Replies

Well, of course they're not going to push ID at election time.

Well, why not? Isn't that what their "huge constituency" wants?

You don't have to say it - it's tolerably obvious to everyone, I'm sure, that even you understand it's not quite so immense a constituency as to be able to go it alone. Well, welcome to Politics 101 - that means compromise, somewhere, somehow, so that you can get at least some of what you want, rather than none of what you want. Promoting ID is a loser, so I recommend we toss it overboard.

Did you think they would, or did you hope as much?

Did I hope as much? Considering your performance here, you don't have the bona fides to question anyone else's conservatism. I'm here - we are here - to prevent that from happening, by preventing well-meaning but shortsighted conservatives from strapping this particular boat anchor around their necks.

Be serious for a moment. If I tell you that pouring gas on yourself and then playing with matches is a bad idea, that doesn't mean I'm hoping you'll do it. Instead, it means that your friend, who takes the longer view, is telling you it's a bad idea and you shouldn't do it. Why? Because I think it's a bad idea, and you shouldn't do it. Now, whether or not you choose to follow that advice is up to you, but please don't come whining to me when you go up in flames.

Since we are making heartfelt suggestions to the greater good of conservatism--let me add to them the suggestion that your gang of "do gooders" stop actively alienating potential allies, or even the usefully indifferent to this small issue. You don't win over a jury by insulting eleven out of twelve, and then crying to the judge. That's also somewhere in politics 101--maybe?

I think the evos cannot contain their frustration when they are out of the classroom and cannot intimidate the student with the threat of ridicule or poor grades--they're so used to the bully-ing pulpit that any expression of doubt provokes behavior of adolescent insecurity. Not the attitude of winners.

The theory of evolution is an excellent paradigm, but can also be a stumbling block to the study of life. I gave you one example of class time devoted to Evo-devotionals that might have been better used sticking to facts--this is the way evo was taught many years ago, a shallow and nonsensical dogma, and most of it has been since debunked. Which might be OK, except the evos never notice that what was not true then, might also not be true now.

A lot of biology would be better taught with evolution used as a model, rather than the dogma it is. Then, when the doubters come, the scientist might be better able to maintain his decorum.