How liberals make Darwinism seem compatible with liberal equality

In a long comment on evolution, reader Tim W. makes a couple of fascinating points. First, he shows that natural selection within existing species would occur regardless of how evolution, meaning the appearance of entirely new species, occurred. Second, he provides an answer to the question I raised in a recent post: how do liberals reconcile Darwinian evolution with liberal equality, particularly the equality of abilities between races? He argues that liberals make Darwinism compatible with equality by downplaying natural selection, since natural selection leads to considerations of inequality, and instead emphasizing the idea of evolution without natural selection—that is, evolution as some automatic process that simply makes everything and everyone better and more equal, just like liberal progress itself. Liberals have thus “tamed” Darwinian evolution, with its nasty struggle for the survival of the fittest, and turned it into a liberal myth.

He writes:

Your recent postings on evolution have been very interesting. I’ve often wondered myself how liberals could simultaneously maintain a belief in both evolution and egalitarianism. As I’m sure you know, leftist groups such as the ACLU and People for the American Way are very active in lawsuits aimed at blocking any alternative to the theory of evolution from being considered in public education, the recent case in Dover, PA being an example. These same leftist groups are militantly egalitarian.

The basic way that liberals get around this contradiction is by simply evading it, and they do this by confusing evolution and natural selection. Evolution and natural selection are not the same thing. There is a lot more scientific evidence for natural selection than there is for evolution. Furthermore, natural selection can occur without evolution occurring, but not vice-versa.

Here’s an example. Suppose there’s a large herd of animals living in a particular area. One day, a volcano eruption forces the herd to flee. Half the herd flees to the south, the other half to the north. Each half ends up in a new environment. The southern herd finds itself in a territory where quickness and fast reflexes are beneficial, but size and strength aren’t very important. The northern herd finds itself in the opposite type of environment. Here, size and strength are a great advantage, but speed and reflexes aren’t much help.

What will happen to these herds over time? The southern herd will grow faster and sleeker, the northern herd bigger and stronger. These traits already existed within this species, but new environments select for them in new proportions. In an environment where speed and reflexes means greater survival and reproduction rates, only the herd members possessing these traits will flourish. Ditto for the environment where size and strength are king. Over enough time, these herds, though originally from the same stock, might become as different from one another as greyhounds (fast) are different from great danes (large).

In the above scenario, nature has selected existing traits and promoted them. Humans do the same thing when we selectively breed animals for certain traits, which is how greyhounds, pomeranians, collies, and other breeds came about. People selected desired traits that already existed within dogs (speed, cuteness, herding ability) and bred them so as to expand those traits.

But here’s the important thing to remember. Natural selection would occur whether evolution is true or not. The herd separated by the volcano eruption would become different over time no matter where the original herd came from. They would become different once separated into opposite environments whether they were originally created by God, evolved, came from another dimension, or were placed here by aliens. No matter where they originally came from, natural selection would follow.

Most of the examples evolutionists provide to demonstrate their theory are in fact examples of natural selection, not evolution. The peppered moth. The Galapagos finches. These are examples of natural selection.

Evolution is something different. Evolutionary theory maintains that countless billions of positive mutations have occurred, been preserved, and then expanded via natural selection. Starting with a single living cell which somehow came into being millions of years ago, everything on earth descended. How? Via mutations. Those mutations were supposedly beneficial on occasion, and the new mutant, being better than its parents, did a better job of reproducing. It passed its mutant form on to its own offspring, while the inferior non-mutant earlier variety died off in competition (natural selection). We’re expected to believe that an incredible number of these positive mutations led the original single celled thing to become, over time, elephants, humans, giraffes, cattle, ants, bees, birds, snakes, fish, etc.

Needless to say, there’s a lot of wishful thinking in that. I doubt that it’s true. But it’s important to remember that evolution relies on natural selection, whereas natural selection doesn’t rely on evolution. Natural selection would occur no matter where life on earth came from. But evolution would go nowhere without natural selection there to favor the mutant newcomer over its predecessor.

