Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Intelligent Design Hurts Conservatives (By making us look like crackpots)
The New Republic ^ | 8/16/05 | Ross Douthat

Posted on 08/18/2005 5:17:34 PM PDT by curiosity

The appeal of "intelligent design" to the American right is obvious. For religious conservatives, the theory promises to uncover God's fingerprints on the building blocks of life. For conservative intellectuals in general, it offers hope that Darwinism will yet join Marxism and Freudianism in the dustbin of pseudoscience. And for politicians like George W. Bush, there's little to be lost in expressing a skepticism about evolution that's shared by millions.

In the long run, though, intelligent design will probably prove a political boon to liberals, and a poisoned chalice for conservatives. Like the evolution wars in the early part of the last century, the design debate offers liberals the opportunity to portray every scientific battle--today, stem-cell research, "therapeutic" cloning, and end-of-life issues; tomorrow, perhaps, large-scale genetic engineering--as a face-off between scientific rigor and religious fundamentalism. There's already a public perception, nurtured by the media and by scientists themselves, that conservatives oppose the "scientific" position on most bioethical issues. Once intelligent design runs out of steam, leaving its conservative defenders marooned in a dinner-theater version of Inherit the Wind, this liberal advantage is likely to swell considerably.

And intelligent design will run out of steam--a victim of its own grand ambitions. What began as a critique of Darwinian theory, pointing out aspects of biological life that modification-through-natural-selection has difficulty explaining, is now foolishly proposed as an alternative to Darwinism. On this front, intelligent design fails conspicuously--as even defenders like Rick Santorum are beginning to realize--because it can't offer a consistent, coherent, and testable story of how life developed. The "design inference" is a philosophical point, not a scientific theory: Even if the existence of a designer is a reasonable inference to draw from the complexity of, say, a bacterial flagellum, one would still need to explain how the flagellum moved from design to actuality.

And unless George W. Bush imposes intelligent design on American schools by fiat and orders the scientific establishment to recant its support for Darwin, intelligent design will eventually collapse--like other assaults on evolution that failed to offer an alternative--under the weight of its own overreaching.

If liberals play their cards right, this collapse could provide them with a powerful rhetorical bludgeon. Take the stem-cell debate, where the great questions are moral, not scientific--whether embryonic human life should be created and destroyed to prolong adult human life. Liberals might win that argument on the merits, but it's by no means a sure thing. The conservative embrace of intelligent design, however, reshapes the ideological battlefield. It helps liberals cast the debate as an argument about science, rather than morality, and paint their enemies as a collection of book-burning, Galileo-silencing fanatics.

This would be the liberal line of argument anyway, even without the controversy surrounding intelligent design. "The president is trapped between religion and science over stem cells," declared a Newsweek cover story last year; "Religion shouldn't undercut new science," the San Francisco Chronicle insisted; "Leadership in 'therapeutic cloning' has shifted abroad," the New York Times warned, because American scientists have been "hamstrung" by "religious opposition"--and so on and so forth. But liberalism's science-versus-religion rhetoric is only likely to grow more effective if conservatives continue to play into the stereotype by lining up to take potshots at Darwin.

Already, savvy liberal pundits are linking bioethics to the intelligent design debate. "In a world where Koreans are cloning dogs," Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote last week, "can the U.S. afford--ethically or economically--to raise our children on fraudulent biology?" (Message: If you're for Darwin, you're automatically for unfettered cloning research.) Or again, this week's TNR makes the pretty-much-airtight "case against intelligent design"; last week, the magazine called opponents of embryo-destroying stem cell research "flat-earthers." The suggested parallel is obvious: "Science" is on the side of evolution and on the side of embryo-killing.

Maureen Dowd, in her inimitable way, summed up the liberal argument earlier this year:

Exploiting God for political ends has set off powerful, scary forces in America: a retreat on teaching evolution, most recently in Kansas; fights over sex education . . . a demonizing of gays; and a fear of stem cell research, which could lead to more of a "culture of life" than keeping one vegetative woman hooked up to a feeding tube.

Terri Schiavo, sex education, stem cell research--on any issue that remotely touches on science, a GOP that's obsessed with downing Darwin will be easily tagged as medieval, reactionary, theocratic. And this formula can be applied to every new bioethical dilemma that comes down the pike. Earlier this year, for instance, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued ethical guidelines for research cloning, which blessed the creation of human-animal "chimeras"--animals seeded with human cells. New York Times reporter Nicholas Wade, writing on the guidelines, declared that popular repugnance at the idea of such creatures is based on "the pre-Darwinian notion that species are fixed and penalties [for cross-breeding] are severe." In other words, if you're opposed to creating pig-men--carefully, of course, with safeguards in place (the NAS guidelines suggested that chimeric animals be forbidden from mating)--you're probably stuck back in the pre-Darwinian ooze with Bishop Wilberforce and William Jennings Bryan.

There's an odd reversal-of-roles at work here. In the past, it was often the right that tried to draw societal implications from Darwinism, and the left that stood against them. And for understandable reasons: When people draw political conclusions from Darwin's theory, they're nearly always inegalitarian conclusions. Hence social Darwinism, hence scientific racism, hence eugenics.

