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 7 of 11)
91. Peter,
When I said you were talking over my head, I meant that I didn't understand what you were saying (phrasiology). I know what thermodynamics and entropy are, but it looked like you were making an attempt at humor and I didn't get the joke.
When it appears that anyone has more knowledge about any issue that I am interested in, I listen because I can learn something. I may still disagree and that disagreement may be based on my faith, but I'm still going to take the time to learn. When I think that the person sharing the information is insincere and agenda driven, then I stop asking questions and understand that they want to shove their religion down my throat!
Right now I'm checking my facts!
Cdalealden at 6:57PM on May 6th 2007
92. Science is just a bunch of guys looking at what's around us trying to figure out how it works.
Theism are a bunch of guys looking at the rest of the people saying to them, "I know how it works!"
Everything is hunky-dory, until the sciencey guys come up with ideas which exclude theism. These theists start squawking, "No fair, no fair, you're cutting our grass."
pboyfloyd at 7:47PM on May 6th 2007
93.
Cdal-
I was mostly talking to Dalosophy, but nobody is trying to shove their faith down your throats, this is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of science, the use of the word theory does not make it a matter of faith, because there is such a preponderance of evidence to suggest that it is quite true and none to dispute it, and in fact speciation has been replicated in a lab as I have cited before, so it is all but proven (a few more speciation replications are probably necessary just to verify, although there have been several instances of it so far).
You cannot put faith before science, you just can't do it, it makes you into a liar. Science is proven natural law and faith does not supercede it no matter what anyone says. It's like saying you have faith that our sun is red when every natural law tells you it is yellow. You can't have faith that the world is only 6000 years old because we can prove it is 4.5 billion years old. You all -need- to realize this and adapt your faith to support it or you are harming the intellectual growth of humanity. If there is some Christian out there who has the potential to be a great geneticist who could someday save millions of lives by isolating and destroying a gene which causes cancer, but shuns the practice because his religion tells him lies about the science supporting genetics (evolution), those lost lives are on your (collective) hands.
Anyways, I think I have made my point now. If I changed one persons' mind it was worth every post.
Peter at 8:11PM on May 6th 2007
94. Joseph M. Butler: How ironic. You just summed up the creationists to a 'T'. Contrary to what many laypeople think (and what the Disco Institute would like you to believe in their PR releases), there is absolutely no debate in biological sciences as to whether natural selection is the mechanism for speciation. We are WAY past that.
I guess the FACT that the massive amount of cladistic, molecular genetic and paleontolgic data point to the same conclusion doesn't mean anything. When you find a fossil rabbit in the Paleozoic era, or a ringworm with a human genome, then come on here to talk about how there is no evidence. Till then, keep the delusions at bay with your daily dose of scripture and leave the science to us scientists. Which brings up another point, related to lil_turk's comment. Your credentials for expertise in Evolutionary Theory please, Dinesh? I will add to lil_turk's prediction: Dinesh will get more than Evo wrong...
Randy at 12:37PM on May 7th 2007
95. I still don't understand the debate. We are talking about apples and oranges. We may believe in a God that created the universe in six days but that by no means makes it science.The proof for evolution is overwhelming. For a hypothesis to become a theory it must pass rigorous examination by independant researchers. That would include a replication of the data. By its very defintion, the creation of the world cannot be replicated.
I remember the last scene in "Inherit the Wind" (for those who don't know it was first a play and later a movie based upon the famous Scopes case in the 1920's) when the Darrow character (named Drummond) is ready to walk out of the courtroom. He looks at both the bible and the "Origin of the Species". He continues to look at them and then places both books in his hand and walks out of the courtroom.
Science seeks to answer the question how, not the question why. There are scientists who believe in God and there are scientists who are atheists.
Most people I know who believe in evolution still believe in the existence of a God. The two are not incompatible and frankly, if creationists want to talk about evolutin versus creationism on a scientific basis they can't win, for as I know, we have no scientific data to back up the existence of a God. This does not mean he does not exist but that we have no independant scientific data to support it. Our perception of the world is limited by our senses. We have created instruments that are able to measure information (such as ultarviolet and infrared light which we can not see but which does exist) unknowable to our senses but there is no way we have measured all things beyond our ken.