This is the liberal evolutionist quagmire. They love the theory of evolution because it removes God from the equation. We’re just animals with no souls who crawled up out of the primordial muck. In addition, evolution proposes an idea of progress, which fits in well with Marxist theory. We’re evolving toward some presumably higher plane, which invariably means some socialist utopia. Liberals no doubt regard themselves as more highly evolved than the rest of us. But liberals then hit a brick wall. How would all those mutations flourish and be preserved if not for natural selection? So they need natural selection, but they don’t like it because it clearly leads to inequality. They also need it because they lack examples of actual evolution. So they give school kids examples of natural selection and call it evolution.

Natural selection itself gets downplayed. It’s mentioned a little, as the mechanism that preserves evolutionary changes, but its effects aren’t dwelled upon, and they’re never discussed as they relate to humans. Instead, evolution is given credit for most everything. And since evolution is merely a somewhat ideological theory that can easily be melded with liberalism, it’s a welcome addition to the leftist arsenal. We’re the result of millions of years of “evolutionary progress,” mutations which occurred without the guidance of any deity. We’re related to all other creatures. Our goal is to become more “evolved,” which easily becomes translated into ideological desires. Equality, feminism, secularism, socialism, open borders, you name it. Any and all of those things can be put forth as conditions we are “evolving” toward. It fits the progressive-reactionary liberal worldview perfectly. Support gay “marriage” and you’re more evolved. Oppose it? You’re an unevolved neanderthal. Why? Because liberals say so, and we all know evolution is true because scientists say so.

This all requires them to downplay natural selection, even though it’s infinitely better documented than evolution, and is actually observable. Imagine what would happen to a public school teacher who discussed sex differences in class, in terms of math ability, for example. No doubt natural selection has had enormous effects on human populations, making men more different from woman, races more different from one another, and so on. But a teacher would be fired for discussing that, with the ACLU leading the charge for dismissal. They simply don’t allow discussion of these issues, as Harvard’s president learned.

Sorry for such a long-winded e-mail, but this is an interesting topic. The significant point is that evolution and natural selection aren’t the same thing. There’s tons of observable evidence for the latter, but not the former. Liberals like the former, but not the latter, but they need the latter for the former to be theoretically plausible. So they accept natural selection, but downplay it, deny its obvious results, and focus instead on the ideologically theoretical results (equality, feminism, etc.) of evolution.

- end of initial entry -

Dana writes:

Hi Larry,

I think you may be having trouble understanding the liberal position on Darwinism because you think they believe in evolution AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY SCIENCE RIGHT NOW, which includes enormous swathes of wholly unacceptable scientific evidence, like IQ differences among the races and gender differences. They do not. Remember, they are political animals at heart, not philosophers or scientists, they are not required by their own belief system to be consistent or to follow any viewpoint to its nth degree. They believe in the very old rudimentary Darwinism of the late 19th-early 20th century ONLY in so far as they can use it as an argument to counter assertions that the diversity of life could only have been brought in to being by the existence of God. They have no real other interest in “science.” Its also important to note that after Hitler, the “Progressive” left had to “purge” itself of anything that smacked of their earlier love affair with “eugenics.” Erasing eugenics from their program left a gaping hole in their belief system that THEY incongruently began to fill with a radical egalitarianism they had heretofore eschewed.

I am a person of the right who accepts the CURRENT theories of evolution and I have yet to meet a leftist who has any notion of current evolutionary science. They always bring up old heads like Stephen J. Gould, who was a Marxist (so is Jared Diamond BTW) and only a paleontologist, yet as a popularizer of science wrote books way outside his field of expertise that released very damaging concepts into the intellectual air, like his silly assertions in “The Mismeasure of Man” on IQ and the wholly ludicrous “punctuated equilibrium.” Marxists are not “liberals” and Jared Diamond will twist himself into giant Lysenkovean knots to avoid the aspects of evolutionary psychology that go against the fundamental grain of his creed.

Almost all of the other advocates of evolution as it stands (particularly evolutionary psychology) today are of the Right in some manner, though usually more along the libertarian lines. Evolutionary psychology, for the non-leftist, stands as a bulwark against the forces who say the human conventions, traditions and taboos are arbitrary and can’t be tossed out at whim with no consequences for the human condition. It gives a solid grounding in nature for upholding the traditional sexual mores, behavioral norms, marriage structures etc. that conservatives hold so dear. Don’t let the liberals fool you, they don’t believe in evolution, they just hate GOD.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 08, 2006 11:31 AM | Send