Darwinism as an ideological movement and a religion

(Note: be sure to see Mr. Roebuck’s suggested credo for properly conservative Darwinians. Kristor has added to the statement.)

Alan Roebuck writes:

I was recently rereading an article at White America [formerly The Inverted World] in which Ian Jobling takes you to task for refusing to believe Darwinism. It made me realize the following:

Darwinism is more than a scientific theory. It’s a large and powerful organized movement aggressively promoting secularism and liberalism. We acknowledge that some individual Darwinists disagree with certain elements of this program, but the program continues full speed ahead nevertheless.. And just as liberal organizations such as the Democratic Party use the support of ordinary, non-fanatical members to push their destructive leftist agendas, so “moderate,” non-leftist Darwinists nevertheless contribute to the program.

Darwinism may be likened to an organized religion which draws sustenance from its moderate members even as, overall, it pursues a radical agenda. And when a hard-core Darwinist asks you, “Do you believe in evolution,” he’s really asking, “Are you saved?”

LA replies:

Unfortunately, it’s not clear that Ian Jobling is, as you suggest, a moderate, non-fanatical member of this secular, liberal movement of Darwinism. He describes himself as a liberal, and says that he’s only right-wing on matters of race and immigration. Moreover, as can be seen by his comments on me in the article you link (which I commented on here last year), he is passionately hostile to any disagreement with Darwinism and its materialistic-reductionist view of existence. So in what respect would he be a moderate?

Alan Roebuck replies:

Regarding your question, “In what respect would Jobling be a moderate Darwinist?”, it’s pretty clear he’s not a moderate Darwinist, but I was speaking to the general situation. I realized that Darwinism, to which Jobling subscribes, is not just a technical theory. It’s a de facto religion, and so making reasoned arguments generally has little effect on staunch believers. About all one can hope for is to point out that Darwinism, like any body of knowledge or opinion, is based on (usually unconscious) premises, and then argue against these premises. But of course, almost nobody has any experience arguing premises, so your Darwinian interlocutor almost always thinks you’re getting weird on him when you try to argue premises. The perceptive undecided, however, will be impressed (as I was when I began to notice non-liberals arguing about premises).

Alan Roebuck continues:

Another issue: Since we are trying, so to speak, to identify the boundaries of proper conservatism (although we can still do business with “improper” conservatives on a case-by-case basis), we should try to identify an acceptably conservative Darwinism (unlike, for example, the pseudo-conservatism of John Derbyshire). So how about the following as a proper conservative’s way of being a Darwinist:

“I acknowledge that Darwinian Evolution is based on naturalism, also called materialism, i.e., atheism. I also acknowledge that, according to materialism, man is the supreme being, in which case morality and all higher meaning are either conventions that we can change if we want to, or else unexplainable givens which do not point to anything other than themselves, in which case it is doubtful whether we are obligated to honor them.

“Nevertheless, I believe that Darwinism is a true description of the origin and development of life, or at least as true as is currently accessible to man. Despite the potentially nihilistic implications of embracing Darwinism, I believe that we must acknowledge reality.

“But I also acknowledge that many people believe an acceptance of Darwinism necessarily requires the leftist and nihilistic program that is often carried out in its name and by those carrying its banner. And I acknowledge that this belief is not entirely without justification.

“I further acknowledge that some of the anti-Darwinian beliefs do have intellectual integrity. Since a theistic worldview has its own integrity, I cannot in good conscience regard it as false until such time as I have made a detailed study of the arguments.

“Therefore, as a conservative Darwinist, I stand wholeheartedly with any person fighting for the conservative goal of a properly ordered American society in which traditional ways and thought are paramount, and I will regard anti-Darwinian conservatives as my brothers-in-arms. I will not attack them or impugn their motives on account of their anti-Darwinism. I will, of course, be free to disagree with them whenever I believe them to be in the wrong, but I will not regard their anti-Darwinism by itself as a reason to suspect their intelligence or integrity, as Darwinists generally do.

