The Non-Story of the Day

Technorati Tags: Social Darwinism, 2008 election

It must be a slow news day at the New York Times:

For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design, which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an intelligent power could have created it.

Yet it is that very embrace of intelligent design — not to mention creationism, which takes a literal view of the Bible’s Book of Genesis — that has led conservative opponents to speak out for fear their ideology will be branded as out of touch and anti-science.

Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.

Uh ... this is called "social Darwinism." And there's nothing new about it.

I'm a bit surprised that the liberal bloggers who have jumped on this article have not pointed out this simple and obvious fact.

Cross-posted at Shakesville.