Or, simply put: apparently one part of your brain believes that spontaneous order is possible while the other believes it's not.
This is a very good point, especially because, in their usual form, intelligent design arguments against evolution aren't really arguments against random mutation/natural selection as an implausible specific instance of spontaneous order, but rather are statements attacking the very idea of spontaneous order being possible at all, under any circumstances. But if that's the case, it shouldn't be possible in market-like situations either; hence the contradiction.
To me, this contradiction is just one more piece of evidence that ideological alliances are by and large a matter of historical accident. It just so happened that, in the U.S., some pro free-marketers and some anti-evolutionists have at some point in time been united by a common cause (read: common enemy). The rest is just our rationalizing minds at work, telling us that each part of our worldview follows from some set of first principles, regardless of what that particular worldview might be.
Here's why I think this is such an interesting example. In my native Poland, the correlation pointed out by Paulos doesn't exist. The majority of Polish anti-evolutionists are also vocally anti free market. Why would that be? Unless you have a story that explains why an average American anti-evolutionist is more hypocritical than a Polish one, or why a Polish anti-evolutionist cannot grasp the concept of spontaneous order even with a half of his brain, you have to conclude that this particular alignment is mainly due to some accidents of history.
And that's what most ideologies are: lengthy chains of stunning non sequiturs, produced by changing political alliances.
yes, that's true in a way. but even if we assume that all the folks who've formed political ideological alliances were scientists, in that their beliefs were directed through available empirical evidence, alliances crop up over time for valid reasons, which might start over very small, even methodological (non-substantive) spats. so it is possible to trace the chain of reasoning back to something like a root source (to make sense of it outside of historical accident), no?
ReplyDelete