The problem is that the "tenets of the left" are basically BS. Socialism is a lousy way to run an economy. Immorality is damaging. Etc. Etc.
But the problem is that they are RIGHT about evolution. Evolution is easily provable to anyone willing to consider the available evidence.
Creationists make all conservatives appear to be ignorant buffoons. Attempting to dissuade conservatives from engaging on this sure-to-lose battle is my reason for posting here.
One of the things that folk like Dawkins do is obsfucate on the meaning of the word 'evolution'. At one moment they will use it to mean that allele frequency is subject to dynamics (an observable and undoubted fact) with its corollary that phenotype frequency is subject to dynamics, at another they mean the theory of common descent (which is as well-verified a scientific theory as can be at the level of grand explanations in a domain where experiment is essentially impossible, and thus also counts as a fact), at another they use it to mean the claim that the neo-Darwinian synthesis provides a complete account of all observed organismic traits and all biological diversity (a much shakier claim, particularly, if, like Dawkins you want 'random' variation to mean ontologically random, not just 'governed by laws we don't understand').
Now, as I am wont to point out, the idea that a stochastic model, or even stochatic elements in the dynamics of a system imply that the system or its dynamics are not the result of intent is simply false. (A futures market with a single founder and director who can call trading halts still has a dyanmics best modeled by Black-Scholes; in annealed metal crystal sizes are increased by a thermal process, but here (bizarrely, when one hears both Dawkins and the creationists natter on) the presumption is that a bit of annealed metal is an artifact.) Dawkins invokes this assumption to reason from Darwinism to atheism; creationists invoke the contrapositive to reason from theism to the falsity of evolution (which they, too muddily fail to define). Both lines of reasoning are false because the implication they take as an axiom is false.