tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post7333897741371415447..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: "Judgment Day": A PBS Show on the Dover CaseLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-71930419531555703442007-11-14T20:33:00.000+00:002007-11-14T20:33:00.000+00:00The language you use in the last paragraph, referr...The language you use in the last paragraph, referring to a "wedge between intelligent design and creationism" is good verbal irony, considering that the impetus for Intelligent Design was to drive a "wedge" into the culture of "materialistic" science.<BR/><BR/>Let's not forget here that the fundamental problem with ID is not only that it isn't science, not only that the Dover school board had a creationist agenda, but that the whole "theory" itself was created ex nihilo for the purpose of advancing a conservative political cause, not for advancing a true understanding of the natural world.<BR/><BR/>Let us hope that Professor Arnhart is not doing the same. Does Arnhart pick and choose evolutionary facts in order to push a political agenda, or does he simply find that the established observations produced by evolutionary biology happen to be consistent with human nature understood conservatively?<BR/><BR/>I for one think that both the left and the right apply evolutionary theory incorrectly. The left thinks that all behavior is purely a cause of environment, and that therefore every social norm is a cultural construction. The right takes natural behavior too far, ignores the fact/value distinction of Hume's fork, and argues that what is natural is good or right.<BR/><BR/>A true political theory would of course take the evolutionary facts as they come (and they are still coming), and use them only to inform policy, not to provide a complete theoretical underpinning for policy.<BR/><BR/>The claims of science are tentative, necessarily open to revision. These shifting sands provide no solid foundation on which to build a political framework. Knowing this, the Discovery Institute would reverse the process, and build a science on top of a political ideology. Let's hope Arnhart isn't constructing "Darwinian Conservatism" in the same manner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-81613453204958860162007-11-14T14:32:00.000+00:002007-11-14T14:32:00.000+00:00Excellent points. I was stunned that Fuller and Jo...Excellent points. I was stunned that Fuller and Johnson were the only IDists willing to appear on the show. I really think Behe's credibility is beyond repair at this point.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.com