In my post below on the evolution-skeptic sophist David Berlinksi, who even relaxes in a pretentious manner, I did not address the reason that Commentary, a journal aligned with the neoconservative movement, might publish articles like this against evolutionary psychology. Steve and others have suggested this is part of a bank shot in solidifying the ties between evangelical Christians (who are often, but not always) evolution-skeptics and Jewish neoconservatives. Since some leading lights in the "the movement" are Straussians who have admitted that the beliefs of the masses might sometimes have to be at variance with reality for the sake of social amity, it is plausible to me that Irving Kristol & co. might feel it a worthy trade-off to an intellectual pursuit which they truly don't disagree with to please their allies. This is probably signalled by an essay 8 years ago in Commentary titled The Deniable Darwin by the same David Berlinski. But, that begs the question, why move on to evolutionary psychology??? The Weekly Standard has also thrown some grenades in the direction of evo-psych so I don't imagine this is simply an isolated incident.

GC has noted the Jewish origin of many critics of evolutionary psychology, and Berlinksi is Jewish, and that many Jews are prominent in biophobia movement, but the problem I have with this angle is that I still can't understand why Commentary would fall into this camp as it is a neoconservative magazine (read gc's post about the necon turn away from The Bell Curve after their initially positive reviews). It does not have a stake in denying differences between the genders (one of the main areas in evo-psych) or asserting the infinitely malleable capacity of our species. In fact, this isn't even addressing human biodiversity, the controversial realm of intergroup differences, and Commentary has not stayed away from this area. Christopher Chabris' piece IQ Since "The Bell Curve" in that very magazine in 1998 was one of the first clues I had that Arthur Jensen (who I had heard of) was not a kook.

Unlike Leftists, it seems that the main problem that some religious conservatives have with evolutionary psychology is that it works with the assumption that evolution is a fact. Human universals should not be a problem for people who believe in conservative moral values and timeless truths, right? Additonally, even Young Earth Creationists accept microveolution. It is true that much of evolutionary psychology is based on our pre-human heritage, nevertheless, the key period deals with Homo sapiens. Some would argue that the macroevolutionary jump that led to humanity as it is, our speciation, was also the moment when many of our human universal propensities congealed. Now, if I was a Young Earth Creationist I might object to the idea of macroevolution, but what about the idea that microevolution reshaped God's creation??? I know that some religious conservatives become angry when evolutionary theorists posit that humans are "naturally polygamous," but I can also see how people could argue that is evidence for "original sin."

I'm not religious so I don't know how religious people can or will accommodate the findings of science with their beliefs, but I am pretty sure it can be done (many GNXP readers are religious themselves). I really don't get how neocons will get much leverage out of bashing evolutionary psychology, since I don't see that this is the primary focus of evangelical evolution skeptics. It seems like this is a bank shot of a bank shot. Nevertheless, the only other thing that I can think of off the top of mind is that ideologues, whether on the Left, Right, neo or paleo flavor, do have issues with always evaluating their policy positions in light of the latest science, science being provisional and often mercurial in the "accepted wisdom." Reality can be a bitch, and science can be spun in many ways because of its complex nature. If you want simple easy formulations, whether you are a religious or secular ideologue, you might want to topple an intellectual methodology that is empirically, rather than idea, driven, and so frames the terms of the debate with parameters outside of your control.