The descent of man: can conservative concepts be derived from evolution? Critics respond to John O. McGinnis.

Mr. Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale, and the author of 1939: The Lost World of the Fair (Free Press).

ALTHOUGH I have deep reservations about John McGinnis' piece, ("The Origins of Conservatism" NR, Dec. 22, 1997) point one is that he is defending (as far as I'm concerned) propositions that ought to be defended, and reaching conclusions that are right and important. Any defender of these positions on family, government, and human nature is doing a good deed. Any critic who intends to open fire ought to salute first.

But it strikes me as disastrous to cede authority to science in an area that ought to be governed by religion, moral philosophy, and common sense. Evolutionary biology, McGinnis says, supports conservative principles. But what happens when science contradicts conservative principles? In that case (I assume) McGinnis would stand on principle and ignore science. You could argue that evolutionary biology "supports" eugenics and selective polygamy rights. So what good is science if we pay attention to it when it supports positions we have already reached by other routes, and ignore it otherwise? Yes-men are good for the ego but not for the soul. They have no effect on your thinking, and you can hardly expect them to impress your opponents. No serious conservative would abandon a principled position because science told him to, and I don't see how we can expect principled liberals to behave differently.

You might claim, though, that any argument that can be mustered in favor of correct principles ought to be mustered, because after all it can't do any harm. But it's important to underline, first, that all the principles McGinnis defends can be and have been defended (which McGinnis doesn't deny) with no help from evolutionary biology. And rolling out science under the circumstances, to defend positions that are adequately defended already, could do harm. It tends to shift the defense burden off common sense onto technical expertise. The implied message is: Do you think you understand why families are important? Well, if you knew science, then you'd really understand.

But it's a mistake to suggest that scientists (or laymen who are up on science) are in any stronger a position than anyone else to pontificate on moral or social issues. It's a mistake to suggest that experience, common sense, and religious training don't fully equip a man to see what is true where family, society, and human nature are concerned. In such areas scientists don't deserve to be built up. We care too much about technical expertise already; we've relentlessly devalued experience and common sense and religion, with disastrous results. I certainly don't want to claim that McGinnis is against common sense, religion, and so on; my guess is he's all in favor of them. But his way of arguing has bad side-effects. I wouldn't pop these pills unless I had to, and I don't have to.

McGinnis's goals also strike me as questionable. "Some religious conservatives," he notes, reject Darwin altogether, and he wants to reassure them that Darwin doesn't threaten religious faith. As far as I'm concerned, Darwin was proved right a long time ago. But if a person disagrees, the way to persuade him is by discussing the theory and the supporting evidence; if I believe that a theory is wrong, why should I change my mind on account of the good consequences that would follow if the theory were right? The technical name for such a maneuver should be "proof by wishful thinking." When you make this sort of argument, you question the anti-Darwinists' good faith -- you imply that they reject Darwin not because he's wrong, but because life would be too awful if he were right. Maybe that's what McGinnis intends to imply; maybe the anti-Darwinists ought to have their good faith questioned. I don't know. But if that's what he thinks, he ought to say so and explain why.

McGinnis's main goal is a scientific proof of conservative principles; I've explained why I think this a bad idea, but want to note in closing the resemblance between this project and the long, sad history of scientific proofs of God. They never convinced anyone who wasn't convinced beforehand (because faith rests on perception, not analysis -- you can't argue someone into believing that the sky is blue); and by conceding ultimate authority to science, they undermined faith to a far greater extent than they built it up. I don't mean that God and conservatism are the same thing -- but there's a place beyond science, and we ought to respect the boundary. I'm all in favor of science. And I'm in favor of resisting science's tendency to regard itself as omnipotent.

I'm sure, to conclude, that McGinnis's principles are as good as any man's and his conclusions are impeccable. And if his piece wins converts, bravo. But even if his strategy succeeds, it strikes me as awfully risky. And it wouldn't convert me.