Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]

Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting how different Republican factions are lining up on this. Human Events on one side (the author of this article is with the Discovery Institute), and people like Charles Krauthammer and George Will on the other.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 320 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[The Old Hoosier]

I would not take this as an indication of where Human Events stands. They run several syndicated columnists.

[PatrickHenry]

I would not take this as an indication of where Human Events stands.

True. And the Discovery Institute likes to place ID-oriented columns and op ed pieces everywhere it can. I guess only a Human Events editorial will tell us where they stand. So my title for this thread is, perhaps, a bit misleading. Still, the article highlights the division within the Republican party. My hope is that the party doesn't take any official stand for ID (and against science).

[Physicist]

But E.O. Wilson’s brave new world seems very different from visions of religion and morality-friendly Darwinian sugerplums dancing about in Krauthammer’s head.

If in order for a theory to be correct, its proponents must march in lockstep in their beliefs and interpretations, I would invite the ID proponents to remove the beam from their own eye.

Shrug. These differences of opinion are chickenfeed compared to the differing interpretations of quantum mechanics.

[js1138]

Interesting how different Republican factions are lining up on this. Human Events on one side (the author of this article is with the Discovery Institute)...

The Discovery Institute blew their chance to be a player by dropping out of the Dover trial. If you don't have an argument that can be presented under oath, you don't have an argument.

[dead]

Are we voting?

Put me down in the former monkey group.

[Fester Chugabrew]

There ought to be room for both points of view in a country that espouses religious freedom.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

If in order for a theory to be correct, its proponents must march in lockstep in their beliefs and interpretations, I would invite the ID proponents to remove the beam from their own eye.Why do you choose religious terminology? That seems very hypcritical. Once again an evolutionist uses emotion and hypocrisy to make his point.

[Aquinasfan]

They appear to have gotten most of their information about intelligent design from other critics of the theory, scholars bent on not only distorting the main arguments of intelligent design but also sometimes seeking to deny the academic freedom of design theorists.

Wouldn't be surprising. I used to believe "evolution" to be a "scientific fact" until I looked into it myself.

[js1138]

ID has nothing to do with religion, unless you are willing to admit that a lot of people committed perjury at Dover.

[Right Wing Professor]

Casey Luskin is DI's publicity flak. He's somewhat of a figure of fun over on Panda's Thumb.

[rrr51]

American Spectator seems to be lining up on the ID side also. Conservatives in general can line up on either side of the issue, since they tend to be more open-minded, and ID is not part of the conservative orthodoxy. Liberals however must be evolutionists since it is part of their orthodoxy.

[narby]

This isn't an important issue.

And "gay marriage" isn't an "important issue" either.

But the problem is that supporting gay marriage has cost the Dems severely. And if Republicans support ID, it will cost them too.

ID is a wedge issue, not in the way that the Discovery Institute intended (to wedge God into science classes, and from there into the rest of public schools). Instead it will become a political wedge, splitting up the Republican base. When schools do indeed "teach the controversy", ID has been documented to lose, thus there isn't even any gain for religious conservatives for the cost of spliting up the party.

A little experience around ID posts on FR should tell any Republican that this is not a good issue to bring up. There are more important things religious conservatives should concentrate on, such as the war against Christmas, and abortion. ID is a damaging distraction.

[MissAmericanPie]

I don't see the scandal in having both groups pursue their theories. The same ignorance, that slaughtered any point of view rather than the earth is flat, is at work here with these embarassing witch hunts.

[narby]

ID is not part of the conservative orthodoxy

It will be, if articles like this continue. And I will leave the conservative base over it. I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.

[narby]

ID is not part of the conservative orthodoxy

It will be, if articles like this continue. And I will leave the conservative base over it. I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.

[PatrickHenry]

Liberals however must be evolutionists since it is part of their orthodoxy.

Obama says Republicans practice "Social Darwinism".

[Physicist]

Why do you choose religious terminology? That seems very hypcritical.

Ah, another mote. Why do creationists use science terminology? That seems decidedly sinful. Another beam.