Defining conservatism as ordered evolution

According to Nietzsche, Rousseau thought man perfects himself as he approaches nature, and Voltaire thought man perfects himself in proportion as he leaves nature. I think both Rousseau and Voltaire were right in this sense: evolution takes what man is and gradually changes man, perhaps eventually evolving beyond the human species. Idealists and utopians usually move away from what man is, away from human nature, in their projected cultural schemes, which is not only impossible to do but may be neurotic or even insane due to feelings of revengful powerlessness.

Nietzsche (and later sociobiology) thought traditions developed around what was needed for successful survival and reproduction in past times, but not for present times, which is where problems with the new arise with traditionalists. But real tradition, or real conservatism, values both what was necessary in the past and also includes a place for change, as Burke and others more or less pointed out. That is, conservatism doesn't throw out the basic traits necessary for survival, real conservatism imagines culture as a whole heritage attained by humanity up to our time, whereas the fanatic, the revengeful, the powerless, imagine a complete break from the past.

I think evolutionary religion can lead the way in affirming what the other cultural fields still lack: philosophical sociobiology. Ordered Evolution, not revolution, is the way to evolve, all the way to Godhood in the cosmos. Evolutionary change within order. That is how I define conservatism.