Conservatives and Evolution...

[headscratcher4]

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/07/conservatives_a.html

Thought some might find this interesting, though it doesn't say where they stand on teaching ID and creation or the actions of the Kansas school board...I suppose they would justify based on local democratic process...anyway....

 

[corplinx]

http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2005/07/conservatives_a.html

Thought some might find this interesting, though it doesn't say where they stand on teaching ID and creation or the actions of the Kansas school board...I suppose they would justify based on local democratic process...anyway....

The whole 6000 year creation thing is mostly a Baptist thing. The wacky charismatics have several schools of thought including 6k and old earth creation. And there are of course people in those fundamentalist regimes that don't tote the company line.

That said, why would someone expect Krauthammer or Buckley to subscribe to 6k creation which is the creationist theory that can't be melded with evolution and science?

 

[Ipecac]

I just finished reading the article and was thinking about starting a thread. Well done, Headscratcher.

Most of the people in the article are either seriously misinformed or just disingenuous. Pat Buchanan was easily the worst. He said that evolution should be taught in schools.

Evolution has been so powerful a theory in Western history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and often a malevolent force - it's been used by non-Christians and anti-Christians to justify policies which have been horrendous. I do believe that every American should be introduced to the idea and its effects on society.

What a wanker.

He also says that the biblical story of creation should be taught because every child should know the first of all the famous biblical stories because they have had a tremendous influence as well.

He then says.

I think in biology that honest teachers gotta say 'look, the universe exhibits, betrays the idea that there is a first mover, that there is intelligent design.'

Should ID be taught in schools?

No: Charles Krauthammer, Richard Brookhiser, Ramesh Ponnuru

Yes: Stephen Moore,

Waffle/No Answer: William Kristol, Grover Norquist (there shouldn't be any government run schools), David Frum (evolution shouldn't be taught because it offends the 90% of Americans who are Christians), Jonah Goldberg, William Buckley (teach ID but not in science class), James Taranto (teach but not in science class), Norman Podhoretz, Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, David Brooks.

 

[WildCat]

Creationism is no more part and parcel of conservatism than healing crystals, majick, and wicca are to liberalism. It's a religious view, not a political one.

 

[bigred]

Creationism is no more part and parcel of conservatism than healing crystals, majick, and wicca are to liberalism. It's a religious view, not a political one.

Thank you for saving me keystrokes.

 

[headscratcher4]

Creationism is no more part and parcel of conservatism than healing crystals, majick, and wicca are to liberalism. It's a religious view, not a political one.

Completely agree (note the position of the Catholic Church on evolution). However, having said that, I think you will find that most of those who are pushing for teaching ID or who identify themselves as creationists also identify themselves as "conservative." Nothing to back that assertion up, of course, save my gut. By the same toke, clearly there is a lot of looney "newage" that is identified with liberals, etc.

 

[Luke T.]

I do not see a link the the actual, complete article.

Should ID be taught in schools?


Waffle/No Answer: William Kristol, Grover Norquist (there shouldn't be any government run schools), David Frum (evolution shouldn't be taught because it offends the 90% of Americans who are Christians), Jonah Goldberg, William Buckley (teach ID but not in science class), James Taranto (teach but not in science class), Norman Podhoretz, Pat Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, David Brooks.

I do not see this in the OP link. In the OP link the question is whether or not they belive in evolution, not whether it should be taught in school, and the answer for Frum, Goldberg, Taranto and Buckley are a solid "Yes" as to a belief in evolution. Buchanan and Norquist are a solid "No." None are a "Waffle".

If Buchanan is a solid No on a belief in evolution, how could he be a Waffle on teaching it?

8 said yes: David Frum, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, William F. Buckley, James Taranto, David Brooks, Richard Brookhiser, and Ramesh Ponnuru.

3 said no: Grover Norquist, Stephen Moore, and Pat Buchanan.

4 waffled or declined to answer: Bill Kristol, John Tierney, Tucker Carlson, and Norman Podhoretz.

 

[Upchurch]

Completely agree (note the position of the Catholic Church on evolution). However, having said that, I think you will find that most of those who are pushing for teaching ID or who identify themselves as creationists also identify themselves as "conservative."

I think there is some truth there, just as (using the example above) those who are into healing crystals, majick, and wicca probably almost all consider themselves liberal.

The difference being is that those liberals who use healing crystals, majick, and are wiccan are not major players in the Democratic party. (Although, if they were, voodoo might explain why they chose Dean as the party chairman.)

 

[Ipecac]

I do not see a link the the actual, complete article.

I do not see this in the OP link. In the OP link the question is whether or not they belive in evolution, not whether it should be taught in school, and the answer for Frum, Goldberg, Taranto and Buckley are a solid "Yes" as to a belief in evolution. Buchanan and Norquist are a solid "No." None are a "Waffle".

If Buchanan is a solid No on a belief in evolution, how could he be a Waffle on teaching it?

That's because the on-line article requires registration (which I don't have). I was pulling the information off a paper copy of the New Republic Article. If you'd like to register, here's the URL:

Article


With regards to teaching evolution in school, here is Buchanan's complete quote:

Evolution has been so powerful a theory in Western history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and often a malevolent force - it's been used by non-Christians and anti-Christians to justify policies which have been horrendous. I do believe that every American should be introduced to the idea and its effects on society. But I don't think it ought to be taught as fact. It ought to be taught as theory. How do you answer a kid who says, "Where did we all come from?" Do you say, "We all evolved"? I think that's a theory. Now the biblical story of creation should be taught to children, not as dogma but every child should know first of all the famous biblical stories because they have a tremendous influence as well. I don't think it should be taught as religion to kids who don't wanna learn it. I think in biology that honest teachers gotta say 'look, the universe exhibits, betrays the idea that there is a first mover, that there is intelligent design.' You should leave the teaching of religion to voluntary classes in my judgment and only those who wish to attend.

