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 6 of 11)
76.
RR-
The theory of evolution by itself does not attempt to explain consciousness, it states only that evolution does occur under several different circumstances. How our own consciousness came about exactly may one day be able to answered through the theory of evolution, but there's a lot more work to be done on that front.
In my opinion, consciousness is a matter of perception: Of time, place, etc., and the difference between the organic (living) and inorganic (dead or non-living) is that ability for perception and manipulation of our environment. I can't, of course, prove that to you since I can't show you how a dog or cat or monkey or fish perceives the world.
However under the theory, we likely all descended from one mother species, every creature on Earth shares that species as it's common ancestor, but over time we've split apart into the variety of life we see today, each exploiting our own niche for survival. If you want to consider that first life form as the origin of consciousness because it was the first living thing, I'd say that's a safe bet because by the nature of living they were conscious on the most minimal level, but again I really can't prove how that being perceived the world. How fascinating is that, though, that every living thing on Earth is connected to each other?
Now here's where I will give you who hold your faith above science an out: If we all descended from one life form, where did it come from? Life didn't exist on Earth for a long time, then suddenly it did. Providing organic creatures cannot result naturally from some sort of inorganic reaction (jury is still out on that one) where else could it have come from? Or if you want to go back even further, one of the laws of physics states that matter cannot be created from nothing, yet the matter resulting in the Big Bang got there somehow. Those physical laws break down before the universe was created, so it's very possible something broke those laws and that excludes anything natural science can explain at this point. So there you have it, you all can still believe in a creator and you can stop this evolution-denying sillyness.
Peter at 5:47PM on May 5th 2007
77.
I get the feeling that last paragraph is going to be a fair portion of Mr. D'souza's book, as well. The argument is rather compelling, and it is gaining momentum in the scientific community that it may be within the realm of possibility. However I think the title for your book should be "what's so great about religion" because it would validate more than Christianity if it were true.
Peter at 5:57PM on May 5th 2007
78. lil_turk,
I honestly didn't respond to #3 post because you were speaking above my head. Also, I had most recently heard that the enternal heat of the earth was increasing, so you lost me!
dalosophy at 6:07PM on May 5th 2007
79. Cdalealdosophy,
I'm just talking about the Second Law: http://www.allaboutscience.org/second-law-of-thermodynamics.htm
Entropy is increasing in the solar system because the sun's concentrated energy is dissipating. Just because plants and animals store energy doesn't mean they're reverse-entropy machines. They use up massive energy in the storage of a smaller amount of energy, and that energy comes from sources outside of them: sun, Earth. So the system of which they are part increases in entropy hugely because the concentrated energy of the sun and Earth are spreading out (increasing entropy) while we accrete teeny tiny amounts That, of course, ends when we croak.
The Earth's innards are heating? Whuuhhhh?
lil_turk at 7:57PM on May 5th 2007
80. An interesting article; but I think you have a very hard job ahead of you, judging by the comments here.
It would be a positive step if you could persuade your fellow-conservatives to recognize some elementary science. That's going to be hard. It's a shocking indication of the abysmal state of science education in the USA that you even need to be making this point. I wish you good luck in trying to bring them out of the nineteenth century.
On the other hand, I don't think you can claim that "Paley was right". Paley had a very particular argument for his natural theology, which made sense when written in 1802, but is now seen to be invalid.
There has been some discussion on your article by some science bloggers; and some disagreement. I'm a part of that discussion, and you can read more at "Is D'Souza really redefining evolution", at http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-dsouza-really-redefining-evolution.html.
Duo Quartuncia at 5:53AM on May 6th 2007
81.
It's possible he is redefining Paley instead of redefining evolution. At least, I hope so, because Paley was very very wrong in the claims he made and has been proven as such.
