New Blog: “Conservatives Against Intelligent Design”

It is not a serious site. It is just the rantings of a few uninformed libertarians. The fact that John Derbyshire signed their manifesto should be embarrassing for him. I did like one post by someone which is "If I make an inference from evidence, that is Science." That would be an interesting debate topic. jerry

Just visited the CAID blog. Being a conservative myself, it really hurts to see that these fellow conservatives misrepresent ID even more than the ACLU, NCSE, and other leftist groups! They keep saying ID is opposed to the idea of evolution. It's in their mission statement and half the comments I read. If they would take the time to seriously read anything by the major ID proponents, they'd see that it is not opposed to evolution per se. Rather, ID questions the Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for it, and proposes there are teleological aspects apparent in the way life has evolved. They don't engage this arguement, they just holler "Creationists! Creationists! Creationists!" What better place is there to start their education than my website www.theidbookstore.com ? (That was another shameless plug!) Stu Harris www.theidbookstore.com StuartHarris

I remember hearing about the "Conservatives Against Intelligent Design" group a week or two ago, in The Corner at National Review, which I read semi-regularly. John Derbyshire, resident ID-basher, mentioned that he had signed some statement these guys were passing around. One thing I find interesting is that this group is more straightforwardly atheistic than more left-leaning groups like the NCSE, who won't say directly that Darwinian evolution is "directionless and purposeless". Deuce

I don't like ID's politicization either, but it's such a hot button issue that I don't think this can be avoided. Of course, politics won't matter in the end. Evidence for design is simply overwhelming, and anyone who thinks--whether they be conservative, liberal, or whatever--knows it's there. crandaddy

I know quite a few self-proclaimed conservatives who do not support ID. Most probably fall more into the camp of Libertarians, but not all. I've had several debates on online forums about ID, religion, science, evolution, politics over the years and you certainly cannot stereotype. I've talked to some hard-core leftists who were Bible-believing Christians and some far righties who were hardcore atheists. I call myself liberal, but am a Bible-believing Christian and a supporter of ID. Though, I'm not that fond of labels. :) dodgingcars

Anderson: the thought has also crossed my mind that the site may not have been designed by conservatives at all, but may be another "Let's try to get the Clergy and Conservatives" to help us ploy by the Darwinist camp. But then again, it may be real. Who knows. All I know is that ID != Right Wing, as the above possibly demonstrates. Nor should it...anything calling itself science should remain about evidence, prediction and experiment. If not, then we're no better than Darwinists who freely mix their religion with their science. Atom

I have to agree with Atom on the political point. On the substantive side, the "mission statment" seems eerily similar to something the folks at NCSE would put out. Eric Anderson

I left a lengthy comment there but am not sure if it won't get buried. I am not sure how their system works to post so everyone can read it. If anyone figures it out, let me know. jerry

Well isn't that interesting! There are, of course, many issues upon which we disagree (God, statism, individualism, etc.). We also disagree in ranking issues according to their importance. Or do we? As ideas advance people seem to sense which ones are the most significant. For example, our educated elites evidently agree that the debate over ID is VERY important, else why would they devote so much time and energy to squelching it? It will be interesting to watch the libertarians, for they decry the Left's statism but tend to embrace its moral debauchery. Giving ID a voice requires freedom of expression, but if Darwin was wrong it may be difficult to remain an intellectually fulfilled atheist. A good libertarian might find himself conflicted. Rude

Eyes rolling spasmodically. mike1962

I wouldn't doubt if that site is from Ayn Rand's Objectivism people. They are militant atheists and militant conservatives. mentok

Atom: Leftists are the very people who have politicized science, so it seems both intellectually dishonest and nonsensical to me to hold the position that conservatives must apply Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" [science and politics occupy separate realms] to the ID debate. The fact is that neither lefties nor conservatives are above the fray.... turandot

On a somewhat similiar topic, anyone want to offer up a critique of one of the U of T courses Philosophy of Biology. They teach a little bit about ID, or try to at least. One section they critique the idea of Law of Conservation of Information and Irredicible complexity:
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~sousa/teach/Philbionotes7.html

There is also a course in the Christianity and Culture program, Christianity and Science. They go over a little bit of ID:
http://ccnet.utoronto.ca/20059/smc230y1y/

Apoptosis

Which is why it is all the more important to decouple the science of ID from U.S. politics. Leftists are potential ID supporters, so let's be careful to not scare them away with our (usually irrelevant to science) political leanings. Atom

"We all know that evolution and natural selection are directionless and purposeless.."

I wonder how they "know" such a thing, given that biological science is tentative, and evidence to the contrary. Interesting that even "liberal" hard-core darwinists have removed that wording.

Guts