Liberalism vs. Evolution
I’m a geek and end up reading a lot of tech media in the fleeting attempt to stay on top of my game. It’s interesting as a lot of these folks would very likely describe themselves as “liberals”, and yet seem incredulous that one would not accept the theory of evolution as incontrovertible fact. Has it occurred to any of these folks that the idea of being a liberal and an evolutionist are mutually exclusive?
Allow me, if you will…
From the Wikipedia entry for the Modern liberalism in the United States:
“… Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society.”
and
“equal rights for homosexuals, equal rights for the disabled, affirmative action, the reduction of poverty by government intervention, affordable quality health care for all as provided by government intervention”
And from the Wikipedia entry for the Social liberalism:
“… social liberals … are unique in comparison to other liberals in that they believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to liberty. Social liberals are strong defenders of human rights and civil liberties”
Now let’s contrast this with the wikipedia article on evolution:
“Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become more rare.”
The take home:
- People who advocate these two “systems” or “ideologies” are, in fact, promoting two opposites: the idea that everyone should be treated fairly and have access to opportunity juxtaposed with the belief that if a creature does not naturally fall into the “fittest” category, they will not survive.
- You may argue that the “survival of the fittest” mentality does not apply to human beings. As thinking, self-aware individuals, we are above this way of thinking. We are obligated to help our fellow man. Obligated? Does this idea of self-sacrificing obligation not fly directly in the face of naturalism? In a review of the animal kingdom, we see from birth that a creature’s natural instinct is toward self-preservation. Granted, we see animals instinctively able to function in societies and work for the “greater good”, but when have we ever seen an animal assist another of his kind who was in peril, with whom the creature was not a blood relative?
Also interesting to note, both the Modern liberalism in the United States and Social liberalism wikipedia pages are linked to from the Wikipedia entry for the Democratic Party:
“Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored “liberal” positions (the term “liberal” in this sense describes social liberalism, not classical liberalism).”
Guess you can’t be a Democrat and an evolutionist either.
I like this analysis. Isn’t it funny that the proponents of socialized medicine or the PC version - “universal
healthcare” - are the same ones screaming about how our government “is too intrusive in our lives, incompetent, and can’t get anything right!”.
Comment by Alex — 12/6/2007 @ 2:09 pm
I am sorry… you started your argument by saying … being a liberalist and an evolutionist are mutually exclusive… why would your analysis then start with… all liberals believe in evolution… or that all evolutionists believe in being liberal… if this is just to show they are mutually exclusive than great… but you then drive to other conclusions about either group based on them both being true…. you believe that the process of self selection does not constitute reasons for helping people (be it financial welfare or other forms of welfare, education, healthcare, fire fighting, police, army - protection, etc)…
are you saying that there is no way homosexuality could be selected by nature? is homosexuality a choice?
of course you know … I am both a liberal and an evolutionist… I do believe all people deserve the same rights… I do believe our world is full of self-selected animals/plants etc…
Comment by Zach — 12/17/2007 @ 12:51 pm
My point is that there is a fallacy in the simultaneous promotion of the two points. I couldn’t find any place in my original post where I insinuated that all liberals are evolutionists or the reverse. Obviously there will be people who subscribe to one or the other, but not both, and in this case I have no point to make. Again, it’s in the simultaneous promotion of the two where I claim the fallacy lies.
To be clear, in my post I asked the question of whether self-sacrificial obligation to help others is antithetical to what we find in nature, the supposed product of natural selection.
I’m not sure how this is related to the post or ties in. Are you saying that all liberals are homosexuals?
To answer the question here, I don’t know of any scientific studies that conclude homosexuality to be a product of natural selection. It seems to me that would be illogical as homosexuality would inhibit proliferation of the species. That only leaves the options of mutation or personal choice, right?
Interesting. Can you point me to any scientific evidence that supports this way of thinking? If not, can you share your thoughts on how humans, in opposition to the rest of the animal kingdom, evolved this sense of moral obligation that somehow supersedes our instinct for self-preservation and effectively negates the naturalist mantra of “survival of the fittest”?
Comment by jwigdahl — 12/17/2007 @ 4:31 pm
Can you point me to any scientific evidence that supports this way of thinking?
I am sorry I cannot… however I would like to point you to something a posting on my blog this morning… its a posting about a video hosted at TED by Jane Goodall… amazing… and has some interesting information that I believe is very important and demonstrates that there are many others who do believe we have a moral obligation… which includes religious organizations… to assist in preservation of life…
Goodall Talk
Comment by Zach — 1/3/2008 @ 5:24 am
are you saying that there is no way homosexuality could be selected by nature?
While there is no way to definitively say that homosexuality CANNOT be selected for, it is very likely, in fact, that homosexuality is highly selected AGAINST. For a particular trait to be selected for (via natural selection) one of two conditions must be met.
First is that the trait endows the holder with a significant survival advantage, which allows the holder a greater opportunity to procreate. An example would be a bird that flies much faster than other birds. This bird is able to more effectively evade predators, and thus has a much higher survival/procreation rate.
Second is that the trait allows the holder to reproduce in an exceptionally efficient manner. An example would be a male peacock whose feathers are much more attractive to females than the feathers of an average male. This male has many more opportunities to procreate, and will thus pass on genetic information to a disproportionately large number of offspring.
Of course, there can be many different combinations of the above two scenarios — combinations including traits that are positive in one category and negative in the other. In these cases, the stronger of the two usually prevails. An example: a male muskrat has a mutation that causes brown splotchy fur instead of the standard plain brown fur. This splotchy fur enables the muskrat to blend into his surroundings better than the normal fur, and thus enhances his survival rate. On the other hand, the splotchy fur makes him less attractive as a mating partner, thus decreasing his reproductive efficiency. Is the mutation selected for or against? It depends which effect is more powerful. If the mutation provides a 10% increase in survival rate, but a 90% decrease in reproductive efficiency, the mutation is selected against. Similarly, if the mutation drastically increases survival rate but only has a negligible impact on reproduction, the mutation is selected for.
While it can be debated whether or not homosexuality improves survival rate, at most there would be only a slight benefit. On the other hand, homosexuality causes a severe decline in reproductive efficiency because, by definition, homosexuals do not engage in reproductive sex.
This leads me to conclude that homosexuality as a genetic trait would be highly selected against.
Comment by Bryan — 1/7/2008 @ 1:13 pm