We have, of course, been arguing about that since Plato. Writing in yesterday’s NY Times, science editor Nicholas Wade profiles the ideas of Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal, who is carrying the banner of Humeian naturalism into the 21st century.

One of the fathers of modern American conservatism–Kirk, I think–said that you can’t be a conservative unless you believe in a transcendent moral order. Now, these findings about moral behavior in animals don’t logically contradict the hypothesis of a transcendent moral order. There might be one, and Dr. de Waal’s chimps might be tapping into it, just a lot less efficiently than we do.

Even to allow that, though, is to push the notion of human exceptionalism a few more millimeters towards the edge of the table. “Look!–these animals are doing what we do, just not very well.” And naturalistic inquiries don’t need to (and probably can’t) offer ironclad logical refutation of supernaturalism. They need only offer a sufficiently consistent and compelling alternative explanation from Nature. Then more and more people will favor that explanation over the supernaturalist one.

If Kirk was right (which I don’t myself believe), there will then be correspondingly fewer conservatives.

Here is my NRO review of Wade’s excellent 2006 book Before the Dawn.