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)