Wow. Those numbers came out just about how I expected them to come out, and they mirror pretty closely GOP opinion polls. At the moment, 33% of registered freepers are voting "No." That is, to keep creationism and ID out of science class. I wish it were more, but I'm pleasantly surprised that a third of freepers are of that opinion. Well, maybe I shouldn't be surprised. My pro-evolution ping list is one of the biggest lists on this website, currently pushing close to 400 names. There are bigger lists, but the evo list is one of the biggies. Or so I'm told.
A lot of liberals are creationists too. Especially do-gooders. I think this is one of the issues that cross politics.
I wish it were more, but I'm pleasantly surprised that a third of freepers are of that opinion.
It shouldn't be surprising. I guess maybe it is. But for every Coulter or Steyn there is a:
Krauthammer: "Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God."
Or
Will: "The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum."
or
Buckley:
Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Yes."
Whether schools should raise the possibility--but not in biology classes--that man was created by God in his present form? : "Yes, sure, absolutely."
Which classes that should be discussed in: "History, etymology."
Note: this link leads to a subscriber-only section of TNR. But, oddly, if you go to google and type "Buckley evolution the new republic" you will be linked to the full article.
I am most like
Derbyshire: "I’ll also say that I write the following with some reluctance. It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down.
So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring."
Which explains why I so infrequently post on these threads. I'm glad there are those, like yourself, that do. But it shouldn't be forgotten that there are other respected conservatives who have similar views.