They can't seem to get anything right on the right. There are the anti-science crowd who reject evolution in favor of creationism/ID:
For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design, which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an intelligent power could have created it.
I like (not) the language, "accepting Darwin," which of course parallels the Christian notion of "accepting Jesus." The Times really knows how to alienate its readers. I realize they are presenting the arguments from the perspective of the conservatives who think this way, but how about some quotation marks or something. Furthermore, using Darwin's name as a stand in for the theory of evolution, as the article does throughout, is already an editorial statement. The theory of evolution has advanced quite a bit since Darwin's initial formulation - for example, although the theory of natural selection remains intact, Darwin missed other mechanisms, such as genetic drift, and the entire science of heredity/genetics, etc.
I also suspect a good percentage of these "anti-Darwinists" are insincere in their rejection of evolution, and the wording in the above quote hints at it. They simply fear the consequences of the theory. There have been numerous articles in various publications to the effect that many conservative thinkers actually have no trouble with the soundness and validity of evolutionary biology, but maintain a distrust of knowledge in the hands of the masses. Religion is a tool of the powerful to keep the meek meek.
And then there are the modern-day social Darwinist who think the theory of natural selection supports their conservative ideology:
Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.
The rest of the article is the back and forth among the different conservative camps, the usual (anti Darwin): "Darwin led to Nazism AND communism" and (PRO!-Darwin): "Darwinism supports male dominated societies." Great, I can already see the liberal backlash against evolution when conservatives start openly "framing" it in that way.
I do like the final word from John Derbyshire at the National Review:
As for Mr. Derbyshire, he would not say whether he thought evolutionary theory was good or bad for conservatism; the only thing that mattered was whether it was true. And, he said, if that turns out to be “bad for conservatives, then so much the worse for conservatism.”
Wow, a conservative who's willing to go wherever the evidence leads - pretty refreshing statement in light of today's ideology-driven policy making.
No comments:
Post a Comment