This seems like kind of a strange symposium:

There is a growing debate among conservative thinkers and pundits about whether Darwinian theory helps or harms conservatism and its public policy agenda. Some have argued forcefully that Darwin's theory provides support for conservative positions on family life, economics, bioethics, and other issues, while others have countered that the effort to justify conservative policy positions on Darwinian grounds is fundamentally flawed. Does Darwin's theory help defend or undermine traditional morality and family life? Does it encourage or discredit economic freedom? Is it a spur or a brake to utopian schemes to re-engineer human nature?

Doesn't it matter whether or not the theory is valid? Is it only something to be discussed in terms of its effects on conservatism (or for that matter progressivism)? If it turns out that it somehow is harmful to traditional morality and family life (I'm not sure that the empirical evidence bears this out, even if it does in theory), does that mean that it shouldn't be taught in science classes, even if it's the best scientific explanation for the fossil record (and human behavior)? What is the point of this symposium?

Like the majority of political discourse at the moment, it has no point what so ever.

If it turns out that it somehow is harmful to traditional morality and family life (I'm not sure that the empirical evidence bears this out, even if it does in theory), does that mean that it shouldn't be taught in science classes, even if it's the best scientific explanation for the fossil record (and human behavior)?

I am sure there are conservatives who would claim (already claim?) exactly that. Just like I heard some feminists claim that biological differences between male and female brains must not be studied or taught even if they are real.

I have wondered for a long time if the religious right, or those that practice strong religion with conservative government leanings...(how's that for PC?) can justify Darwin and religion together. I think its easier a concept to accept with a dose of liberal ideas as far as religion is concerned. Me personally, faith is the key. Religion can only define or structure, thereby limiting knowledge and growth.

I think we're missing the bigger question. If you think that 1) conservatisim is the most beneficial stance for humanity, and 2) knowlege of Quantum Mechanics make people liberals and gives them BDS; is it better to prevent knowlege of quantum mechanics or to bite the bullet and teach it?

In the end if you believe that certain things cannot be taught, you believe yourself to be your fellow humans better and master.

(That said, we don't allow terrorist training camps - so obviously their is a balancing point somewhere. And for full disclosure, I don't see much of a problem with mixing religion and Darwinism)

In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the very wealthy justified their social status on Darwinian grounds. Racial segregation was frequently justified on Darwinian grounds. Nazism and Eugenics had a Darwinian component. So regardless of whether the theory is valid, it is a valid topic whether you can use Darwinism to justify one scheme or another.

> If it turns out that it somehow is harmful to traditional morality and
> family life (I'm not sure that the empirical evidence bears this out,
> even if it does in theory), does that mean that it shouldn't be taught in
> science classes

It appears to me that they are referring more to "social Darwinism," which is not really taught in science classes because it's social science, not science. Although, very few conservatives have actually advocated social darwinism -- that's usually a strawman levelled against them -- so the topic of the discussion certainly does seem strange.

The (transparently obvious) point of the symposium is to keep the IDers from bolting the conservative movement -- or, equally, to keep the non-IDers from bolting. Antievolutionism continually threatens to wreck the Right, just as the 9/11 Truthers are a looming threat to the Left. The Heritage Foundation is trying to talk some people off the ledge.

Oops. For "Heritage Foundation," read "AEI."

"In the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the very wealthy justified their social status on Darwinian grounds. Racial segregation was frequently justified on Darwinian grounds. Nazism and Eugenics had a Darwinian component. So regardless of whether the theory is valid, it is a valid topic whether you can use Darwinism to justify one scheme or another."

However, slave owners in the south pre-civil war taught slaves passages from the bible about a slave being obedient to his master. And, on the flip side, I think a decent case can be made that it was primarily Christian/religious impulses that eventually ended the slave trade in the west.

On the original question, I tend to lean with Rand--doesn't it matter whether or not the theory is valid?

Perhaps the point of the symposium is as Jay suggested. The idea is not to say "does Darwinian theory help or harm conservatism," so much as to say, "well, if you are a Darwinist, you can support conservatism from a Darwinist standpoint for these reasons..."