“Furthermore, I will understand that when conservatives assert that Darwinism leads to various social, intellectual or ethical ills, they do have an argument, and are not simply or necessarily being bigots. I will therefore react to these assertions as one reacts to a brother with whom one disagrees, not as one reacts to an enemy.

“I also acknowledge that the majority of proper conservatives are anti-Darwinists (or at least non-Darwinists.) This makes me a minority in the conservative camp, and, as a conservative, I acknowledge the right of majorities to demand respect for them and their ways.

“Finally, I will expect honorable anti-Darwinian conservatives to extend the same courtesies to me.”

LA replies:

This wonderfully clarifies the issue, and is an excellent contribution to the discussion. I think it would be correct to say that a Darwinian who rejected Mr. Roebuck’s statement could not fairly be considered a conservative.

Of course, there will be those conservatives who insist that they can define conservatism any way they like. But people who say that they can define words any way they like, are, by definition, liberals.

Gintas writes:

“This wonderfully clarifies the issue, and is an excellent contribution to the discussion. I think it would be correct to say that a Darwinian who rejected Mr. Roebuck’s statement could not fairly be considered a conservative.”

Secularright.org, a peanut gallery of jeers, hoots, and catcalls, comes to mind.

LA replies:

Do those people actually call themselves conservatives? I know that the principals at that website do, but do the commenters?

Michael R. writes:

I agree with Alan Roebuck. Although hypotheses are useful in the advancement of knowledge, something unique has happened with the theory of evolution. It has become, in effect , the dominant cult in Western society. All cultures reflect the deity of the cult. Modern society is no different, and the theory of evolution has morphed into the Fairy of Evolution. She answers all questions about life, including the purpose and value of human life. In their wisdom the Darwinians reject God, preferring a Fairy. All who wish to advance in the culture must acknowledge her, and accept the myths. As you have often pointed out, atheists cannot live with the idea that life is ultimately of no consequence. In the Fairy, the personification of an idea meets this inner need. I enjoy your comments, thanks.

Bill Carpenter writes:

While exercising in our basement, I have been watching the BBC’s Blue Planet and Planet Earth series. From one end to the other they “prove” the infinite intricacy, beauty, terribleness, and wonder of the Creation, yet to a man (and woman), I have no doubt that every participant in their production would subscribe to Darwinism.

Larry, you have often noted the teleological language that pervades Darwinist writings. It is also pervasive in popular nature shows, though the teleology there is attributed to the organism that has accomplished its adaptation as well as to nature or the environment. [LA replies: Yes, the organism or species is constantly portrayed as having a purpose, particularly the purpose of spreading its genes, at which it either succeeds or fails. But the organism has and can have no purpose to spread its genes. If it happens to be very skillful and energetic at spreading its genes, that is only because it is determined to be that way by its inherited genetic makeup. According to Darwinism, an organism is a machine created by past genetic mutations and natural selection.]

With a pervasive belief in teleology, and a pervasive appreciation of the beauty and intricacy of the Creation, though they don’t call it that, I wonder if Darwinism is really a mask for pantheism or panentheism or some development of one of those. In other words, I wonder if the “real” religion of most Darwinists is not the materialistic monism its leaders pretend to, but something more familiar and 19th centurY-Romantic—monotheism without the personhood of the deity, and without the personhood, without any special relationship to man.

This would correlate with some Darwinist’s often quoted admission that he mainly wanted a theory that would free him from the burden of sexual morality. A non-personal, non-human-oriented God would place sexual restrictions on the same plane as sexual urges and thus remove the transcendent prohibitions that many have found inconvenient. Everything would be equally natural, and while the non-personal, non-anthropocentric deity would still be transcendent, Its transcendence would have no social function except to support the claims to authority of those who pretended to speak and act in Its Name. (See Frederick Turner’s Genesis (1987) for poetic, and prophetic, description of “Eco-Theism.”)