Peter at 9:21AM on May 6th 2007
82. Reading D'SOuza on evolution is cringeworthy. Darwinism in no way implies "selfishness" and "a dark and selfish view of human nature". Humans evolved in groups, an environment where altruism and empathy are genetically beneficial - and being a bastard is not. It also explains our tribal instincts to form dangerous us and them groups - a tendancy that is self evident in D'Souza's writing.
JoeyJoeJoeJunior at 1:29PM on May 6th 2007
83. Dear Peter:
I think you make some excellent points in your answer. Thank you for your thought and effort, and I appreciate your observations allowing for the role of the Creator. However, I have a few follow-up comments and questions.
1st, are you taking the position that ALL living things are conscious on some level, even plants, fungi or bacteria? That is a strong position to take about consciousness.
2d, May I ask you where you consider consciousness or perception to 'come from'? I see that you said that consciousness is a matter of perception. But that leads to the question, does it not, of 'where does perception come from?' And, 'how does perception work?'
The philospher Liebniez had an argument comparing the brain to a mill and arguing that if we only consider physical parts, we see things that push and pull against one another - but nothing that would ever explain perception. This suggests to me that there is something more to living beings than what has physically evolved - something like mind or spirit.
Thanks again.
RR at 5:31PM on May 8th 2007
84.
RR-
As I stated, those are merely my opinions on the subject. However in order for something to be deemed "living" it must perceive something about the world because we all have survival needs and to survive one must recognize what those needs are on some level.
I don't believe plants have the same consciousness you or I have of course, but by virtue of being alive they must have it on some level in order to survive. By and large they need water, sunlight, nutrient rich soil, and other plants to mate with, and they manipulate their environment to get those things. For example, many plants or trees will grow at an angle to maximize the amount of sunlight they can get if there are larger trees casting a shadow on them. So they must be able to recognize what their needs for survival are and change their environment to get them. It's probably a primitive level of consciousness compared to ours, but it is still consciousness.
Regardless of what I think, though, the idea of consciousness does not discredit the theory's principles, our brain evolved from more primitive brains and with it I would assume our level of conscience evolved as well. What specific changes occured in that process to alter it is a matter for further study.
On another note, it is true Mr. D'souza is quite wrong when he states that evolution supports selfishness in humans, in fact it is quite the opposite. Human beings are social creatures and unselfish acts (such as grooming among Chimpanzees) strengthen social bonds. The more friends a human being has, the more likely he/she is to survive, so complete selfishness is the opposite of what we have evolved into. True, by their nature these unselfish acts are actually in the individuals interest, but that supports the idea of socialism far more than capitalism. I am not a socialist per se but evolution has turned us into creatures who care about the well-being of our social groups as much as our own well-being because it is (or was) necessary for our survival.
For instance, let's look at ants: They are highly social creatures just like us, and they will throw their own lives away to protect the colony. Is that not "moral" behavior? Is that not an unselfish act? We do the same because we know on a biological level what behavior butters the bread of our species.
Peter at 3:03PM on May 6th 2007
85. @ Cdalealden (comment #2)
You say,"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."
Probability is a branch of mathematics which deals with statistics etc.
I'm sure that you weren't quizzing this physicists on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He would not have been bit puzzled about that, you said he was a physicist, right?
Scientists do not 'start with educated guesses', build on them to produce science... they would build on them to produce 'educated guesses.
Your entire anecdote is meaningless.. unless we all jump to your unspoken conclusion that, "Scientists have their head up their ass, therefore GOD IS GREAT."
Is that about right, Cdalealden???
pboyfloyd at 3:25PM on May 6th 2007
86.
Dalosophy-
So let me get this straight, you acknowledge that this discussion is over your head, but still you deny the claims that are made by those scientists who are discussing matters over your head? Wow, just....wow. Thank you for proving every point I've made so far about Creationists being liars, at least.
Also the Earth's core is not increasing in temperature, I don't know where you heard that but it is a falsehood in every sense of the word. I apologize for acting so over-confident but I know I cannot possibly lose this debate because every shred of evidence is on my side and every shred of evidence disproves your theory about life's creation.
