Replies

It is my position modern conservatism should be joined at the hip with modern science. I reject these fringe viewpoints, as being unscientific or too conspiratorial.

But evolution and ‘current science’ explains everything:

4. Evolution explains family values. The following characteristics are the foundation of families and societies and are shared by humans and other social mammals: attachment and bonding, cooperation and reciprocity, sympathy and empathy, conflict resolution, community concern and reputation anxiety, and response to group social norms. As a social primate species, we evolved morality to enhance the survival of both family and community. Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures.
5. Evolution accounts for specific Christian moral precepts. Much of Christian morality has to do with human relationships, most notably truth telling and marital fidelity, because the violation of these principles causes a severe breakdown in trust, which is the foundation of family and community. Evolution describes how we developed into pair-bonded primates and how adultery violates trust. Likewise, truth telling is vital for trust in our society, so lying is a sin.
Michael Shermer

Now, I realize that some might view this as a parody. But I see no hint of that. In fact, Shermer writes, "Because the theory of evolution provides a scientific foundation for the core values shared by most Christians and conservatives, it should be embraced."
On the other hand, others might take issue with Shermer's argument. But I see something else. Y'see, when Shermer speaks of "evolution," he is talking about the findings of modern science. In other words, this hardcore skeptic, writing in the pages of Scientific American, has felt compelled to concede that modern science supports conservative Christianity!
With the backing of science and evolution, perhaps some public school board out there may one day begin looking for ways to more explicitly re-introduce family values and specific Christian moral precepts into the curriculum, along with some specific advocacy of conservative free-market economics, since these are not rooted in religion, but instead are derived from science and its understanding of evolution.
Who needs the Wedge when you can just cite Shermer and Scientific American?
Oh, the irony.
From telicthoughts

With the backing of science and evolution, perhaps some public school board out there may one day begin looking for ways to more explicitly re-introduce family values and specific Christian moral precepts into the curriculum, along with some specific advocacy of conservative free-market economics, since these are not rooted in religion, but instead are derived from science and its understanding of evolution.

Got strawman? (I know you are quoting but the author is being quite disingenuous). The fact the article suggests that TToE supports Christian morality doesn't mean that Christianity should be introduced into school. Mathematics supports the ability to make weapons. It doesn't follow we should teach Islam in school.

"On the other hand, others might take issue with Shermer's argument. But I see something else. Y'see, when Shermer speaks of "evolution," he is talking about the findings of modern science. In other words, this hardcore skeptic, writing in the pages of Scientific American, has felt compelled to concede that modern science supports conservative Christianity!"

Whomever wrote this has a problem with comprehension.

What Shermer was saying is that religion, all religion, whether Christian or not, is a result of the societal values that evolved along with larger group sizes based on the physical evolution of the human species. Shermer through his statements quite clearly removes the need for a supernatural God, because our morals are the result of our physical evolution. In other words, we created God, he did not create us.

I doubt very much that most Christians would conclude that Shermer is agreeing with their belief system when he completely removes the need for a God.

The author of the blurb you quoted and linked needs to rethink at least one statement.