debunk the theories that evolutionists present. This is of course just an opinion.
Also, if you have questions to do with creationism here’s a good site to go to.
http://www.answersingenesis.com
j_ehman on May 6, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Thats profound, but your logic sucks.
There are two possibilities. There is a god, or there isn’t.
Just because one possibility is more hopeful and comforting to some, doesn’t mean its the correct one.
Instead, lets say for the sake of argument you’re wrong about this whole “god” thing. What’s the difference between me and you?
The difference is, I accepted it, and moved on with my life.
You, instead, engaged in what people would look back on as self-delusion in the face of a hard reality. But its mass self-delusion, so don’t feel too bad.
triple on May 6, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Well you’re not – in the deep south.
The rest of the country, however..
triple on May 6, 2007 at 8:02 PM
naliaka on May 6, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Anyone who’s read The Lysenko Affair knows the lesson well.
I used to scoff at folks who dredged up examples of leftist totalitarianism in discussions of domestic politics. But if watching the modus operandi of the Soros left doesn’t strike alarm in our thinking, then I have to wonder what it will take for us to defend America as we know it.
petefrt on May 6, 2007 at 8:09 PM
The thought that believers only live in the deep south is absurd. There are large numbers of believers in every state. I live in Southern Calif and there are a lot of us here.
Rose on May 6, 2007 at 8:13 PM
I pray to Crom.
unamused on May 6, 2007 at 8:30 PM
See-dubya,
That’s a dodge. The facts of evolution have direct consequences for the biology and potentially the behavior of human beings. The relativity spoken of in physics is related to moral relativity in name only.
In a similar vein, are we to hold Christianity perpetually responsible for the Inquisition?
It has nothing to do with love. It has everything to do with ascertaining the facts of social reality and determining where our limits might lie.
Blacklake,
The secret silliness to gravity is that it only predicts what did fall, not what is going to fall….
A word about the use theory in science: the term theory has more than one meaning in science. It may mean a hypothesis or it may mean an accepted body of knowledge or an area of research. When scientists refer to the theory of evolution, they are referring to an accepted body of knowledge, not to a mere hypothesis. It is similar to when sientists use the speak of the ‘theory of superconductivity’ or ‘crystal lattice theory.’ These aren’t merely educated guesses, but bodies of knowledge formed from empirical evidence about how superconductors work or how the lattices of crystals are arranged. It is similar to the way mathematicians use terms like ‘group theory,’ or ‘game theory’ for example to describe certain branches of mathematics.
tommy1 on May 6, 2007 at 9:05 PM
If the earth was created in only thousands of years, many of the stars we see in the night sky would not be visible. The light from those stars would not have managed to travel to earth in the time frames involved.
tommy1 on May 6, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Well jackass, you successfully baited me. And yeah, I called you jackass, as you sit here and tell everyone who doesn’t agree with you that they’re delusional, etc.
Anyway, you are playing the liberal out of context game here so you don’t have to answer for your idiocy.
YOU went off about injecting creationism in to politics. Something none of us are doing, and there is no movement to do. We aren’t demanding our candidates go one way or the other. It was leftist Matthews who asked a stupid irrelevant question at the debate.
YOU tried telling everyone you don’t care what they think, while being pissy about it, and you’re still here being all pissy about it.
Where you crossed the line was playing the liberal game of quoting me out of context by quoting me as saying:
So you could make your unfounded smart ass comment:
In reality, what I said was hand you a little common knowledge, with deeper context here:
Again, it’s not a fringe group, it’s a vast majority of the population, period. Tone down your condescension and your attitude. For someone who is so above it all with your Darwinist knowledge, you sure seem to want to angrily complain about creationists a lot.
RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 9:32 PM
Not even in the slightest. Theories of gravity explicitly predict future events, not future discoveries about past events.
