There is a growing debate among conservative thinkers and pundits about whether Darwinian theory helps or harms conservatism and its public policy agenda. Some have argued forcefully that Darwin’s theory provides support for conservative positions on family life, economics, bioethics, and other issues, while others have countered that the effort to justify conservative policy positions on Darwinian grounds is fundamentally flawed. Does Darwin’s theory help defend or undermine traditional morality and family life? Does it encourage or discredit economic freedom? Is it a spur or a brake to utopian schemes to re-engineer human nature?
Doesn’t it matter whether or not the theory is valid? Is it only something to be discussed in terms of its effects on conservatism (or for that matter progressivism)? If it turns out that it somehow is harmful to traditional morality and family life (I’m not sure that the empirical evidence bears this out, even if it does in theory), does that mean that it shouldn’t be taught in science classes, even if it’s the best scientific explanation for the fossil record (and human behavior)? What is the point of this symposium?
Just in case there was any confusion, like Glenn, I link to things that I find interesting, and/or think that my readers might find interesting. A link doesn’t mean that I agree with everything found at the link, or even anything found at the link. A link does not constitute an endorsement, unless I…errrrr…endorse it. If I have useful thoughts on it, positive or negative, I will express them.
There was a comment in this post about TMIAHM, and Heinlein’s idea about waging a war on earth from the moon by tossing rocks at it with a catapult. For those interested, a query to Henry Spencer resulted in a couple old sci.space.* threads debunking the notion, here and here.
Lee Smith says that the Democrats are waging a proxie war against the Bush administration–in the Middle East, many of whom refuse to believe that we’re at war (simultaneously while thinking that we should end the war that we’re not in–talk about cognitive dissonance). I think that’s exactly what’s happening, even if they don’t realize it themselves.
I wrote earlier this morning that whatever I (and a lot of other people) voted for last fall, it wasn’t surrender. Here’s an interesting approach to the war, that seems beyond the Democrats. We win, they lose. Go sign the petition.
Bernard Harcourt is finding some very interesting and powerful correlations between crime rates and institutionalization rates. And you can’t just look at prisons. I’m not an expert in the field, but I suspect that this may be groundbreaking, with some interesting implications for public policy.
A colleague of mine has a son who is a senior in engineering at VPI, who was fortunately not on campus when the shooting occurred. He was traumatized nonetheless, as were all the students, and my colleague drove down from DC to Blacksburg this past weekend to see how he and his friends were doing. He took some pictures of the improvised memorials.
While not as moving or lovely, this is the one that interested me the most. Such a sign was apparently on the door of every campus building, to keep away the ghouls. I don’t think you’ll see this picture in the papers.
A colleague of mine has a son who is a senior in engineering at VPI, who was fortunately not on campus when the shooting occurred. He was traumatized nonetheless, as were all the students, and my colleague drove down from DC to Blacksburg this past weekend to see how he and his friends were doing. He took some pictures of the improvised memorials.
While not as moving or lovely, this is the one that interested me the most. Such a sign was apparently on the door of every campus building, to keep away the ghouls. I don’t think you’ll see this picture in the papers.