I count that as a Waffle/No Answer. He doesn't specifically say he wants ID taught as science, but he clearly wants evolution taught as a social rather than scientific concept. He also wants creationism taught, but leaves it confused over how (i.e. how can you teach creationism not as religion?)

YMMV of course.

 

[Cleon]

I think there is some truth there, just as (using the example above) those who are into healing crystals, majick, and wicca probably almost all consider themselves liberal.

Odd...Most of the Wiccans (and other pagans) I've known consider themselves Libertarian.

 

[Upchurch]

Odd...Most of the Wiccans (and other pagans) I've known consider themselves Libertarian.

I'll admit to only knowing a hand full of Wiccans over the course of my life. But then, I also hang out with a gay man who is a staunch conservative and Republican. The people I know could very well be exceptions to the rules, rather than the rules themselves. *shrug*

 

[Cleon]

I'll admit to only knowing a hand full of Wiccans over the course of my life. But then, I also hang out with a gay man who is a staunch conservative and Republican. The people I know could very well be exceptions to the rules, rather than the rules themselves. *shrug*

Well, Libertarianism works well with the Wiccan philosophy, which emphasizes individualism. The Wiccan lefties I've known have for the most part been anarchists--which are also miles away from the Democratic Party. But the point made earlier stands; the farthest in the Democratic Party the uber-woos have gotten is Dennis Kucinich. Creationists, however, maintain a solid financial and political support base of the GOP.

 

[Upchurch]

But the point made earlier stands; the farthest in the Democratic Party the uber-woos have gotten is Dennis Kucinich. Creationists, however, maintain a solid financial and political support base of the GOP.

Thank you. Yes, that was the point I was trying to make and one of the primary reasons why I cannot bring myself to consider the Republican party.

 

[RandFan]

Well, Libertarianism works well with the Wiccan philosophy, which emphasizes individualism. The Wiccan lefties I've known have for the most part been anarchists--which are also miles away from the Democratic Party. But the point made earlier stands; the farthest in the Democratic Party the uber-woos have gotten is Dennis Kucinich. Creationists, however, maintain a solid financial and political support base of the GOP.

This is the old "our kooks are not as crazy as their kooks" argument. This may or may not be. The problem I have is that it is poisioning the well. I think it perfectly valid to attack the rhetoric and politics of the kooks but I think it wrong to dismiss an entire party due to one of its constituents even though it is a significant constituent. I don't identify with the kooks. I identify with the party (to a degree).

 

[Dr Adequate]

I have to applaud conservative American libertarians for being consistent, as compared to the people who want to make "a government so small that it fits into your bedroom".

Actually I just like the rational incarnations even of this tendency. Hello Bruce. Hello, RandFan.

Er... that was it. Did I leave anyone out?

The weird religious woowoos can give or withhold their vote. In a tight election year, the secular right-wing couldn't. The religious right have political clout. Is there any mechanism whereby you secular right-wing guys could get together and say "we like secular conservative values and we are registered Republicans but we will form a big pressure group and say that if you won't be secular we will abstain or vote Libertarian or Green or Democrat to punish you"?

In fact, there seem to be many "skeptics" on the politics forum who put opposition to religious bigotry second --- the biggest threat, they feel, is not theocracy, but those pesky liberals. Speaking as a pesky liberal from a pesky liberal society, that is not the worst problem you can have. I rather enjoy it.

RandFan, Bruce --- it is your fault. Because you are the people who might make a difference if you tried. Where are your leaders, organisers, spokespeople? No, you don't have them. But the "religious right" do. They have hijacked your party and hate a good half of your values.

 

[Cleon]

This is the old "our kooks are not as crazy as their kooks" argument.

No, it's not. (Especially since, not being a Democrat, "our" isn't the right word.)

It's more of the "Democrats' kooks are a small minority that has zero power, whereas the conservative kooks compose a major base of support for the GOP." Whether one is crazier than the other doesn't enter into it.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, Bruce --- it is your fault. Because you are the people who might make a difference if you tried. Where are your leaders, organisers, spokespeople? No, you don't have them. But the "religious right" do. They have hijacked your party and hate a good half of your values.

I have joined the Log Cabin Republicans and actively work to change the party. Which, BTW, my wife was wondering about but I assured her that I'm still a huge fan of the female form. I will accept some responsibility but I don't think it is all mine and Bruce's fault. At least not mine. Bruce can speak for himself.

 

[RandFan]

It's more of the "Democrats' kooks are a small minority that has zero power, whereas the conservative kooks compose a major base of support for the GOP." Whether one is crazier than the other doesn't enter into it.

My appologies, I'll withdraw.

 

[Rob Lister]

My appologies, I'll withdraw.

I don't think you should withdraw completely. The Reverends Jessy Jackson and Al Sharpton might bring you back in a little anyway.

That said, religious fundamentalism/conservatism/republicanism all play well together but none are perfectly compatible with the others.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My appologies, I'll withdraw.

Tell us more about the "Log Cabin Republicans", please?

But I don't think you have real influence if you're a group of Republicans. You've got to be a group of people, like the religious right, only the other way round, who can agree that if they push the religion thing too far, you will at least abstain.

As it is, there's a guy with a preacher's collar holding a gun to the Republican Party's head and saying "Fly this country to the New Jerusalem".

There are so many people round here who are right-wing Americans and yet skeptics/atheists. Where are you standing up? How much money do you raise? How much leverage do you have? Who, at the top of the political tree, cares in the slightest what you think?