Blacklake on May 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Well, go ahead if you don’t mind and give me the particular “Social Darwinist” assertions you are referring to then, Blacklake.
tommy1 on May 6, 2007 at 9:40 PM
And for those who insist on making the ridiculous argument that we’ve never observed the evolution occurring, I’m sorry but you are simply wrong. Here and here are two examples.
tommy1 on May 6, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Everyone seems to agree that a long, pleasant life is good; many go on to imagine that recurrent, progressively better lives are very good, or even that an everlasting, heavenly life is the very best. Moreover, whatever different opinions we hold within the scope of that broad agreement, everyone seems also to agree that a short, miserable, futile life is bad, and “the miserable” and “the futile” are ideas we all seem to relate quite strongly to “the deadly.” A hasty man could easily decide that after 12 billion years of evolution, we have all become secret worshippers of the same god. However, I think it’s more complicated than that, and I hope to spend a long, pleasant, and perhaps even fruitful life inquiring into the matter and speculating on it.
Kralizec on May 6, 2007 at 10:29 PM
Admittedly, that IS convertional wisdom. And there are even those that are working feverishly in the laboratories right now who are trying to learn how to formulate a chemical cocktail that will signal the genetic code that controls the aging process in humans to “turn itself off.” Shades of Ponce De Leon (and the proverbial fountain of youth)! These people want to try to cheat death altogether.
Maybe when AllahPundit returns, he can start a thread on that topic, perhaps entitled something like, “Is it truly wise for our scientists to be tampering with the aging genes?”
You’ve probably already guessed which side that I’ll be on. Besides, I can’t imagine a more horrific idea than the thought of living forever in a world alongside Islamic terrorists, forever subjected to Britney Spears music videos, and AllahPundit’s humping robot. Dante’s hell would be preferable (IMHO).
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 11:12 PM
CyberCipher, I thought you might be interested… many are indeed studying the aging process, but not just for the purposes of cheating death, but also for helping kids with HGPS
Interesting developments.
RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 11:24 PM
I’m referring to the notion that one can somehow take the lessons of biological evolution and apply them to political theory in such a way as to justify policies that one claims will produce desirable outcomes.
Biological evolutionary theory can’t even be used to predict what species will emerge in the future (though it frequently can be used to predict what species you will discover that once did emerge–for instance, fossils of animals that blended features of whales and bears, or birds and dinosaurs, all of which were both predicted and found). As such, you certain can’t use a displacement of biological evolutionary theory onto political theory to predict what policies will have beneficial (or detrimental) future outcomes. That seems to be the central objective of this political Darwinist movement. To quote the original article:
That’s utter nonsense. I of course believe that there are strong arguments to be made in favor of all those things listed, particularly the last two. But those arguments are pragmatic and ethical. They have nothing to do with Darwin or biological evolution, anymore than they do Einstein and general relativity.
Don’t get me wrong. I recognize there is overwhelming evidence for biological evolution. And Creationism, being either an appeal to the physical that is strongly refuted by that evidence, or alternatively an appeal to the existence of non-physical entities which have nothing to do with evidence, is either false or scientifically meaningless, respectively. I’m merely arguing that the attempt to fuse political theory with biological evolutionary theory is off base.
Blacklake on May 6, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Of course, in a way, it’s open to anyone to use any words they think fit, but I’d like to object to what strikes me as the careless use of the word “Darwinism” on two grounds: Evolution and natural selection are the matters of interest, regardless of such an accident as the person who first thought of them, or his name. But more, Darwin seems to be not the first to think of these matters, but the first to write so carelessly of them. He turned a problem into a doctrine and gave it to the vulgar, who have treated it as a blasphemy on the one hand, and a dogma on the other.
Kralizec on May 7, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Darwin was brilliant. And as honest as he could be.
If the Universe spun us from exploded stars, is that not miraculous?
If there was a Mind behind, is that not miraculous?
What’s the argument?
We need to be polishing the Miraculous, not dulling each other.
Terraforming Mars, not arguing over whether the Miraculous has a proper name.
