Darwinism, left or right…
The New York Times published an article on May 5 discussing whether Darwinism bolsters or undermines the conservative political agenda. The article follows a show-of-hands moment in the May 3 GOP debate, in which the ten Republican candidates were asked if they did not believe in evolution. Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado raised their hands.
The traditional (ultra-) conservative perspective has been that evolution is Godless, hence immoral, hence a satantic motivator towards ubiquitous abortions and an eventual global armageddon. However, this article picks up on a trend in conservative politics to promote evolution as an argument for conventionally conservatives ideas, like “traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.” Yikes. (Interesting: a similar argument for evolutionary conservatism by David Brooks and an observation by Michael Shermer about liberal-vs-conservative attitudes towards the biology of sexual orientation neatly fold into this trend.)
Of course, misguided interpretation of evolution—just like misguided interpretation of, say, anything—is dangerous, not to mention exhausting and frustrating. Naturally, it’s not only the pro-evolution politicos who are misinterpreting Darwin’s contribution to our world-view; that position is still securely defended by the anti-evolution crowd. For example: George Gilder, who is associated with the Discovery Institute, criticized the alliance of conservative ideals with evolutionary theory by pointing out that “both Nazism and communism were inspired by Darwinism. Why conservatives should toady to these storm troopers is beyond me.” Double yikes. Can’t we all just agree that “nature is morally neutral” and that it’s the commodification of empirical research for political agendas that’s unethical?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
It looks like Mitt Romney might be wavering:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/152174.aspx
We’ll all be much better off when evolutionary psychology goes the way of phrenology. And I understand the impulse to treat nature as morally neutral, but isn’t that very neutrality grounds for settling some kinds of policy disputes? I mean, aren’t there specific policies having to do with, say, wetlands maintenance, zoning, or endangered species that depend on judgments about nature? I don’t think it’s a good idea, in principle, to exclude evolutionary science from public policy judgments.
May 8th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Exclude science? Triple yikes. But care must be taken to understand it first!
May 11th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
[…] the May 5 debate in which three Republican presidential candidates indicated that they do not believe in evolution, I was pointed to this post at Hullabaloo that excerpts […]
May 14th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
[…] help inform us about the origins of life in this world,” his campaign announced after Romney did not raise his hand in answer to a May 5 debate question on whether the candidates did not believe in evolution. But […]