Consider this clip from the
latest intelligent design related article from The New Republic.
There's an odd reversal-of-roles at work here. In the past, it was often the right that tried to draw societal implications from Darwinism, and the left that stood against them. And for understandable reasons: When people draw political conclusions from Darwin's theory, they're nearly always inegalitarian conclusions. Hence social Darwinism, hence scientific racism, hence eugenics.
Which is why however useful intelligent design may be as a rhetorical ploy, liberals eager to claim the mantle of science in the bioethics battle should beware. The left often thinks of modern science as a child of liberalism, but if anything, the reverse is true. And what scientific thought helped to forge--the belief that all human beings are equal--scientific thought can undermine as well. Conservatives may be wrong about evolution, but they aren't necessarily wrong about the dangers of using Darwin, or the National Academy of Sciences, as a guide to political and moral order.
The author seems to be missing something. He may not understand the
naturalistic fallacy. He may not understand Darwinism.
liberals eager to claim the mantle of science in the bioethics battle should beware
Everyone should be eager to "claim the mantle of science" in every debate. It is an excellent way to be sure against making avoidable mistakes. I cannot imagine an intellectually respectable alternative.
The left often thinks of modern science as a child of liberalism, but if anything, the reverse is true.
I guess that depends on your definition of "liberalism". Certainly modern science has a lot to say about human nature that some liberals would prefer not to hear. But if science really is a problem for "liberalism", then all the worse for "liberalism". The naturalistic fallacy (deriving ought merely from is) has an equally false corollary: deriving is merely from ought. If your world view is contradicted by the best available evidence, get a new world view.
And what scientific thought helped to forge--the belief that all human beings are equal--scientific thought can undermine as well.
That's just a pun on the word "equal". You don't have to look very far to see that not all humans are identical. Yet it is a moral truth that all people ought to be given equal moral respect. I cannot imagine a scientific finding that would persuade me otherwise.
Committing the naturalistic fallacy is a danger at the interface of science and ethics. The danger comes when either is given inappropriate value in decision making. This is not the only danger. Science is hard. Ethics is hard. So it should be no surprise that properly interpreting the ethical/political implications of science is also hard.
