This recent NY Times article, A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin, had me rolling my eyes.
First of all, I find it a bit strange that the author followed the conservatives’ lead in referring to the theory in question as Darwinism. Leaving out direct quotes and references to social Darwinism, I count 12 uses of “Darwinism” and similar phrasings, with 8 uses of “evolution” or “natural selection” (three of those were in the same sentence as “Darwinism” and presumably chosen to avoid repetition). I have no objection to using a variety of phrases, and “Darwinism” isn’t particularly wrong, since the guy was, after all, brilliant and current theory bears great resemblance to what he came up with. But the current theory is generally known as “evolutionary theory” (with natural selection being one piece of it). So I don’t understand why that phrase wouldn’t be used, especially to provide some variety given that the conservatives quoted almost invariably use the eponym.
Second and more importantly, it drives me crazy that so many prominent thinkers appear not to have a basic understanding of philosophy. I was fully able to grasp the is/ought problem when I read Hume in high school; I think that people who make a living pontificating on the relationship of science and politics should educate themselves on it.
Mr. West made a similar point, saying you could find justification in Darwin for both maternal instinct and for infanticide.
It is true that political interpretations of Darwinism have turned out to be quite pliable. Victorian-era social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer adopted evolutionary theory to justify colonialism and imperialism, opposition to labor unions and the withdrawal of aid to the sick and needy. Francis Galton based his “science” of eugenics on it. Arguing that cooperation was actually what enabled the species to survive, Pyotr Kropotkin used it to justify anarchism.
It’s certainly true that an understanding of science can inform policy decisions, but it’s important to understand that what science can tell us involves how things are now, how they were in the past, and how they got from there to here. It may be able to make predictions about what will happen if we make certain changes, though it should also remind us that such predictions are often wrong because the real world is complex. It has nothing whatsoever to say about how things ought to be.
This confusion exists on both the pro- and anti- evolutionary theory sides. I think Darwin would be shocked to learn that Mr. West believes his theory provides “justification” for maternal instinct and infanticide. The theory may be able to explain why those things exist, but it’s silent on their moral status. Then, Mr. Arnhardt thinks that “human nature” is a reason to push policies like an all-male military or traditional social sex roles. He’s making the added mistake of believing that because certain trends (like males being more powerful) evolved in the past, they must continue to be helpful now. A better understanding of the theory would show that fitness depends on the current environment; now that for humans, physical strength is dwarfed in importance compared to attributes like intelligence, it’s not at all clear that males will continue to be dominant or that traditional divisions of labor will even make sense.
Thankfully, the article does point out that “nature is morally neutral” and cite writers who understand this. John Derbyshire, whatever his other failings may be, is doing good work:
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.”