The New York Times proposes an interesting question today: "Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?"
The article appears to be a little biased, like here: "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." But, I'm not so uncomfortable with this bias. I don't really understand the basic understanding of the world that doesn't include science, so this statement makes sense to me. And yet, I still wonder about this initial question posed by my hometown paper.
The fact that the theories of Darwin could be used to support idealogical values doesn't exactly add up for me. Then again, it's been a long time that I've really read up on Darwin. And my limited memory of "survival of the fittest" doesn't fit with what I want to understand about the political divides that currently exist in our country.
I don't know. I think I need more coffee.