The June issue of The New Criterion has a review of Darwinian Conservatism by Paul Gross. Unfortunately, this is available online only to subscribers.
Gross generally praises the book: "The argument is conscientious, documented, and timely." He agrees with me that Darwinian science does indeed support conservative thought.
His only disagreement with me is that he thinks I go too far in conciliating the proponents of "intelligent design." I suggest that it could be good for high school biology students to study the "intelligent design" arguments compared with Darwinian science. He dismisses "intelligent design" as not being a true science, and so he thinks it has no place in a science class. He also questions my recommendation that high school students read Darwin's own writings. He doesn't think this would work. He might be right.
In any case, I am encouraged that some of the reviews in conservative journals are favorable to my book, which suggests that there is a growing openness among conservatives to the idea of Darwinian conservatism.
8 comments:
I think anyone recommending Darwinianism to high school students should be required to read the works of David Stove in their entirety first. This especially applies to those tempted to recommend Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene".
Conservatives are not darwinian on 'morality' though, there they want to use the government to force/regulate what they think is proper behavior. I believe in the free market in both personal matters and economics. I dont see how you can think 'darwinism' works in one area but not the other. This is the paradox about both parties, each have it half right.
Anonymous,
No, as I indicate in DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM, conservatives do not want governmental coercion used to enforce morality. They want a limited government that leaves civil society free as a private realm of families, churches, and other private associations that promote moral norms that arise by spontaneous order.
Darwin supports this by showing how moral order arises from a natural moral sense. Conservatives like Friedrich Hayek and James Q. Wilson elaborate conservative thinking about how morality emerges through spontaneous order.
sorry for the commentspam but I just wanted to apprise you guys of
Conservatives Against Intelligent Design
http://www.indiancowboy.net/blog
Although a classical liberal, I make many of the same arguments you do, for exactly the same reasons. And like you I'm extremely adamant about the lack of connection between collectivism and evolution.
The fact that you bring together a confluence of evolutionary and conservative thought makes you a prime candidate as a major ally in this group's fight.
So consider this an invitation for those who would like to blog about it at the CAID website. you can email me for further details.
For conservatives, there is no way back from science to religion since science questioned the way human nature is conceived by Christianity. It is neccesary to go farther is science upto what EP call ultimate causations. Ultimate causations, derived from the selfish gene, are the ones traditional conservatives look as cynical, crude, purposeless and soulless. But hardly any science can be warm, purposeful and moral aware.
As conservative, I think that neo-darwinism support coservative thinking naturally as it explain the underlying motivations of common sense and the purpose for which evolution has evolved even the higuer feelings and motivations as innate instincts able to respond to very wide ambient conditions, just the feelings, motivations and common sense that the left claim as culturally determined, endorsing, silently sometimes, almost all the pain on earth to the cultural conditions created by capitalism and religion.
I regret that I made a mistake in my post by identifying the author of the NEW CRITERION review as John Gross. Actually, the reviewer is Paul R. Gross, a distinguished professor emeritus of the life sciences at the University of Virginia and co-author of the best history of the intelligent design movement: CREATIONISM'S TROJAN HORSE: THE WEDGE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Paul Gross is superb. I look forward to reading your book. As to whether you are too accomodating to Intelligent Design advocates, it doesn't hurt to be polite. Had Michael Behe and William Dembski been independent scholars who happened upon their "soap boxes" on their own, I might be more consiliatory. But they are both, in fact, creatures of the Discovery Institue, a PR firm in its essentials, and this I think seriously undermines their seriousness.
So glad to have found your site, and glad that someone is addressing the issues you do!
To John Farrell,
Yes, you are right: the Discovery Institute's "wedge strategy" is an elaborate project in public relations, and this is evident in the polemical rhetoric of Behe, Dembski, and the others.
But, of course, Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education have their own public relations strategy on the other side.
Scientific controversy is often an exercise in rhetoric. And we might as well teach our high school students to recognize and analyze the rhetoric in such debates as they learn how to weigh evidence and arguments on opposing sides.
If they do this, I am convinced they will see the strength of the Darwinian position. But they will not appreciate the solidity of the Darwinian argument if they have not thought through all of the objections from the opponents. After all, Darwin himself was open in acknowledging the many "difficulties" with his theory and trying to resolve them as best he could.
Post a Comment