Okay, I can't help a little dig here. I suspect that Darwinian theory is sufficiently flexible that it can be used to support liberal, conservative, libertarian, anarchist, and any other political philosophies.

Hmmm... seems that you can say the same about Christian beliefs--people claim God's support for all sorts of often contradictory things. The thing there, however, is that God Himself presumably has an opinion that matters.

The validity of the theory is irrelevant. The issue is can Darwinism be used rhetorically to justify this or that policy position. I will rephrase the agenda in a different way for the benefit of the too literal minded:

"Assuming for the sake of argument that Darwin's theory is completely valid; can it be used to help or advance conservatism and its public policy agenda in the way that the 19th century wealthy justified their social status on Darwinian grounds, or that racial segregation was frequently justified on Darwinian grounds. Some have argued forcefully that Darwin's theory provides support for conservative positions on family life, economics, bioethics, and other issues, while others have countered that the effort to justify conservative policy positions on Darwinian grounds is fundamentally flawed. Does Darwin's theory help defend or undermine traditional morality and family life? Does it encourage or discredit economic freedom? Is it a spur or a brake to utopian schemes to re-engineer human nature?"

I stand by my original statement that the purpose of the symposium is damage control. Having said that, there are interesting aspects of this that I think Jeff and Jardinero1 are at least hinting at.

The reaction to scientific developments in the wider culture is supportive of a generalization of what Jeff pointed out, to the effect that scientific ideas will be appropriated by a wide variety of political belief systems. Just because the ideas may be massively misconstrued or otherwise a poor fit for a given brand of politics doesn't mean this won't happen. To that extent, as Jardinero1 notes, it doesn't even matter whether the ideas are true, though the really big ideas -- and variation and selection is certainly one of them -- tend to be refined rather than entirely replaced by further development.

Politics and history being intertwined, I suspect that the historical sciences (astronomy, climatology, ecology, evolutionary biology, geology, and paleontology) are likely to provide more fodder for politics than those with a less explicit connection to the distant past -- and indeed, looking at that list, it's a pretty good match for the sciences that have been invoked, or denounced, in political disputes over the past several centuries. Which, again, makes the symposium a less-than-surprising event.

Very strange, an even stranger agenda.

I agree with Jay, this is most likely about damage control.

What's would be interesting would be a religion that not just accepts the theory of evolution, but embraces it as part of its sacred dogma. Evolution would then not be just a phenomenon, but god's holy plan, both in the past and continuing into the future. Sin would be defined to be what god, acting via natural selection, selects against.

The implications of this could include that believers must not interfere with the action of selection. Sinners must be allowed to sin so that god can act on them, purifying future generations. And there's an element of predestination: if sin is in the genes, some people are just born to go wrong, kind of like in some of the stricter protestant sects.

It's the same thing about global warming - almost all republican congressmen are AGW denialists.
And don't take this post as endorsing democrats - I don't even live in the US.

It's probably hard to see out of the two party system - all issues tend to get polarized politically.
It's just that facts are facts, and differing opinions are not.

Where are the republicans for science?

I think only two filters are required of things taught... 1. is it true? 2. is it age appropriate?

Many aspects of evolution theory are true and should be taught, but if my grade school experience is any guide (born 1959) a boat load of 'facts' taught in grade school are not... this is not limited to just the teaching of evolution.

The biggest fraud I see is the teaching of evolution is a false conclusion that survival of the fittest leads to new species when in fact it does just the opposite... mutations bread out! First generation mutations disappear in later generations (in sexual reproduction) in any tests I've ever read (usually about fruit flies.)

The main fraud regarding evolution as taught in grade school is that adaption is evolution when clearly the two are distinct. Adaption involves traits already in the gene pool, evolution by definition are changes in the gene pool.

As far as age appropriate, I think of that in terms of cognitive skills and parental rights.

What's would be interesting would be a religion that not just accepts the theory of evolution, but embraces it as part of its sacred dogma. Ev

Posted by Paul Dietz at May 4, 2007 12:33 PM

That is my religion Paul. I am a member of The Church of Christ and I have no problems dealing with a belief in both creation by a diety and evolution as a THEORY perhaps headed toward fact.

Robert

But is it good for the Jews?