Excellent article from a complex character.
This article seems to have hit a major nerve with the Disco Tooters. Klingnutter, Paul Nelson, and Behe all have put up angry “NUH-UH!” posts in the last few hours.
Here are the ENV posts:
Behe is convinced that “Darwinism” does not support conservatism. I wonder if he thinks it supports liberalism?
What’s more, coos Khan, although Richard Dawkins may think that Darwinism supports atheism, “There are in fact evolutionary biologists who are religious, including Evangelical Protestants.” Whether or not Khan thinks those religious Darwinists are intellectually consistent he does not say.
That is a valid question. I would hope Khan would see that Christians that affirm evolution can be consistent.
Oh God, don’t go all Thomist on me. “Darwinism” doesn’t support any political system, is doesn’t mean ought, and if you try to interpret it to support any political system… Well, no one’s gonna like it.
It seems he has answered that question in his post:
Darwinism — even if true — has no resources to support any real philosophy, whether conservative or liberal, vegetarian or royalist. Organisms have traits, the traits vary, some variations help the organism leave more offspring than other organisms — that’s the whole Darwinian ball of wax. Nothing in Darwinism tells you what those traits should be, either now or in the future, or even what a “trait” is.
The DI needs those responses to manage the Google search engine.
TL;DR - Razib Khan: Conservatives shouldn’t fear evolutionary theory because:
- It’s solid science [editor’s note: Correct].
- You can use it to dispute some arguments made by gay rights activists, so what’s not to love about that?
Note that the comments section is pretty much what you’d expect from National Review subscribers – Some rational statements sprinkled lightly among a healthy dose of bat-s%%t crazy stuff.
To be clear, when I called it an excellent article, I was not endorsing everything in it. This much I should make clear. Khan is a “complex” character, known for saying controversial things, such as this.
Aside for the stubborn conflation of Darwinism with evolution, I agree with Behe here. As @Philosurfer puts it, I see science as a metaphysical desert.
I caught that yours wasn’t an endorsement.
Further, while evolutionary biology does not tell us what is good, the truth of the world around us can inform our efforts to seek the good — and in this sense, the political implications of evolutionary biology do not favor the Left.
That’s because it has none. The fact that we evolved has no bearing on how we should live our lives or structure our societies. It may inform decisions we will have to make, but it doesn’t tell us how we should choose.