Which is why however useful intelligent design may be as a rhetorical ploy, liberals eager to claim the mantle of science in the bioethics battle should beware. The left often thinks of modern science as a child of liberalism, but if anything, the reverse is true. And what scientific thought helped to forge--the belief that all human beings are equal--scientific thought can undermine as well. Conservatives may be wrong about evolution, but they aren't necessarily wrong about the dangers of using Darwin, or the National Academy of Sciences, as a guide to political and moral order.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; education; evolution; hesaidcrackhehheh; immaturetitle; intelligentdesign; politics; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940941-953 next last
To: PatrickHenry; Torie

That's an interesting thought. I've never posted a vanity, but if any topic demands it, this is it! I'll give it some thought after I finish up with the remaining questions from Torie. Speaking of which, I won't get a chance now to post the rest until tomorrow evening. Farewell till then!

PS. Yup, a reliable, adequate source of fresh water is definitely crucial. Yet another discussion unto itself! Hmm.. I'll have to think about how I would concisely phrase the 'fourth pillar' if need be.


901 posted on 08/21/2005 6:58:22 PM PDT by AntiGuv ("Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
There are no great Dodges and their sure the hell ain't any data supporting your 'cry wolf' assertions. I'm a patient man though. There have been scores of polls leading up to and after the last election. It should be a simple matter for a man or woman of your obvious talents to locate ONE with ID or Evolution listed as an issue concerning Americans.

Are you that dense?

Election --- Kansas 2000 ---  Science vs Mythology -- Science Won

That's your stinkin' poll, and it's the only one that really matters -  an actual election.

Here read about it yourself, Election results signal changes in science standards by Kansas board

Quote

The board in August 1999 approved standards that omitted many references to evolution, the big-bang theory or the age of the Earth. The vote was 6-4. After the election, the balance on the board has shifted to 7-3 in favor of evolution.

It should be noted that in 2000 Kansas went 65-33 for Bush over Gore. So for Republicans to lose that bad in a year where Bush won big should be more than enough to tell you that pushing mythology over science is a loser.

I'm sure if you looked you won't find any poll in 1998 or before showing evolution vs mythology as an issue concerning Kansas citizens, as to most people it was settled back in 1925 after the Scopes Monkey trial. Yet in 1999 when they brought it up again and they made it an issue again and they ended up losing.

Now, It's not a stretch to figure that if the people of Kansas who are among the most religious and Republican in the nation rejected replacing science with mythology, that the people living in states that are less religious and Republican (i.e. Colorado & Nevada) than Kansas will also do so.

Plus remember the Santorum Amendment, where Rick Santorum tried to sneak ID into the No Child Left Behind act, If ID is such a winner or a non-issue why did they take it out? Rick Santorum is also the most vulnerable senator in this up coming election (coincidence?)

902 posted on 08/21/2005 7:23:46 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: Pipeline
I agree with you. God designed the universe and its laws so that it would eventually produce a being that could know Him and love Him. To believe otherwise takes at least as much faith, if not more, IMHO.

But this belief is NOT what is commonly known as "intelligent design," which is really an abuse of language. Hey, there's another thing I can say about "intelligent design!" Bad science, bad philosophy, bad theology, and bad philology.

903 posted on 08/21/2005 8:35:31 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 893 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
I am one conservative that says, look God created it. That's what I believe and who I worship. You want me to believe ANYTHING else, you better prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt and even then, no promises.

No one is asking you to believe anything else. I would just encourage you to accept what science has demonstrated to be the process God used to make life diverse, i.e. evolution. God created man using the process of evolution, which was His brilliant invention.

904 posted on 08/21/2005 8:39:43 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 846 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
I would rather stand up for God than be on the side of pure evil like the left no matter what the cost thank you very much.

You're not standing up for God when ignore or irrationally deny the evidence he left us about evolution in His Creation.

905 posted on 08/21/2005 8:41:26 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: Holden Magroin
The ones with the religious view are those who say that the universe was caused by a big bang.

The bing bang has nothing to do with evolution and the intelligent design movement. You're mixing up apples and oranges.

BTW, the Bing Bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit priest, who thought it actually strengthened the case for a creator.

906 posted on 08/21/2005 8:44:27 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
In other words, if we all become athiests, we will be "accepted" by the Left and they won't call us ignorant rubes anymore.

You don't have to be an atheist to accept any piece of science, be it Darwin's theory of evolution or anything else.

The atheists have done an excellent job spreading the lie that evolution=atheism. Don't let yourself be fooled.

907 posted on 08/21/2005 8:46:53 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Oh, sort of like evolution. God did not plan every detail, he just set it into motion.

Yeah, and watched over it, and perhaps gave it a tiny, undetectable nudge here or there.

908 posted on 08/21/2005 8:48:55 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: CAPTAINSUPERMARVELMAN
According to evolutionists like Thomas Huxley it has everything to do with it.

