How conservatism need not religiously fear the idea of evolutionary progress

Conservatism prefers the word “improvement” rather than “progress” because progress usually means having a social/cultural goal leading to state collectivism. But I think this attitude toward progress essentially stems from the “fallen man” and “original sin” perspective of traditional religion.

The fallen and sinful man perspective in traditional religion derived mainly from ancient Vedism, Buddhist and Judeo-Christian ascetics, and from Greek philosophers and medieval religious thinkers, who sought to experience the God or Father Within by blocking or ridding the body of material desires. Religious morality is essentially based in this ascetic inward goal, where outward material things are thought of as contrary to the inward goal.

I see this as a great metaphysical, reductionist, error. But it does not lead to rejecting religion, as Western science did, or as Nietzsche and his followers did. The Twofold Path in theological materialism retains the Inward Path as the first experience of the God Within, but transforms it in the Outward Path of material and supermaterial evolution to real Godhood.

Conservatives and traditionalists need not censor the idea of progress when sacred evolution is included, because retaining the best of the past both biologically and culturally defines the deep conservatism necessarily involved in the long material evolution of life toward Godhood, the zenith of evolution, with starts and stops along the way.

When I think of conservatism I think of real human nature, which has now been reaffirmed by the science of sociobiology, where the social and cultural laws are seen as working best when in harmony with human nature, which remains kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, heterosexual marriage-making, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, and religious-making, among other things, with group-selection as the primary unit of selection.
 

I also see no good reason why the Outward Path of material evolution to Godhood needs to embrace big state collectivism. For example, ethnopluralism affirms small, free, independent states that eventually become ethnostates, protected by a light federalism, not unlike the separation of powers and states in the U. S. Constitution, which can also be retained. Research centers in the evolutionary sciences and humanities could be used, voluntarily, by all states and nations... I see this as conservative reform, and not as radical revolution.