tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post115169773314596188..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Harry Jaffa and Charles DarwinLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1153810632935053322006-07-25T07:57:00.000+01:002006-07-25T07:57:00.000+01:00Professor Arnhart, may I comment on your remark th...Professor Arnhart, may I comment on your remark that Jaffa is confusing because he seems to defend intelligent design, yet at the same time denies its fundamental principle when he says that intelligent design does not necessarily require a designer. I can't say I find Jaffa confusing here. As he explains in his reply to Wilson's letter in the Summer issue of the Claremont Review, he means simply to raise the possibility that intelligent design could exist "by some inherent necessity of its own" rather than by "the will of an intelligent designer". I take it that "inherent necessity" is synonymous here with "nature". Nature could itself contain an intelligent design, without that design having been implanted in it from the outside. I do not believe Jaffa would deny that strictly speaking the word "intelligent" may not be applicable to nature -- nature does not think -- but I believe he would suggest that nature may act *like* an intelligent being.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1152002689935741982006-07-04T09:44:00.000+01:002006-07-04T09:44:00.000+01:00I think that denying any merit to Intelligent Desi...I think that denying any merit to Intelligent Design is a wrong target for Darwinian conservatives.<BR/><BR/>ID has at least one good point: to bring to public opinion and reinforce the validity of the parsimonious, individual selection driven evolutionary process, called neo-Darwinism, up to a point that little f controversy exist except some exotic micro-organisms parts.<BR/><BR/>Once Neo-Darwinism is raised to public opinion as the only scientific explanation of evolution over other popular alternatives favoured by the left, such are the group selection, species selection, the laws of growth and form and so on, then the implications of Neo-Darwinism to the human species will be accepted as unavoidable by the public opinion, and these implications are all conservative implications.<BR/><BR/>At least ID has not a hidden agenda. Therefore, I think that the main target for Darwinian conservatives is not ID, but are the scientific institutions that promote theories that, while accepting enthusiastically the idea of Evolution because his apparent atheistic implications, at the same time, they promote a subtle distortion -if not a removal- of the core idea of “individual fight for survival and reproduction” that, since Darwin, is the only scientifically coherent explanation of this process. These institutions also try to avoid the application of Darwinian Theory to the human psychology, just because his conservative implications are inconvenient for their ideological bias. <BR/><BR/>These institutions are not formally outside of what we accept as sciences or scientific institutions, but well inside them.Memetic Warriorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04075754592464935296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1151934708734497952006-07-03T14:51:00.000+01:002006-07-03T14:51:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Memetic Warriorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04075754592464935296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1151786115191920252006-07-01T21:35:00.000+01:002006-07-01T21:35:00.000+01:00Wilson has spoken favorably about my writing, alth...Wilson has spoken favorably about my writing, although I don't believe he has ever published any comments on my work.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1151784015600334472006-07-01T21:00:00.000+01:002006-07-01T21:00:00.000+01:00I too was puzzled by Jaffa's piece, and after seve...I too was puzzled by Jaffa's piece, and after several readings I still can't discern his meaning. <BR/>The three points you make are very sound, and perhaps Jaffa will respond.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Wilson -- has he ever written specifically about your theories or reviewed any of your books? I would like to hear his comments on your work.<BR/>Best regards,<BR/>Kent GuidaKent Guidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00119882444127499607noreply@blogger.com