LA replies:

That sounds right. I think many liberals have a belief like that. Let’s remember Alan Roebuck’s point that what defines liberalism is not the rejection of all gods, but the rejection of the God of the Bible.

Gintas writes:

To call Darwinism the cult I think is too strong. Liberalism is the cult, and Darwinism is its creation account.

A commenter said:

“While exercising in our basement, I have been watching the BBC’s Blue Planet and Planet Earth series. From one end to the other they “prove” the infinite intricacy, beauty, terribleness, and wonder of the Creation, yet to a man (and woman), I have no doubt that every participant in their production would subscribe to Darwinism.”

On a funny note, my two young children, after we watched some Planet Earth, when they played with their animal toys, only wanted to know what each animal ate, and what ate each animal.

* * *

April 7

Kristor offers this revised version of Alan Roebuck’s statement, further edited by me, including a new third paragraph, beginning at, “However, it is also my belief…”

Statement of Conservative Darwinianism

I acknowledge that Darwinian evolution is based on naturalism or materialism, and that materialism, because it rejects any non-material reality, is tantamount to atheism. I also acknowledge that if atheism is true, then morality and all higher meaning are either conventions that we can change if we want to, or else accidents of evolution, in which case it is doubtful whether we are obligated to honor them.

Nevertheless, I believe that Darwinism is a true description of the origin and development of life, or at least as true as is currently accessible to man. Despite the potentially nihilistic implications of embracing Darwinism, I believe that we must acknowledge reality.

However, it is also my belief that while human morality is in no sense absolute or absolutely binding upon us, it is the product of a long process of natural selection; that the human feelings of right and wrong, of moral obligation and duty, of fair dealing and proper behavior as a member of society, are the result of dearly bought, deeply tested, and carefully refined discoveries of our species over millions of years, and of our cultural forebears over the course of millennia. Our basic moral notions are thus grounded in and fitted to physical reality, in the same way that our sensations of vision and hearing are grounded in and fitted to physical reality. In this sense they are objective, and therefore authoritative. For these reasons I believe that traditional mores are not to be jettisoned lightly. Rather, it is prudent to conserve them as our default responses to changing situations. That is why I am a conservative.

But I also acknowledge that many people believe that an acceptance of Darwinism necessarily requires the leftist and nihilistic program that is often carried out in its name. And I acknowledge that this belief is not entirely without justification.

I further acknowledge that some of the anti-Darwinian beliefs have intellectual integrity. Since a theistic worldview has its own integrity, I cannot, in good conscience, regard it as false until such time as I have made a detailed study of the arguments.

Therefore, as a conservative Darwinist, I stand wholeheartedly with any person fighting for the conservative goal of a properly ordered American society in which traditional ways and thought are paramount, and I will regard anti-Darwinian conservatives as my brothers-in-arms. I will not attack them or impugn their motives on account of their anti-Darwinism. I will, of course, consider myself free to disagree with them whenever I believe them to be in the wrong, but I will not regard their anti-Darwinism by itself as a reason to suspect their intelligence or integrity, as Darwinists generally do.

Furthermore, I will understand that when conservatives assert that Darwinism leads to various social, intellectual, or moral ills, they do have an argument, and are not necessarily being bigots. I will therefore react to these assertions as one reacts to a brother with whom one disagrees, not as one reacts to an enemy.

I also acknowledge that the majority of proper conservatives are anti-Darwinists, or at least non-Darwinists. This makes me a minority in the conservative camp, and, as a conservative, I acknowledge the right of majorities to demand respect for them and their ways.

Finally, I will expect honorable anti-Darwinian conservatives to extend the same courtesies to me.

Alan Roebuck writes:

Kristor’s new paragraph is quite good because it gives a fuller voice to the integrity of a conservative Darwinism and therefore makes the credo more appealing to those to whom it appeals, and also because it may call some Darwinists to a truer conservatism..

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 06, 2009 01:44 PM | Send