(”Allah” versus “Quetzecoatl” versus “Odin” versus “Moloch” versus “Yaweh” versus “Ishtar” versus “Baal” versus “Tiamat” versus “Krishna” versus “Ahriman” versus “Kwanyin” versus etc., etc., etc. So many Gods, so little time…)
There’ll be plenty of time to explore that quandry once we get over ourselves.
profitsbeard on May 7, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Try taking a walk through the Inferno, “backward,” from Satan’s “leg” at the bottom of the Ninth Circle, through the gates of Dis, and upward to Limbo.
Kralizec on May 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM
Nietzsche (or perhaps one of his characters, Zarathustra) called honesty “the youngest virtue.” Is it the youngest virtue? If so, is that because no one had thought of it before?
Kralizec on May 7, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Dude, that reads like a parody. All you need are some bongos and an open mic at Barnes & Noble.
Mojave Mark on May 7, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Here’s some real science we can all appreciate (the Astronomy Picture of the Day is always cool to check out)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070507.html
RightWinged on May 7, 2007 at 1:24 AM
BlackLake,
Begging the question. I ask you for examples of the social Darwinian assertions you claim have no predictive power and you respond by effectively saying “you know, those evolutionary ones.” How about some examples, please.
tommy1 on May 7, 2007 at 2:03 AM
>Prove it.
Why? I know it’s true, and the only way you’ll know that it’s true is through your own personal experience. If you want to know whether it’s true or not, do what it takes to gain that experience. If you don’t want to know whether it’s true or not, don’t do what it takes.
>I submit that the entire concept of religion is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated by man.
Interesting, though narrow, view, but personal experience always trumps an interesting, though narrow, view.
Try this. Explain to me what salt tastes like. (And saying that it’s “salty” doesn’t count.) I would say that you can’t give an accurate description of the taste of salt. Does that mean that salt has no taste? No. Personal experience tasting salt gives us first-hand knowledge of that. But you have to taste the salt to know it for sure.
Not a perfect analogy, but more than sufficient as a reply to somebody who likely has no intention of listening in the first place. (Maybe you do, but I have yet to meet an atheist who had any interest in anything more than empty debate when it comes to spiritual/religious issues.)
>To date, there is no independently verifiable evidence to confirm the existence of any of the various deities claimed by the numerous religions.
Nor have we seen any independently verifiable evidence to confirm the non-existence of any of the various deities claimed by the numerous religions. So what?
>When you have proof for your particular myth, get back to me.
Again, I ask, “Why?” It’s the kind of thing you have to find out for yourself. I’m not the one who seems to claim a glorious throne for narrow and finite human science.
Doghouse on May 7, 2007 at 2:33 AM
I just have to note that archeology is CONSTANTLY confirming stories from the Bible. I’m not claiming that this proves “God”, but it’s worth noting.
It’s also always worth noting that evolution has been set up in a way that it’s unfalsifiable. No matter how much evidence flows in that contradicts the theory, they always adjust the theory to fit the new evidence without questioning the theory. I’ve listed just a few examples in this thread, a few in others, and there are literally thousands upon thousands. It’s sad that because evolution is assumed, “scientists” always have to wildly speculate as to how the contradictory evidence still allows for the overall theory to work, despite never supplying evidence.
RightWinged on May 7, 2007 at 2:50 AM
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 12:10 PM,
The mistake is using god-like perfection as a standard with which to gauge beings that are fallible by nature. There never will be a “Shangrai-La”. That doesn’t mean it is misguided to aim for the best in our own lives, but those negative traits Hobbes listed will always exist to some degree in every society.
