thinkevolution.net

NOTE: This post was originally published on February 27, 2007, on an old version of this site.

An article by David Brooks recently published in the Philadelphia Inquirer offers a tantalizing morsel of controversy, which is begging for a good swipe. Brooks’ essay starts out with a thesis: The notion that humans are fundamentally good, and that our virtuous natures are made venal by corrupt institutions, has been gradually eroded and replaced with science’s sinister declaration that we’ve evolved from conflict-stricken, status-contesting ancestors and we thus embody inherently animalistic, not-so-good predispositions. He makes an intriguing case. The zinger comes at the end: “Many conservatives resist the theory of evolution even though it confirms many of conservatism’s deepest truths.” Yikes.

So taking this argument apart, we have:

1. Science teaches us that we are wicked by evolutionary inheritance.
2. Many who advocate the philosophy of a fundamentally wicked human nature are conservative.
3. Perversely, many conservatives reject evolution.

Well, I agree that rejection of evolution is perverse, no matter who you are. And the claim that conservatives prefer a world view of inherit wickedness, while perhaps endlessly debatable, does obviously coincide with the Christian concept of original sin. But there is a problem with distilling the evidence-based truths of science into an argument that we’re bad by nature. In a wider context (and to be fair, one that Brooks outlines), perhaps it’s notable that science motivated a sea change against the naive and hopeful philosophy that things in their most natural form will make peace and exhibit good behavior. So long as we’re talking about shifts in broad, popular perspectives, this makes a lot of sense.

However, in precisely this kind of broad, popular perspective, science offers so much more. After the initial crushing disappointment that we are, after all, vulgar animals, shouldn’t we realize the liberation this invites? If evolution can teach us anything, it’s that things are the way they are due to natural forces—not good, not bad. Moreover, these natural forces have shaped an ever-shifting, diversifying and changing biological landscape. After all, evolution is a reactionary force—it can only act on existing variation. There’s no destiny involved. How liberating! Don’t like that your ancestors developed a ravenous preference for simple carbohydrates? At least it’s not your destiny to consume nothing but bread and pasta. Lessons from science suggest an exploration of gastronomical preferences to find a diet that sates both your inherited appetite and your modern self-interest in being skinny. Along these lines, I think that discerning our natural, human instincts within an evolutionary context can be liberating: as we come to understand why we are the way we are, we can develop agency for becoming who we want to be.

Brooks’ whole point about conservatives and evolution is interesting compared to Michael Shermer’s point about how liberals and conservatives understand the basis for sexual orientation.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 19th, 2007 at 12:49 am and is filed under Opinions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.