User:BenKovitz

I'm a big fan of wikis, especially when used to explore conflicting ideas. At their best, I think the writing wikis produce is wiser and better informed than any one person could ever be. I'm glad to see a serious, large-scale wiki dedicated to articulating conservative positions and attitudes.

I'm also very interested in evolution. I have a question about conservatism and evolution, which people here might be able to answer:

Why do most conservatives oppose the idea of evolution?

I'm not asking here for arguments against evolution. Those are easy to find. I'm asking for an explanation of what in conservatism makes evolution seem so worthy of opposition.

Does evolution seem like a threat? If so, to what? Is it only because evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis? Or is there more to it? Or maybe there's no real connection: Are there countries where the conservative side does not oppose evolution?

Better than answering me here, I'd like to see the topic get a page of its own, so here's an invitation link for anyone who'd like to start it: Why conservatives oppose evolution.

No need for a separate page, the answer is simple: evolution is a false doctrine and conservatives pursue the truth without bias. Jcw 16:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Well put, Jcw. Conservapedia shouldn't have a separate page on "why conservatives oppose teaching the Piltdown Man as truth" either.--Andy Schlafly 16:44, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

(continuing discussion moved to Talk:Piltdown Man)

I would be grateful if you would take the trouble to write a thoughtful response.

Maybe the following will help. An important part of conservatism is respect for tradition, even when the reasons for a tradition are not known to you, because traditions are the residue of many failures and disasters of the past; traditions steer you away from disasters of a kind that you can't appreciate until it's too late. Why do people who see the truth of that principle so clearly, oppose it so vociferously in biology? It seems to me just as plausible that liberals would be the ones opposing evolution, insisting that only a central, governing authority could possibly have made something as complex as living things, and demanding a complete, step-by-step "proof" of evolution, fully understandable by any non-expert—and that conservatives would be calling evolution a principle pervading all of nature, to be ignored at your peril, and pointing out that the billions of years of evolution make it irrational to demand detailed proof and perfectly preserved evidence of every mutation-step from microbes to man, let alone the selective pressures that favored them.

The same could be said for the usual conservative and liberal positions regarding free markets and respect for the harshness and unperfectibility of worldly life. Is it just chance that conservatives happen to oppose evolution and liberals favor it? Or is there some deeper reason why the mindset that finds capital punishment, low taxes, and states' rights compelling, finds it implausible that present-day species developed from earlier species by a long process of trial and error?

—Ben Kovitz 21:41, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

A conservative is not a defender of all traditions. Conservative values are constantly working to improve society, and end harmful traditions (like communism).

Moreover, the theory of evolution is a claim that a process exists that changes one species into another. There is nothing conservative (or true) about insisting that nature will inevitably change what mankind and animals are.--Andy Schlafly 22:36, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Are these just straw men? I didn't say that conservatives defend all traditions or are completely against modifying or ending traditions when they've shown themselves to be harmful. That wouldn't fit the idea that traditions evolve and accumulate wisdom, and no one holds such a simplistic view of tradition. Anyway, would you be willing to offer a serious answer to my question? —Ben Kovitz 23:54, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Ben, my response was indeed thoughtful, although not verbose. I'm not sure what the point was of your digression on tradition, but it's irrelevant to the question at hand: conservatives refuse to accept evolution for the same reason we refuse to accept moral relativism or, in Andy's apt comparison, the Piltdown man: it's false. Jcw 13:31, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine, but that answer is a cop-out. "Because I'm always right" is not a reason why anyone thinks what they think, especially in a matter of complexity and controversy. Maybe the following illustration will help, though it's a bit esoteric. If you asked me why people who favor agile software development methods also usually favor object-oriented languages, "Because agile developers always use the best tool for the job" would not be a thoughtful response. There is a connection between agile development and object-oriented languages, and understanding it helps you understand agile development better. —Ben Kovitz 02:41, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm puzzled by the dismissive responses to my question. This web site is here to educate people about conservatism, right? I figured you would be pleased at the opportunity to explain the connection between opposition to evolution and other conservative ideas. —Ben Kovitz 02:41, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

(unindent) For the last time, my answer is precisely apt to your question. If you'd asked what evidence is there against evolution there'd be room for more voluble discussion, but you didn't - you asked why we don't accept it: "the connection between opposition to evolution and conservative ideas'. The answer is simply 'because it's false'. A key conservative idea is pursuit of the truth, and the truth about evolution is that it doesn't happen. That's all there is to say and all I shall say. Jcw 04:27, 23 August 2011 (EDT)