I cannot change the minds of those who continue to insist that evolution and a belief in God are incompatable. If someone wishes to state that the sun is green despite all evidence that it is yellow, nothing anyone says can stop that. So continue to be stubborn and leave science at the door. However, you will be the poorer for it. Only you, not those who believe in evolution, believe in a zero sum outcome.
Carla at 1:44PM on May 7th 2007
96. Clearly you have not researched enough. I suggest you check out http://answersingenesis.org and then see if you can still defend Darwinism. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who DID believe in Darwin's theories because I'd know he was gullible.
Jess at 5:41PM on May 7th 2007
97.
Okay, I checked it out and I can still defend it, do I get a prize? Sorry to say but you're the one being gullible, you're taking their word for it without looking at what the evidence supports, that's the definition of gullibility. All of it supports evolution, none of it supports a worldwide flood.
A worldwide flood would change the salination levels of the oceans, wiping out most (if not all) of the sea life. The presence of saltwater also leaves a footprint in the mineral composition of rock, that is how scientists can determine if that rock has ever been underwater. Also if a worldwide flood did occur you would expect to find some evidence of sea life in the fossil record everywhere on Earth for that time period. Those fossils do not exist, because it didn't happen.
Peter at 8:54PM on May 7th 2007
98. @ Jess (comment 96)
I looked around the site for maybe 3 mins. Came across this...
Ken Ham says, "I have not heard anything or seen anything that says “if your religion is different from this, you are going to hell.” Certainly we present the gospel and the consequences of not being a Christian.]
Does Ken Ham not know that if you are not a christian(if your religion is different from this) then you ARE certainly going to hell. (John 3:16 and John 3:17 etc.)
So, Ken Ham, either hasn't read his Bible very carefully, or he is a 'bald-faced' liar(with a beard).
... and you trust this man, Jess? Do you(apparently unlike Ken Ham) believe that non-christians are going to hell, as per John, chapter 3, verses, 16,17 and 18?
Maybe old Ken meant that he had not seen those exact words. Well, that wasn't very honest of him, technically correct, but not very honest. Sorta going by the 'letter' of honesty as opposed to the 'spirit' of honesty.
Disingenuous... considering he is porporting to be telling all this truth, now is it?
pboyfloyd at 9:25PM on May 7th 2007
99. Conservatives have always believed in Social Darwinism or survival of the fitest. It is liberals who like to reward the lazy and punish the industrious. They like to keep the unfit from going extinct at the expense of the fit species.
Michel Condon at 1:10AM on May 8th 2007
100. @ Michel Condon.
That sounds mighty nasty, er nazi of you michel. The problem with your 'ideal' here is that conservatives don't just reward the 'industrious' as you put it, they reward the lazy-ass rich too.
Then there's the baling-out of corporations that conservatives love to do. Don't want those stocks(you know, of those lazy-ass rich) becoming worthless now, do we?
The real industrious ones are the poor working class slobs who are wage-slaves and are the same ones that conservatives have no compassion for either, because they are the ones carrying the main tax burden.(you know, the tax used to bail out the conservatives corporate buddies)
You can only fool some of the people some of the time.... but you can fool yourself all of the time, dickwad.
pboyfloyd at 2:23AM on May 8th 2007
101. @ Michel Condon (comment 99)
Man... I gotta say something else 'cos you selfish dickheads really pissmeoff!!!
Wouldn't there be social-darwinism for entire nations too, in your tiny head???
What's your idea of a 'fit' country then, a massive poor population that just can't climb your money fitness ladder. They have no education because, well in your social-darwin dreamworld everybody must pay for what they get. They are half-starved and ill, because your money is your money and god-forbid someone should get medical treatment for free, i.e. at 'your' expense.