Thomas Huxley was not a scientist. His view was just his (incorrect) philosophical opinion.

909 posted on 08/21/2005 8:56:12 PM PDT by curiosity (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
You posed what you thought was an unanserable question...

I did?

But YOU answered wrongly.

But then, God made you do that, so I guess that you really don't get that scored against you.

910 posted on 08/22/2005 6:28:41 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 889 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Unless we can perfect something that can affordably convert sea water to fresh, we may hit a barrier to future population growth.

Hot so!

That's what Evolution is all about.


Drink whatcha got or DIE!
911 posted on 08/22/2005 6:30:43 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Unless we can perfect something that can affordably convert sea water to fresh, we may hit a barrier to future population growth.

NOT so!

That's what Evolution is all about.


Drink whatcha got or DIE!

(Well; H is close to N.)

912 posted on 08/22/2005 6:31:25 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 899 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

The world is DEFINITELY screwed up!


913 posted on 08/22/2005 6:32:35 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 903 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

BTW, the Bing Bang theory was first proposed by a Jesuit priest, who thought it actually strengthened the case for a creator.

 

 

Let there be Light Stuff!


914 posted on 08/22/2005 6:36:04 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 906 | View Replies]

To: curiosity; WildTurkey
 

Yeah, and watched over it, and perhaps gave it a tiny, undetectable nudge here or there.

Dang!  Is this old book LYING to me????



 
NIV Psalms 148:4-5
 4.  Praise him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies.
 5.  Let them praise the name of the LORD, for he commanded and they were created.
 
 
 
 
 
NIV Isaiah 45:18
  For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other."
 
 
 
 
NIV Isaiah 65:17-18
 17.  "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.
 18.  But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.
 
"...will..."    WOW!  This'll be cool to watch!
 
 
 
NIV Ezekiel 28:13-15
 13.  You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire,  turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings  were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.
 14.  You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones.
 15.  You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.
 
 
 
NIV Matthew 25:34
  "Then the King will say to those on his right, `Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
 
 
 
 
 
NIV Mark 10:6
   "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'  
 
(Not umpteen eons later; after lots of Evolution takes place!)
 
 
 
 
 
NIV 1 Corinthians 11:8-9
 8.  For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
 9.  neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
 
 
 
 
NIV Hebrews 9:11
  When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,  he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.
 
 
 
 
NIV Hebrews 12:26-29
 26.  At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, "Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens."
 27.  The words "once more" indicate the removing of what can be shaken--that is, created things--so that what cannot be shaken may remain.
 28.  Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe,
 29.  for our "God is a consuming fire."
 
WOW!  An UNcreated, shakeless place, just for us believers!
 
 
 
 
 
NIV 2 Peter 3:4
   They will say, "Where is this `coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
 
"...everything goes on as it has since the BEGINNING..."!?  WHAT!!! NO "Evolution"????
 
 
 
 
NIV Revelation 4:11
  "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."
 
HMMmmmm... I thought Evolution made all things, out of the starting ingredients....
 
 
 
 
 

915 posted on 08/22/2005 6:48:50 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 908 | View Replies]

Placemarker
916 posted on 08/22/2005 7:25:13 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. The List-O-Links is at my homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 915 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Look into the past then, and tell me of an actual set of events that drove change

The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs opened up a whole host of environmental niches for mammals and birds.

As a result, mammals expanded from mostly shrew-like creatures to the wide variety we see today.

917 posted on 08/22/2005 7:34:21 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Thomas Huxley was not a scientist. His view was just his (incorrect) philosophical opinion.






Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895): physiologist, anatomist, anthropologist, agnostic, educator, and Darwin's bulldog. ...

hmm. sounds like a scientist to me.


918 posted on 08/22/2005 7:51:10 AM PDT by CAPTAINSUPERMARVELMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 909 | View Replies]

To: qam1
Are you that dense?

Sometimes for sure but not this time. You labor under the misguided notion that the Kansas School Board Election of 2000 was a bellwether of some sort. An analyst with a bit less density would look at the data and see it as a blip where a few moderate Republicans replaced very conservative Republicans on the School Board. Even this was reversed two years later.

So you take a blip on a graph and extrapolate it to the voting population of the United States where overwhelming numbers of those voters believe that God created the Universe.

Stupid analysis based on ideology, not objective fact. You're an ideologue that wants it to be true but there is, once again, NO data supporting your dense assertions. None, nada, zippo.

In fact, if one looks at the reportage of that story and the facts surrounding it one can easily come to the conclusion that certain populations in Kansas were subjected to propaganda and when they realized it they righted the ship. The propaganda would be that the School Board voted to ban the teaching of evolution. It was propaganda because it was false.

What's your specific gravity?

919 posted on 08/22/2005 8:56:57 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
In the long run, though, intelligent design will probably prove a political boon to liberals, and a poisoned chalice for conservatives.

Don't be so sure of that. There are an awful lot of Americans who are no longer buying into the dogma of evolution.

920 posted on 08/22/2005 9:53:36 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 881-900901-920921-940941-953 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson