It emerges from last evening's debate that two of the 10 Republican presidential candidates--Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo---don't believe in the theory of evolution. These aren't the big hitters on the GOP side, but it reveals an interesting under-current of anti-Darwin sentiment among Republicans and conservatives.
I know many on the right, especially the Christian right, are scared of Darwin. Even intellectual magazines like Commentary seem to have adopted an anti-Darwin position. This has enabled many on the left, as well as the professional atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, to portray conservative Christians as yahoos. Sometimes we do come across that way.
In my forthcoming book "What's So Great About Christianity" I will show why, contrary to the claims of Dawkins and company, Darwinian evolution does not undermine the design argument for God. On the contrary, the latest findings of modern science have greatly strengthened that argument. Paley was right and Dawkins is wrong. Fasten your seat-belt and wait for my book, or, if you are a real fanatic, pre-order it here.
But if Christian anxiety is misplaced, conservatives are even further off the mark. That's because Darwin's theory actually supports conservative positions in all kinds of interesting ways. First, Darwin gives a dark and selfish view of human nature, which is why we need a tough foreign policy to deal with bad guys who cannot be talked out of their badness--even if U.N. cocktails are served. In addition, the selfishness in human nature warrants a system called capitalism which channels this self-orientation toward the material betterment of society.
It gets better. Darwin shows that social institutions like the family are founded in the deep human drive to reproduce and care for the young. Reproduction and self-perpetuation are the natural root of human family arrangements, which cannot be redefined as mechanisms of "self-fulfillment" without jeopardizing their biological basis and function. Consider a simple statistic: when divorced moms remarry or have boyfriends in the house, those surrogate parents are vastly more likely to physically and sexually abuse the children than their own parents. Darwinian theory supplies the reason: the real parent shares the same genes as the child and this forms a bond that dispels sexual attraction and discourages abuse. "Family values" are supported by modern evolutionary biology.
I'm not saying embrace Darwinian evolution because it is politically useful. I am saying don't hastily reject a theory that has a lot of evidence going for it when it has the added merit of being politically congenial.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 11)
1. Mr. D'Souza says, " Darwin's theory actually supports conservative positions in all kinds of interesting ways. First, Darwin gives a dark and selfish view of human nature."
This is very revealing. Mr. D'Souza admits that conservatives are simply selfish.
This must be his political side talking because when he waxes religious, he's always on about how it must be why humans* are very altruistic.
He, himself admits that his ideas are welling up from the 'dark' depths of the mind of a 'yahoo.'
*I'm assuming that D'Souza believes that conservatives are still actually human. Interesting theory, DD, interesting theory.
pboyfloyd at 3:59AM on May 4th 2007
2. Dinesh,
It sounds as if you have a 'spontaneous monster' theory waiting for us. I for one am not afraid of Darwinism, but I am amazed at how much of his theory has been exaulted to religion status without scientific proof or transitional forms, or the intense conflict with the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. I spoke with a physicist who had to admit that when applying the 'science of probabilities' that they had to start with a made up number and an educated guess and build on it, and he did not make his admission willingly or readily. I love the stimulation that comes through research about the cosmos, but I want to be respected with science and not someone's imposed belief system.
Cdalealden at 4:05AM on May 4th 2007
3. Cdalealden,
Earth's creatures are tiny accretions of energy in a system whose entropy IS increasing. The sun? Heats the Earth and is on its way to red giant status. The Earth? It's internal heat is dissipating. The system as a whole is increasing hugely in entropy and we animals are tiny aftereffects. Do you know of an animal that can exist without introduction of free energy from outside themselves? Then you've somehow discovered a Second-Law-flouting-animal that doesn't eat. Quick!! Introduce it to the world and you can name it Cdaldealdenicus!!
And don't even bring up the eye thing.
lil_turk at 7:34AM on May 4th 2007
4. D'Souza,
Prediction: you won't get the science even close to correct.
And if you want to understand and describe evolution, your mental tool chest should at least include the ability to count. Brownback+Tancredo+Huckabee=three unbelievable jack-asses, not two.
lil_turk at 7:39AM on May 4th 2007
5. what is so "rejectable" about Darwin's theory? It does nothing to lessen "god's miraculous creation", and in fact, begins to allow us to see into the vast wonders of our existance. Anyone who denies Darwin simplistically, or out of fear, is not giving their world a chance to show itself at its best. Anyone who doesn't believe in the theory of Evolution is NOT presidential material.
dorothy at 8:23AM on May 4th 2007
6. lil_turk writes: "Then you've somehow discovered a Second-Law-flouting-animal that doesn't eat. Quick!! Introduce it to the world and you can name it Cdaldealdenicus!!"
lil_turk, Good comments as always. However, watch out disagreeing with Cdalealden or you'll join me in being an "asshole" "coward" and "bully" in his eyes and public comments. If you really don't care what he thinks, like me, then I would just continue to be right on point. Here is someone who says when you make your private life public you open yourself up to scrutiny, but then goes on the attack after he makes his private religious views public and they're scrutinized. As an Afro-American he has decried slavery but believes in a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible, and that includes condoning slavery. I'm confused by this glaring inconsistency, but if I point it out I'm on the "attack" by looking at the provisions of the book upon which they are based. Since he has expressed, in other blogs, a belief in the entire Bible then he should just stick to Genesis, reject science and Darwinism outright, and leave it at that. While we're at it, let's cover up the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with Benjamin Moore white ceiling paint, because the painter, Michelangelo, was gay.
Getting that off my chest was a relief. Now to Darwinism. My question on that is if the doctrine of survival of the fittest is true, how did George Bush become President and what does that say about our chances for national survival?
Phil at 8:39AM on May 4th 2007
7. It's ridiculous to say that you don't believe in Darwin's theory. Darwin certainly existed and he had a theory. All of that said, Darwin's theory is just that; a THEORY. Darwinism CANNOT be a theory of ultimate origins. Darwin himself admits that he began theorizing about a life form with the ability to reproduce (not bad for something that just sprang into existence). Of course the idea that "something" can come from "nothing" breaks several laws of physical reality as we understand them. Also, if the earth really is four billion years old, and this first single celled organism "sprang" into existence on the first day (able to reproduce); "evolving" from it to the abundance of life in all of it's marvelous forms all around us, in only four billion years, would be equivalent to hitting the lottery every day for four billion straight years.
Of course Darwin had a theory, however the Genisis account in the Bible has as much validity as a theory, and is frankly more plausible than theory's that hypothesize that the universe just created itself out of nothing.
Steelman at 9:28AM on May 4th 2007
8. I find it incredible that Darwin published his "Origin of the Species" book on evolution in 1859 and there are people still debating the issue. Darwin's theory has withstood the test of time and before dismissing it, people should actually READ IT. One major addition to the theory of evolution was de Vries theory of "mutation", a sudden change in the gene pool of any particular species which, if beneficial to its survival, becomes a part of the gene pool and if not disappears from the gene pool.
There is no disconnection between religion and evolution. Darwin describes a natural process and makes no statement concerning original cause. The origin of the universe is still a great mystery.
As far as we know, the only species on earth that has a consciouness of its behavior and free-will are human beings. Darwin's "survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with direct competition or purposefullness. Survival of the fittest states that the species that is more adaptable to its environment will be able to exploit it better than other species. Those other species may become extinct; they may migrate elsewhere or they may be marginalized within the environment.
When Darwin speaks of survival, he speaks of biological survival. The "alpha" male within any particular social group is the one who is more likely to propagate his particular gene traits. The subordinate males must wait their turn.
A theory does not stand or fall upon whether or not it fits into our particular views on economy or religion. I wish people would take what Darwin says and truly understand it. If they did they would not fear it or hate it.
"KNOWLEGE IS POWER."
CAF at 9:36AM on May 4th 2007
9.
Here we go again with some nutjob writing it off as just a theory.
Everything in science starts with a theory, then you build on that theory with evidence you can observe and recreate in the natural world. If you want to discount it for starting with a hypothesis then you are discounting the entire scientific method, and frankly that makes you a complete moron.
Evolution can be observed under a microscope. Viruses and bacteria reproduce at rates far faster than you or I and thus they evolve much more quickly. This is why anti-biotics have created super-diseases, they have evolved resistances to our drugs.
Please don't be foolish and say something like science is actually faith, it's not.
Peter at 9:39AM on May 4th 2007
10. Darwin's theory states that man was evolved from the lower forms of life. There was a chart he used to show this evolution in a step by step order. Over one hundred and fifty years have past since he put forth his theory. Since that time volumes of geological evidence have been discovered and not one link has been made to confirm Darwin's theory. While evolution has been shown to exist in many other ways, as animals have evolve to adapt to their new environments, Darwin's theory remains just that, a theory.
Phil Beeson at 10:00AM on May 4th 2007
11. The new incarnation of Herbert Spencer --Dinesh
Steve Griffith at 10:03AM on May 4th 2007
12. Evolution has no, report, no, facts to support it. It is a theory, cannot be scientifically proven, and even the theory is so full of holes it wouldn't make a good fish net. If 50,000, or 50,000,000 people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. I believe that most people who say they believe in evolution have not studied it nor have they studied alternative theories to the existence of our world and it's inhabitants.
Joseph M. Butler at 10:03AM on May 4th 2007
13. Peter writes: "Here we go again with some nutjob writing it off as just a theory."
Sounds concise and accurate to me. As you adroitly state - evolution is directly observable (in fact, at your nearest medical lab).
Phil at 10:07AM on May 4th 2007
14. The new incarnation of Herbert Spencer--Dinesh--"the new social darvinist" D'Souza.
Steve Griffith at 10:08AM on May 4th 2007
15. Mr.D'Souza, You, like many of your potential book buyers, are religious yahoos. Your conservative ilk has an agenda to deny women equal rights; explain evolution as a religious theory; and are afraid to call evolution a scientific fact, which every respected scientist knows it is. What about carbon dated fossils showing the earth to be many million years old, not just 10,000 or 6,000 years old, as that multi-scribed bible says? Or the Koran, which promises 72 female virgins for dead Muslims? You, sir, are a yahoo cheerleader.
Robert at 10:08AM on May 4th 2007