Liberals exploit the incorrect association of social Darwinism with Darwinism and the association of social Darwinism with Nazis in order to be more insulting to conservatives. It is a rhetorical move, because they know conservatives are touchy about anything “Darwinian” and everyone is touchy about Nazi references. But the assessment liberals make of some conservative proposals, the assessment that they smack of social Darwinism, is sometimes a fair assessment. It is still silly to link teaching biological evolution with the inevitability of accepting social Darwinism in society.
With great respect, Christy, words are important and I want to react to your understanding of what economic system “most conservatives” advocate. I thinks it’s important to reply to what I believe is a substantive and profoundly wrong understanding of economic theory, social darwinism, and evolution by natural selection.
First, if your use of the term “laissez-faire capitalism” (LFC) is related to the wiki definition of Social Darwinism, I would only point out that the rich are advantaged over others ONLY in economic systems in which markets (and winners) are determined by forces other than the market, e.g., socialism, crony capitalism, and communism.
Your posts are uniformly well-reasoned and thoughtful. So, I must conclude that you may not understand what economic system most conservatives really do advocate - free markets in which the excesses of its participants are restrained by morally-based institutions that, for example, are able to enforce contracts. The only political and economic system able to deliver free market capitalism is Democratic Capitalism. This is what the giants of conservative economists (Hayak, Friedman), most of America’s founding fathers, and virtually all of the economic opinion columnists of the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard, etc.
How does this all fit into evolution by natural selection?
It doesn’t!!! Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:
Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to reward the most competitive—is a logical consequence of “Darwinism” (the theory of natural selection in biology).[7] Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society.[citation needed] While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin’s theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.
I largely agree with the Wiki quote, except I would add that Darwinism (evolution by natural selection) favors the most adaptable - not the strongest, not the most competitive, etc. Keep in mind that biological evolution by natural selection operates on physical, observable, and measurable character traits. In Democratic Capitalism, economic evolution simply DOES NOT occur. Its principles and physical, observable, measurable characteristics remain the same across time and cultures.
I think I’ve said the same thing at least twice on this thread.
I’m a pretty big believer in white male privilege. So, yeah, the rich are advantaged.
I wasn’t talking about conservative economists or the basic principles of democratic capitalism, I was talking about a belief that unbridled capitalism (that was my word choice, I am not anti-free markets) will solve all problems eventually, economic survival of the fittest is fair, and governmental support of “the weak” just leads to problems and hurts productivity, all of which I have heard from conservative talking heads and random people I know who consume a steady diet of conservative talk radio. It doesn’t surprise me one bit that they may not actually understand how economics works and may not be representing actual economic theory. The country is dumber because of cable news.
Once again, the only reason I brought it up was because, I have only ever heard the charge “social Darwinist” leveled at conservatives by liberals in the context of political discussions of economic policy. It is not something Creationists call secular scientists in the context of discussions about science education. It is ironic to me because In my circle of acquaintances, the very people who most fear that biological evolution being taught in school will negatively impact the society (i.e. magically lead to social Darwinism), are the same people who have said the most racist, classist things I’ve ever heard about how certain segments of the population deserve to be sterilized and that the government insisting on feeding and sheltering people who can’t make it in the “real world” just allows them to reproduce instead of dying off. That sounds sure sounds like social Darwinism to me. If my attributing these attitudes to their extreme politics was unwarranted, then I misunderstood them. Of course I understand that not all conservatives think along these lines. Some of my favorite people in life are conservatives. I’m really struggling at getting my meaning across here evidently, I feel like I keep repeating myself to no avail.
Just remind critics about three things:
- Jesus said PAY YOUR TAXES (render unto Caesar what is Caesar)…
- That a married couple lost their lives just by trying to deceive the Church by withholding their wealth (what was the offense? - - lying, or what they were lying about?)… and
- That if thou be perfect, give all that you have to the poor.
All these speak to motives and attitudes rather than simple do’s and don’ts.
‘1) Jesus said PAY YOUR TAXES (render unto Caesar what is Caesar)…’
The religious leaders were attempting to trap Jesus by making him say that folks should only support the Jewish Temple and not the Roman government. No matter which he chose he would be in trouble with the other. His answer was to render according to the scope of each. The religious leaders really didn’t want an answer, they just wanted to trap Jesus. Jesus saw through their duplicity - or hypocrisy.
‘2) That a married couple lost their lives just by trying to deceive the Church by withholding their wealth (what was the offense? - - lying, or what they were lying about?)… and’
They lost their lives not because they withheld money from the Church. They lost their lives because they wanted to appear genearous but were not. They swore before the Church that they had given everything when they knew they hadn’t. Peter said they had control of the money and anything they gave would have been acceptable. They didn’t have to lie to the Holy Spirit. This is a case of hypocrisy and not greed.
‘3) That if thou be perfect, give all that you have to the poor…’
The context of that verse is that the rich young ruler was not truly seeking to live for God since he wouldn’t trust God to take care of him if he gave away all his wealth. It does not mean that you have to give all you have to the poor to be right with God. In that case fathers would be avoiding their earthly responsiblity to take care of their families. Again, a matter of wanting to appear one way before men, but not willing to do what it took to be true to his confession before men.
So, Terry, with lots of explanations, you have successfully subverted each of the admonitions of Jesus. Very successful day for you.
Now… do the same and provide explanations for Adam and Eve not being historical people, and I will consider you a very consistent modern Christian.
No, I explained that the two admonitions of Jesus that you referenced were not about the specific acts, but rather about the heart. Jesus is all about getting the heart right first - ‘For out of the heart come evil thoughts–murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.’ Once the heart is right then right actions follow - ‘A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart.’
[quote=“Christy, post:22, topic:116, full:true”]
Liberals exploit the incorrect association of social Darwinism with Darwinism and the association of social Darwinism with Nazis in order to be more insulting to conservatives.[/quote]
Are you sure that this is the motive? Just to be more insulting?
You must live in a more black/white world than I do, as I encounter plenty of conservatives who have no problems with evolution and advocate social Darwinism.
[quote]But the assessment liberals make of some conservative proposals, the assessment that they smack of social Darwinism, is sometimes a fair assessment. It is still silly to link teaching biological evolution with the inevitability of accepting social Darwinism in society.
[/quote]I can agree with that.
So why shouldn’t I interpret the story about Adam and Eve to be not about specific people about the weakness of human flesh in general?
Look, George, I just gave you a common interpretation of those scriptures that is supported by several commentators. Take it or leave it. It’s not personal - unless you’re trying to make it personal. Don’t get your underwear in a twist!
So… if I said the same thing about my interpretation of Genesis as an interpretation “supported by several commentators” we can call it a day, and move on to more important things? That would be great.
For I certainly think there are many things of faith that are more important than whether we should trash geology and physics because of something a man wrote more than 3000 years ago, before geology and physics were even words.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.