Peter at 3:59PM on May 6th 2007
87. @ Joseph M. Butler (comment 12)
You say, "Evolution has no, report, no, facts to support it. It is a theory,.."
Joseph, Evolution explains the natural diversity of life.
Fact one, there is life.
Fact two, life is very diverse.
Fact three, we can classify life into broad categories, then more particular categories, then even more particular categories. (look this up on the 'net, the reality-based sites please. Faith-based sites are simply trying to confuse the issue.)
Fact four, we can see NATURAL SELECTION in action all the time as viruses mutate and become a menace to us. We can try to usurp this NATURAL SELECTION process... medicine... or we can let others (there's those EGGHEADS) do that for us and deny the process entirely.
I CAN go on and on, but if you're simply going to deny natural selection, imagining it always to be some 'miraculous' additive agent instead of the unfeeling destructive selection process that it mostly is...
... simply put, if a virus comes along and wipes out half the population, that is NATURAL SELECTION in action.
You'd rather pretend thats disease are caused by demons.. because that is what the Bible says, Joseph...that is what Jesus shows us... and if that is true, medicine is built on scientific lies.
But your 'truth' is easy for you to 'prove'... simply trust in the LORD, follow the curative instructions in the BIBLE... it won't be a 'TEST OF GOD'... it'll be a TEST OF YOUR FAITH.
pboyfloyd at 4:03PM on May 6th 2007
88. Re: replies 10 and 12 - A theory, in science, is not another word for "hunch" or "guess", it's a working account, an explanation for a set of data. To dismiss evolution because it is "just a theory" doesn't just demonstrate your ignorance of what evolution is, but also of what a dictionary is.
Willo the Wisp at 4:25PM on May 6th 2007
89. @ rod (comment 17)
You said, " What you never hear or will hear from those who believe in the theory of evolution is that before Darwin died, he retracted all of his ideas on evolution and embraced creation as being from God. Think about that."
Even if this were true, what is your argument? Argument from senile delinquency? Argument from Alzheimer's? Not that... how about argument from.. let's disregard the fact that old people sometimes hark back to their early days and teachings of spirituality?
Are you trying to say that we should use Darwin's life-long studies of natural selection as fire-starter... and that'll be the end of that?
Well, rod, there is still life, and there's still it's diversity and there is still natural selection.
You seem to be hoping that every scientist who studies this will eventually recant on their deathbed, declaring that they now realize that it is demons that are to blame... perhaps hoping that Jesus will take that 'death' demon away for just a little while longer.
Does THAT sum up your position??? rod?
pboyfloyd at 5:04PM on May 6th 2007
90. @ vicki (comment 35)
You say, "Adaptation of a form to its surroundings is not in dispute. Evolution, or becoming an entirely different life form, is disputed."
So, you're saying that grizzly bears and polar bears are just different adaptations of the same basic 'bear' kind, right?
Even though all polar bears are white, hunt on the ice, have hair on their feet, small ears and scientists only recently found out that they are in fact able to interbreed with grizzlies... these are simply adaptations.. obvious, no?
Panda bears, have most of the attributes of other bears, they seem to be simply adapted to eating bamboo.. but essentially bears, right?
Well no, they have different amount of chromosomes than other bears, they are, how do you say it, "entirely different life form."
Are you saying that God gave panda bears and polar bears most of the same genes but 'added something for the pandas'.
Things like this cannot EVER show us anything because(in your mind) God is just making it 'look' like life is all related, some more closely than others. God is just 'fooling with us.'
Just because you have changed the wording from NATURAL SELECTION to ADAPTATION to make your P.O.V. more reasonable(conciliatory) sounding, it does little to make your P.O.V. more reasonable(logical, rational).
There's 'wiggle-room' in 'adaptation'.. God might have done it, right?
pboyfloyd at 6:57PM on May 6th 2007