Yet another reason to admire the author of 'The Origin of Species.'
May 8, 2006, Vol. 11, No. 32 • By JAMES SEATON
Such attempts to make use of physics, chemistry, or biology to enforce radical conclusions about morality, politics, or metaphysics are, however, not science but scientism, which Merriam-Webster defines as "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)."
To his credit, Arnhart makes no attempt to formulate a new ideology or even to redefine conservatism on the basis of evolutionary biology. His book is not entitled Conservative Darwinism but Darwinian Conservatism. The adjective is not the enemy of the noun, he argues, since evolutionary biology merely confirms the view of human nature that has always been the basis of conservatism. Arnhart points out that "Darwinian science supports the conservative position by showing how marriage, family life, and sex differences conform to the biological nature of human beings as shaped by evolutionary history." Furthermore, "a Darwinian view of human nature sustains the conservative commitment to property as a natural propensity that is diversely expressed in custom and law."
Although Arnhart successfully demonstrates that Darwinian theory undermines the leftist dream of a transformation of human nature through social engineering, he does assuage the fears of some Christians and other believers that Darwin also undermines belief in God, or at least the God of the Bible. Arnhart's acknowledgment that "Darwinian biology cannot confirm the supernatural truth of Biblical religion in its theological doctrines" is a considerable understatement, especially for those whose "theological doctrines" include the view of creation affirmed in Genesis. Believers in the Bible as literal truth are unlikely to be comforted by Arnhart's assurance that "Darwinian biology can confirm the natural truth of Biblical religion in its practical morality." And it is not only evangelicals and fundamentalists who might find aspects of Arnhart's version of Darwinism troubling. He informs the reader that "rhesus monkeys manifest despotic dominance" while "among chimpanzees, the dominant chimp often acts to protect subordinates, and if he becomes a bully, he can provoke an alliance of subordinates to throw him out of power."
Even after being made aware of this contrast between monkeys and chimps, however, those who think the aspiration for political freedom arises from a conviction that human beings are, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, "endowed by their Creator" with "unalienable rights" may be unsatisfied with Arnhart's willingness to account for humanity's "natural desire to be free from despotic exploitation" by observing that "in their style of political dominance, human beings are more like chimpanzees than rhesus monkeys."
On the whole, however, Arnhart succeeds in his limited goal of demonstrating that Darwinian theory, properly understood, supports conservative social and political ideas while discrediting leftist utopianism. The catch is, of course, the "properly understood" part. One lesson to be drawn from the long history of Social Darwinism and other such putatively scientific "isms"--one danger sign is a proper name prefixed to the "ism," cf. Marxism, Freudianism--is that it is a mistake to suppose that the natural sciences, including biology, provide clear and unmistakable evidence in support of any particular doctrines about politics, economics, morality, or metaphysics.
It is even more likely to be a mistake if the doctrine in question contradicts common sense. One would suppose that cultural conservatives, those who value the accumulated wisdom of the human cultural heritage, would be unlikely to make such a mistake. Conservatives worthy of the name should be among the last to reject conclusions about morality, politics, or the meaning of human life achieved by working through the findings of high culture and common sense in favor of new ideas based on Darwinian biology or, for that matter, any scientific theory at all, whether it is derived from biology, chemistry, or physics.
It is to Larry Arnhart's credit that, despite his own adherence to evolutionary theory, he does not call for such a rejection. Indeed, Darwinian Conservatism makes it clear that even the most wholehearted acceptance of Darwin's ideas does not require conservatives to reject either common sense or traditional morality. Addressing himself primarily to conservatives, Arnhart does not so much try to convince his readers that Darwinian biology is incontrovertibly true as to demonstrate that its findings, if true, strengthen the case for social and political conservatism.
He does this well, and accomplishes a more difficult task achieved by only the most accomplished scientists and thinkers: He makes connections between science and human life without succumbing to the temptations of scientism.
James Seaton, professor of English at Michigan State, is writing a volume on Santayana for Yale University Press's Rethinking the Western Tradition series.