Well.
I sort of skirted an issue yesterday, and a commenter caught me on it.
I was writing about liberals who quickly jump to support the theory of evolution when it's questioned, yet refuse to apply it's theory when they demand government policy which encourages unhealthy and irresponsible behavior.
And I intentionally skirted a thorny issue applying to conservatives, and then got caught on it by a commenter, Dance... dance to the radio, whose post is worthwhile repeating here:
A Darwinian perspective is perfectly conservative.It's a question worth asking - as truly, we who criticize others do ourselves no favors if we don't also occasionally become introspective in asking some pointed questions about what sort of weeds we have growing in our own backyard.
It does not seek equality of outcomes.
It does not seek equality of cultures.
Conservatism is the perfect function of ability adapting to the environment.
Why don't more conservatives choose to believe in evolution?
So, why don't more conservatives choose to believe in evolution.
I think they do.
I think, however, there is a small, but very vocal, minority of conservatives who, while decrying liberals for seeking to foist their misguided vision of utopia on society - turn around and seek to do the same.
The only difference, however, is it's THEIR misguided vision of utopia.
While decrying the efforts of extreme Muslim theocracies, they oddly enough, seek to create their own version of theocracy under some thinly described "bootstrapping" about how "our society is built upon the ideals of Christianity" - which, even if true, doesn't provide a justification for it.
Oddly enough - often this version of "conservatism" also is accompanied by ignorance of the complexity of society and the world, and by intolerance and lack of compassion for others. So-called "Christian" values, I guess.
Don't get me wrong.
I consider myself a Christian. But that's between myself and my God. I wouldn't for a moment seek to impose my vision or my belief upon others.
And I see a hidden Christian theocracy as no less dangerous and offensive than Muslim theocracies.
To me, "conservatism" is the fundamental basis of a free and democratic society - where changes in society are not pressed upon us by the heavy hand of government, but through "evolution" in society based upon what works and what doesn't.
To me, "conservatism" encompasses a willingness to look at issues from an open and critical perspective - and where we take no broad "knee jerk" responses to a societal issue based upon some simple-minded notion, along the lines of hitting a television when it's not working. We, as conservatives are better than that - or we should be.
And just like peaceful protesters in Toronto last weekend have a duty, in their own interests, to decry those who seek to infiltrate their groups to do mischief, so too, do we, as conservatives have a duty to speak out against those within our midst who would do their own form of mischief.
So - in answer again to the question, "Why don't more conservatives believe in evolution?" My response - most of us do. And while I welcome those who don't to embrace my view of "conservatism" - to the extent that they seek to impose their beliefs upon others with the assistance of government - well, they are best cut loose from our midst.
They are best pointed out and shown the door.
And in doing so, we strengthen our core, and we weaken the fear-mongering that liberals and many in our media are so fond of.

3 comments:
I will quibble over the use of the term "believe" in reference to evolution. I also think we need to be clear as to what type of evolution is being discussed. No one denies micro-evolution - every plant and animal breeder bases their work on the transmission of desired traits. Even the intermediate type where genuses divide into one or more species is not, by in large, problematic. What does get a bit sticky is the assertion of macro-evolution where everything came from nothing. Now that is sticky and probably the point at which - to make a gross oversimplification and generalization - conservatives and liberals would most markedly diverge.
Ok, back to 'belief', one can legitimately argue that all knowledge is based on belief but that all belief is not knowledge. It is distinguishing between the two that gets a mite tricky at times. Ergo, I am comfortable saying I know micro-evolution is a fact. I am even comfortable with saying that the intermediate level is also demonstrable and therefore I know it to be true. I certainly do not know about the macro level and, at this point, am not comfortable in believing it to be true.
I am a complete atheist and a conservative. I'm sure there are a lot of understandings of creation and evolution that suitably bend both ideas in order to allow people their sanity. The important thing is that none of that matters. We all still live in the same world with the same physical laws no matter what we believe. As log as we are all free to worship and not worship without oppressing the other, we can get back to the solvable business right in front of us.
Thanks for your comments Gerry and Alex.. and I think that the point is well taken.
How life commenced and why is a question that is likely never going to be answered completely scientifically. Even as we develp greater information that, for example, living cells can be created from inorganic matter - that still begs the question, "why?" and leaves open the suggestion that "God made it that way."
But - the idea that the state should remain separate and apart from religion I think is the fundamental point I was making - not that we shouldn't allow conservatives who believe in "intelligent design" in the party.. but that to the extent that they believe that discussion belongs in our classrooms - and as such, believe that THEIR faith should be passed on by the state - that I can't agree with.
Post a Comment