THE resemblance of evolution and free enterprise is something we’ve written about a few times before, for example: Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand and Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection, and Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Barack Obama, and Analogies to Intelligent Design, but it’s nice to see the same idea in the press.
In the Kansas City Star we read: Are you a socialist-creationist or a free-market evolutionist? Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:
Is life fundamentally bottom-up and randomly designed or top-down and intentionally designed? Are you a socialist-creationist or a free-market evolutionist? If you reject this dichotomy and instead view yourself as a socialist-evolutionist, how can you justify arguing for the power of self-organization and unintentional, benevolent design in biology and against it in economics?
Exactly! Let’s read on:
The arguments of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin are linked more deeply than just their bottom-up commonality. They are bonded together by a belief in the unintended nature of benevolence in economics and evolution. Smith argued “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Likewise, Darwin did not view “natural selection” as the result of benevolent intention, but rather as the result of random deviations in genetic code. Some deviations were beneficial and some were harmful. Those species that got the beneficial deviations prospered while those that got the harmful ones died out.
Right again! Well, Darwin didn’t know about genetic code. He built his theory on the well-known fact that offspring exhibit what he called “individual differences” from their parents. We continue:
The Reverend Thomas Malthus did not share this benevolent view. …
Karl Marx also felt that the world left to its own devices would result in disaster. Without governmental guidance from above, capitalism would destroy itself and ultimately lead to a new world order of socialism where government would control and organize the means of production just as God controls and organizes the creation of life itself.
Right yet again. Well, Marx didn’t assert that God controls life — but his concept of economics is clearly analogous to creationism. We made that same point here: Marx, Stalin, and Darwin. One more excerpt:
Karl Marx and William Paley tell a consistent, socialist-creationist story of life controlled through top-down, intentional design. Their view contrasts sharply with the free-market evolutionist story of Adam Smith and Charles Darwin who see a world of self-organizing, bottom-up, unintentional benevolence.
Given the above, which is obvious to the educated mind, how is it possible that the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids) — who are obsessed with promoting intelligent design, can consider themselves to be conservatives? We don’t know, but as shown here: Discovery Institute — An Insider’s Tale, that’s how they think of themselves — or at least that’s how they present themselves.
The Discoveroids’ Mission Statement says:
The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty.
Some of them are probably confused (no surprise), and the others don’t care. What they really want is theocracy; the rest is unimportant.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.