Let's get back to the good-old-days where the average guy is glad to work for a roof and a slice o' bread.... 'cos ya know.. America will be a great country then, won't it. Just fuckin' great, you greedy bastard.
pboyfloyd at 2:52AM on May 8th 2007
102. Mr. Condon, so-called "socail Darwinism" is a facile term used by the greedy to obtain more power, money and prestige. They justify it by tying a theory of evolution to their selfish way of thinking.
Let me explain, again, what "survival of the fittest" means in Darwinian terms. The competition is not direct. It is indirect. The species or variety of species that can best adapt to a particular niche is the one who becomes the dominant species or variant. That often leads to the extinction of the less adaptable.If the environment changes, the advantage may change, as well.
An example of this can be found in the literature regarding white and black moths in England. In the pre-Industrial age, the white moths had an advantage because they were able to blend in more easily on the light-toned trees. After the industrial revolution, the trees were covered with soot and the black moths had the advantage in this case.
Sir, what you are talking about is a zero sum game which means that if one person wins than another must necessarily lose. If the two people worked together they would both benefit. That is called cooperation. Mankind is not bound by the laws of nature. For good or ill, we have changed the environment to fit our needs rather than adapting to the environment as it is.
At any time when there is a massive extinction of many different species, it is because the external environment has changed drastically. One example was the extinction of the dinosaurs when they were the dominant species because of a meteor which hit the earth and caused the equivalent of a nuclear winter.
Please cease and desist from citing Darwin's theory of natural selection to justify "man's inhumanity to man" or other animals, for that matter.
CAF at 9:42AM on May 8th 2007
103. @ CAF (comment 101)
Although you are absolutely right, I don't think it does any good to try to pretend that there aren't a lot of avaricious monsters out there who feel justified that it is a 'dog-eat-dog' world.
I understand that calling pure greed social-darwinism to try to link mean thoughts and actions to nature is abhorent to understanding, compassionate people but it nevertheless it is out there. People who think like this are more or less sociopathic which, in religious terms is pure evil.
But there is a fair segment of society that feel this way,(or UNfeel this way)... and we all know it, the British series Black Adder parodied it brilliantly and of course as in all fiction the sociopath always manages to outmaneuvre himself and end up at least no better off.
Dinesh D'Souza, G.W.Bush and a few of the regular commenters are sociopaths and 'loving it.' In this environment sociopaths are pretty much guaranteed to be 'devout' christians because they are games-players, playing their games with real people.... and what better people to control than those who are 'begging' to be controlled?... the faithful.
When politics, the other huge control/power heirarchy is joined in an unholy marriage by the already controlling religious heirarchy... all hell can break loose. The entire country can be hi-jacked by games-playing sociopaths and forced into illogical, irrational conflict as we are seeing on the news now every day.
Sociopaths find it easy to infiltrate fundamental religion and guide it for their own personal gain... which is more power, more control. The poor bastards who 'go along' for the 'glory', or because they think that they are doing 'God's work' are virtually hypnotized/self-hypnotized into believing that it is 'their day in the Sun.'.... but it's not.. it is the one or two meanest, most manipulative, sociopathic, power-for-powers-sake megalomaniacs that can never be satisfied, who are in control.... each and every supporter is expendable, to the death if need be.
pboyfloyd at 11:29AM on May 8th 2007
104. Its perfectly logical, conservatives and darwinists are soulmates.
Darwinism == Produce Families
Republicans == Family values
Therefore Darwinism == Republicans.
Ulrich Pfisterer at 3:50AM on May 9th 2007
105. pboy -
I read your comments about my antidoctal statement about the science of probabilities. The physicist was speaking about the probability of evolution being a 99.9% probability, but he acknowledged that they had to start with a made up number to come up with that percentage: I don't like to call it statistics because he kept getting angry when I used that term.
At the same time, you can win the argument if you want, but I'm trying to learn something here. I'm not a push over, but I'm not willing to completely ignore the facts either. Having a little age and experience, I'm not intimidated by the highly educated, because I've seen the abuse of education being used as a weapon by cowards and bullies (I'm not talking about you). I'm willing to hear what others have to say and weigh the information.
I'm not just looking to make a point, I'm hoping to gain some knowledge.
Cdalealden at 6:58PM on May 8th 2007