The assumption here is that a Communistic society is the
moral ideal for which we should aim. It isn’t. The Communistic ideal may be suitable for some kind of alien life form but it is certainly destructive to humans for the reason being that it treats individual self-interest as a flaw, sinful, something to be punished and eradicated. Hence humans get slaughtered by the millions, and “solitary, poor, treacherous, dumb, nasty” becomes the norm. Every life form has to act in its own self interest for its very survival. Humans are no different, hence people as a whole prosper under capitalism with its individual freedom and are prisoners to a miserable existence under Communism. And this —>”It SHOULD be possible to evolve into a communistic society where crime disappears and every man “receives his reward according to the caliber of his work.” is just plain illogical because it places a universal value on someone’s work. Just another one of Marx’s monstrous gaffs. What’s of value to me may not be of value to you. Every person has their own hierarchy of values which changes over time. It’s part of what makes each one of us unique rather than conformist robots or, in this case, conformist robotic indentured servants in Communist la-la land. We negotiate worth. That’s the moral way to conduct trade of value for value.
I think you need to question the efficacy of what you regard as the human ideal. Pressing upon mankind a fundamentally flawed ideology tends to result in a great deal of death and destruction with all those negative traits Hobbes seems to think dominates us all, multiplied.
FierceGuppy on May 7, 2007 at 4:38 AM
FierceGuppy on May 7, 2007 at 4:38 AM
You you make a SPLENDID politician. you talk a lot, but you don’t say anything.
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 8:24 AM
I’m just not ready to believe in god yet. I’m still all broken up over the whole Santa Clause/Easter Bunny thing. To think they’d lie for all those year’s about that, then want me to buy into this whole Jesus thing…
Robert Hackman on May 7, 2007 at 8:35 AM
Standard non-answers, red herrings and logical fallacies.
Oh, and
Show where I did that.
Rusty Bill on May 7, 2007 at 8:44 AM
RW,
As I mentioned in another thread along these lines, proof of a location does not provide proof of an event or person. I submit that the discovery of Troy does not prove Achillies near immortality or Jason’s adventures. At some point I’ll have to finish the giant blog post. It’s long on speculation and short on research at this point.
In a nutshell, though, the only religions archeologists and historians aren’t allowed to dissemble, for fear of offense, are the Abrahamic ones. There are people out there who feverishly wish to prove that Noah’s wacky adventures actually happened as written. There are people looking for the Garden of Eden. There are people convinced the sun stood still so Joshua could win a battle, and will go to great lengths to prove it. Those people are unhinged.
There are, for instance, 3 or 4 popular dates for the Exodus. Which says to me that the story is a combination of other stories with a bit of embellishment. All the dating and all the evidence says it did not happen as related in the Bible.
I kinda like the Tutmoses theory of Moses myself, although uit is not the whole story. Answers some nagging questions and asks a bunch more.
Krydor on May 7, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Okay so that was harsh. I apologize. (Yes, I’m even GRUMPIER on Monday mornings.)
I never SAID that the Marxist ideal was desirable, or the it should be the target model for anyone’s society. I was only trying to say that if you accept the premises of “Man’s nature is basically good.” and “Man’s is capable of evolving into a higher order social being, i.e. utopia on earth is possible.” then Marx’s ideology SHOULD have been workable in one form or another. But the fact is, not only did Communism fail, but socialism has rendered the countries of Europe a mere shadow of their former selves. This ALL came about because of a fundamental mis-understanding on the part of the high-brow (so-called)intellectuals regarding the nature of man. Modern symbolic logic teaches us that if you accept premises at the outset the contradict themselves, it doesn’t matter how flawless your logic is, you can prove that the moon is made of green cheese. This is akin to the snake-oil that Marx and Lenin sold to Europe. It is ironic that SUCH calamity can be the direct result of a fundamental misunderstanding of something so basic and rudimentary as human nature.
Nor did I say that “we shouldn’t aim for the best in our own lives.” You are reading a lot a things into my comments that I never said. One of the fundamental tenets of Christianity is that we should indeed strife to be the best human being that we can be and that we utilize our talents for the greater good.
As for the remainder of your comments, for the most part, it seems to me that you have a penchant/flair for stating the obvious.
