[Right Wing Professor]

An interesting survey, from a liberal magazine, which shows how diverse is the opinion of conservatives on the subject of evolution. Should be an excellent rebuttal to anyone who says "You believe in evolution/creation, you can't be a real conservative"

[Right Wing Professor]

Ping!

[JamesP81]

The only thing that leaves my blood boiling about this is the way teachers glibly assume that evolution is a proven fact. It isn't. In fact, the evidence supporting the theory is looking thinner and thinner all the time as new discoveries are made. When a teacher says, "This is where we came from, because science believes it" all they're doing is preaching a different religion.

I don't believe in evolution. In fact, I think it's total crap. But a lot of scientists do believe it, so I think it's useful for students to understand what it is and what the tenets of it are. But since it's just one theory, I have no problem with them teaching ID as a theory either.

[wingnutx]

Thanks for the neat article.

My great great great grandfather Bonzo likes it, too :)

[contemplator]

"...you can't be a real conservative"

Not only on this issue, prevailing logic seems to be "Why address the argument when you can just attack the person posing it instead"

[furball4paws]

I thank you for this post. It makes me feel very cold.

[steve-b]

I don't believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools.

What a craven kowtow to the mob and betrayal of intellectual integrity.

[PatrickHenry]

Actually, this isn't as bad as I feared when I started to read the article. Lots of conservatives seem to have the right idea -- that ID isn't science and shouldn't be taught in science classes. Those that appear to be in the ID camp, or are otherwise totally confused, are Grover Norquist (who correctly thinks we shouldn't have government schools at all), Stephen Moore (I'm not too familiar with him), and Pat Buchanan (hopelessly muddled). The rest are either solidly in favor of evolution, or are more or less so, and mildly confused about details. Not all that bad, really.

The sad thing is that these are among the most enlightened conservatives, and so many of them have such a poor grasp of the issues. Of course, the state of scientific literacy among the dems must be at least this bad, but at this point they'd probably back evolution as a talking point with which to bash conservatives.

[Dimensio]

Whether intelligent design or a similar critique should be taught in public schools: "I think people should be taught ... that there are various theories about how man was created."

I wonder what these alleged "theories" are, and whether or not they're really scientific theories.

[RightWingAtheist]

Great find. George Will's excellent Newsweek piece from a few issues back also went a long way to dispelling myths held by both certain conservatives and many liberals.

[Blzbba]

""I don't believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. ..."



Hey wait a second!! I thought that, according to the oft-emailed, anti-PC-inspired "Bill of No Rights" that noone - NOT EVEN CHRISTIANS - have the Right To Not Be Offended in America?

Or does this hypocritically only apply to limp-wristed PC liberals and not Christians?

[DoctorMichael]

I'm a bit confused!

I watched a debate on C-Span a few weeks ago between a representative of the Discovery Institute and a scientist who was either on the school-board debating the recent policy changes in Kansas, or was a testifying witness in front of that verysame board (I can't remember which). I watched this because I always try to keep an open mind and make an attempt to listen to the views of others.

The representative of the Discovery Institute was asked to describe Creationism and he proceeded to describe it as a equally vaild Scientific Theory to the Theory of Evolution. He continued by presenting phenomenon that he claimed could not be accounted for by the Theory of Evolution but that could be, by the Theory of Creationism. When pressed about the Religious aspects of his views versus Scientific data he stated that Creationism was a Scientifc Theory. I have also seen this statement made here by Creationists: Creationism is NOT a Religion, it is a Scientific Theory.

HOWEVER, when criticism of this 'Theory' is raised it evokes the same effect on its adherents as if you were attacking their Religion. They bring up Religion.

I take it back then!........I'm NOT confused. IDer's are the ones that are confused!

Therefore, for the record, I'd like to state that when I put forth my firmly held belief that ID is a piece of CRAP, I'm commenting on the Science of Creationism and the suckers that would believe such claptrap.

I am NOT, however, making a comment on Religion since, as elaborated on by the Discovery Institute, Creationism "is a Science, NOT Religion".

Any further misconstruing of this is because the adherents of this 'Science' are the ones that are CONFUSED!

Not me!

[Vive ut Vivas]

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Of course."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "At most, interesting."

I always liked Charles Krauthammer. Good post.

[CobaltBlue]

Notice not one of them believes in 7 day creation (or is it 6 day?)

And it didn't seem to me like any of them want ID to have equal footing with evolution.

[Tribune7]

I could see myself giving an answer such as above and of course you can be a conservative and believe in evolution. I think you can be a Christian and believe in evolution.

It doesn't mean you'd be right :-)

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info

[dread78645]

An interesting survey ...
You believe in ...

That's where I switched from read mode to scan mode.

Based on the evidence, you either accept a theory or reject it.
Beliefs have zero, zilch, nil to do with it.

[Free Baptist]

What is the percentage of American school-age children now NOT enrolled in public schools? I haven't seen a figure in the last five or more years. Private schools, Christian/Church schools, home schools...what percentage? Even if you subtract the secular private schools, the numbers of Christian/Church schooled and home schooled children are still on the increase, aren't they? We've home schooled seven children ourselves, and we know of large families all around us who home school theirs. There were more than 10,000 families home schooling their children in Florida as early as 1982 according to the then Non-Public Schools Consultant for the governor.

You ask, "What does this have to do with the evolution debate?" Bible-believing families remove their children from public schools. The teaching of evolution as fact in the public schools is one important reason. Bible-believing families, of course, believe in "intelligent design" -- direct creation of the universe and all in it by God. Bible-believing families are virtually all politically/socially "conservatives," and some are stronger than that, they are "restorative."

[Matchett-PI]

"An interesting survey, from a liberal magazine, which shows how diverse is the opinion of conservatives on the subject of evolution. Should be an excellent rebuttal to anyone who says "You believe in evolution/creation, you can't be a real conservative"

It would only be considered an "excellent rebuttal" by those who are badly in need of a crash course in Critical Thinking LOL

[nightdriver]

Truth be known, neither evolution nor creationism are "science" at all.

Evolution cannot explain any mechanism whereby DNA is transformed from producing one organism to that which produces a different organism.

Creationism does not explain how God produced living organisms out of non-living matter.

Both fields would be more honestly classified as historical rather than scientific.

[Trimegistus]

I think it's a very dangerous idea to link a political philosophy, which is about ideas and about moral choices, to a scientific theory which can be disproved.

If the Church says the Sun goes around the Earth, the Church winds up looking stupid, and that throws doubt on the other teachings of the Church. The Church also opposed Darwininan evolution, and I expect part of the percieved "evil influence" of Darwinism was in fact the self-inflicted injury of the Church making pronouncements on scientific matters.

Politicizing science is bad no matter which side does it: consider the way the Left has turned "global warming" from a hypothesis in need of more study to a pillar of Democratic party platforms and leftist ideology.