CT Blue

In this morning’s Times we read about yet another fault line in the right wing terrain. On one side we have the Bible thumping creationists; on the other we have the not quite so crazies who accept that evolution is a scientifically proven fact.

Not to be outdone by the fundies, however, the near rational right, rather than simply accepting the science, is busily trying to validate its political and moral philosophy using evolutionary theory. While they appear to deny that this is merely warmed over Spenceriasm, that’s precisely what it is.

I’m not an expert, but I’ve read enough on evolution to know that it’s as dangerous to try to apply it to political questions as it is to apply the uncertainty principle to everyday life. Actual scientists resist the idea that there is either a moral or prescriptive component to evolution. There is even resistance to the idea that evolution equals some sort of progress, i.e., that an animal that evolved from another is somehow “better” than its predecessor. It is better only in the sense that it is more adaptive to a particular set of circumstances; its predecessor may have been “better” in the circumstances in its own day. Life has grown generally more complex as species respond to escalating challenges in the eternal competition to eat or avoid being eaten.

Evolutionary theory can tell us why we behave the way we do, but it can’t tell us whether we should behave that way, either from a moral standpoint or from a “survival of the fittest” standpoint. Behaviors that evolved to help us survive on the savannah are not necessarily well suited to help us continue to survive in the world as it is.

I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that with the development of consciousness we entered uncharted evolutionary seas. Unlike any other species of which we are aware, we are in the position of being able to not only think about, but influence, the direction in which we evolve. (We are doing it medically all the time) It is a cop-out to say that a particular political philosophy is validated by evolutionary processes, like conservative “thinkers” who:

… have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that “free-market capitalism”, a relatively recent phenomenon, really is programmed into our genes. It is entirely possible that our future survival depends on our overcoming that gene, rather than simply surrendering to it. The threat of global warming, for instance, would appear to be intractable were we to allow untrammeled free markets. Nor is it clear that continuing the subjugation of women is a sure-fire path to a thriving future. Species become extinct because they continue to obey their genes (the fruit of their own natural selection) when those genes no longer provide them a successful survival strategy. In other words, species die when they stop evolving, which is precisely what the conservatives seem to suggest we should do.

The reporter, by the way, makes free use of the term “Darwinism”, a term that makes scientists blanch. The term was invented by opponents of evolution, and it implies that evolutionary science is just a belief system, derived from a white haired nineteenth century prophet, consisting of the same type of dogma that inflicts the real “isms”. We don’t talk about Einsteinism, or Godelism, so why Darwinism? That’s a rhetorical question, the term is being used because the media always accepts right wing frames (e.g. “partial birth abortion”). This particular frame allows the fundamentalists to push the meme that evolutionary theory is just another religion, that should be taught or not taught alongside all the rest.