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM
the contradict/that contradict
strife/strive
mea culpa. Spelling atrocious as ususal. Yup. It’s Monday morning.
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Well I can certainly understand why some conservatives don’t believe in the concept of evolution. ;^)
honora on May 7, 2007 at 10:51 AM
(Just when I thought that Monday morning was the worst problem that I currently have on my hands, you-know-who shows up.)
Nothin’ for Catholic school girls to see here. Move along.
CyberCipher on May 7, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Rusted Bill:
You still haven’t told me what salt tastes like.
Doghouse on May 7, 2007 at 11:40 AM
“Traditional social roles for men and women have evolved naturally over time, therefore adherence to traditional roles for men and women will continue to benefit society.”
“Free-market capitalism provides a competitive environment like that of the Galapagos Islands, therefore free-market capitalism will produce desirable results in the future.”
“Governmental checks and balances can serve a purpose similar to evolutionary environmental pressures, therefore they will ensure a certain degree of robustness in future society.”
All of these predictions appeal to value judgments of a kind that biological evolution has no interest in whatsoever.
Blacklake on May 7, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Very few evolutionists I know claim this. Most, however, believe such roles can be understood in the context of human biology and that deviations from such roles tend to lead to unexpected difficulties. I think that is pretty well born out by the facts.
As opposed to what, Communism? What is your definition of “desirable?” I have a feeling your rejection of this probably stems from a difference of opinion as to what is a desirable outcome with the “Social Darwinists” you object to. This argument would be better aimed at libertarians who argue simultaneously that libertarian economic policy is moral in the sense that it rewards the best players and also leads to the best possible outcome for everyone in society at any given point in time. Classical Social Darwinists, like Herbert Spencer, have never concerned themselves with whether the majority of society benefits at any given time from such an economic approach.
Again, as opposed to what? A lack of checks and balances? What do you mean by robustness? If you mean conservatism in governance, I would say that the facts support the idea that the more checks and balances that are in place, there is indeed necessarily greater conservatism since there are more people to veto novel propositions.
If tomorrow a discovery in quantum physics allowed us to overcome the force of gravity, does that mean that gravity should have been ignored all these centuries as intrinsically worthless?
I’m not a Social Darwinist, but Derbyshire is right: we shouldn’t ignore evolution.
tommy1 on May 7, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Its not a “vast majority”, its not even close. Its nowhere near mainstream belief. And even if it was, that wouldn’t make you any more or less correct, would it? If a billion people believe a falsehood, that doesn’t make it true.
Sorry if I sound condescending, its kind of hard when someone is arguing that there is no proof of evolution, and then proceeds to tell me GOD did it.
Oh man, I can’t even roll my eyes that far back into my head. Itd give me too much of a headache.
triple on May 7, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Why can’t we just keep science(political,social or physical) and religion in the separate spheres that they belong in? Physical proof of biblical events is anathema to the idea of faith. If you find yourself on a mountain in Turkey, freezing and looking around for a giant boat that was built by a senior citizen thousands of years ago to house two of every (immutable) species of animal(which adds up to roughly one hundred million-trillion-brazillion animals), in order to save them from a global flood(there isn’t that much water on Earth, not to mention the lack of a world-wide geological sediment recoord), then you have completely missed the boat(sorry) on what faith is all about. Not to mention the moral of the story.
I’ve said it before, butI’ll reiterate. The world is going to change, no matter how much we dislike the idea. That said, we as conservatives can either accept that, or we can sit back and keep denying heliocentricism, and watch as the entire U.S. adopts San Francisco values.
Instead of fighting over whether it’s more likely that we just happened to evolve, with all the statistically unlikely events that entails or whether some magic wielding God used his almighty spoken word to create us and the “giant’s that were in the Earth” in those days, why don’t we just keep ouropinions to ourselves and work on solving our real problems. We’ve got to be able to think of some stuff more pressing than our spiritual beliefs,like say, AIDS or Malaria or T.B. If you don’t like what society teaches in public school, then either send them to private school, or home school them. Or tell when they get home that it’s B.S. Either way, we’re going to either going to have to believe what science say’s and take it with it’s strength’s and weakness’, and accept that sometimes they make mistakes in their search for truth. Or we can go back to living in fear of lightning and god. And we can take up genicide in the name of reigion. What say you?
Beside’s, I already told you guy’s, my wounds from the whole Santa isn’t real thing are still too fresh. I’m just not ready to BELIEVE again yet.
Robert Hackman on May 7, 2007 at 2:12 PM
I’m not sure who you’re arguing with, but it doesn’t seem to be me. I’d suggest you re-read the original article that sparked this thread, then re-read what I actually had to say about it (if it actually matters to you).
Blacklake on May 7, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I wasn’t even arguing with you or saying “God did it” about anything. AGAIN read the entire context of the comment. YOU, after much whining said in a pissy way that you don’t care what others believe as long as we leave it out of the political arena… But you were creating something to complain about, because we aren’t protesting outside the doors of presidential candidates, demanding that they agree, etc. It was leftist Chris Matthews who asked a stupid irrelevant question. But again, YOU are the one getting pissy about us putting it in the political arena.
And back to the context about majority opinion. You sound like a child. You can’t just stay on point. ALL I said was that the vast majority of people agree with creationists, whether they call themselves that or not. I didn’t say this was evidence for being right, and I didn’t even imply it. You just can’t argue the actual argument, you have to keep diverting which makes you come off like a liberal by the way. Your methods are exactly the same. First you quoted me WAY out of context and ignored the real point. Now you’re kind of doing the same thing, and making up new things to complain about that I never even said.
By the way, I find it interesting that you want to tell me that consensus doesn’t make someone right (which AGAIN, I never even insinuated), yet consensus is what evolutionists turn to in frustration when they can’t convince us. How many times have we heard the sarcastic “okay, so all the scientists are wrong, but you creationists are right?”
And you don’t just sound condescending. You sound like a disrespectful dick… and not to me so much, but to the others. You have no reason to be, especially when you claim not to care what others think. I rarely do this, but I’ve got to say, you’re battling against an underlying belief in God. You’re fighting so hard to deny his existence, it shows in your anger and disrespect.
RightWinged on May 7, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Coming from RightWinged this means A LOT!
Nonfactor on May 7, 2007 at 7:17 PM
It has long been an axiom on the Internet that when someone starts taking… liberties… with people’s names it is tacit admission that they are incapable of rational argument.
Rusty Bill on May 7, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Why? The accusation against Progressive ideologies (and other derivatives of utopian thinking) is not that they see human beings as perfect, but as perfectible.
?
If the Earth had been created yesterday in the known universe, you’d still see the same night sky – all light inbound to that point from all parts of the universe would be visible instantly. (Were you trying to make a different point?)
RD on May 7, 2007 at 9:41 PM
That’s assuming the stars were already in existence. If the Earth were created 10,000 years ago (along with the stars in the sky) light from many of the stars wouldn’t have yet reached us. Does the pro-10,000 year crowd believe that stars are only 10,000 years old as well?
Nonfactor on May 7, 2007 at 10:00 PM
The Darwinist book of Genesis:
In the beginning, an unknown force caused an inexplicable explosion, based on unknown rules of physics, to create an implausible universe. And “nobody” said that it was meaningless.
And the inexplicable matter turned into giant rocks. And (after a magically long time) the rocks turned into people.
Now THAT’S faith baby!
Mojave Mark on May 7, 2007 at 11:10 PM
People, let it go. Either God’s there or he/she isn’t. You’ll find out when you die(or you won’t). Until then, be good to each other and fight the terrorists if you have to fight someone. They hate us all equally. And our God/Gods/lacktherhof.
Robert Hackman on May 8, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2