Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

People like fox fails to see "indoctrinated" in their own stance on most subjects.

Debate shows Darwin split in GOP
Patricia Cohen, The New York Times, may 6, 2007

Evolution has long generated bitter fights, but now, a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy?

On one level, the debate can be seen as a polite discussion of political theory among a small group of intellectuals. But the argument also exposes tension within the Republicans' "big tent," as could be seen Thursday night when the 10 GOP candidates for president were asked during their first debate whether they believed in evolution. Three of them -- Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado -- indicated they did not.

For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic world view that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design, which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an intelligent power could have created it.

Yet it is that very embrace of intelligent design -- not to mention creationism, which takes a literal view of the Bible's Book of Genesis -- that has led conservative opponents to speak out for fear their ideology will be branded as out-of-touch and anti-science.

Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin's scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today's patterns of human behavior. They argue that natural selection can provide support for many conservative ideas like traditional social roles for men and women, free market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.

"I do indeed believe conservatives need Charles Darwin," said Larry Arnhart, a professor of political science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, who has spearheaded the cause.

The arguments have played out in recent books, magazine articles and blogs, as well as at a conference Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. There, Arnhart was tag-teamed with John Derbyshire, a contributing editor at National Review, against John G. West and George Gilder, both of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, which advocates intelligent design.

What both sides do agree on is that conservatives who have shied away from these debates should speak up. Arnhart said that having been so badly burned by social Darwinism, many conservatives today don't want "to get involved in these moral and political debates, and I think that's evasive."

West agrees that "conservatives who are discomfited by the continuing debate over Darwin's theory need to understand that it is not about to go away."

At least Spendi engaged in the debate. Everybody else seemed focused on attempting to denounce, demean, embarrass, or dismiss Spendi. Too often debate on A2K dissolves into one sided ad hominem rather than any attempt at articulating a point of view.

c.i.-

You were well outwitted back there.

Bernie- what would your father's hand be nailed to? Anyway-I never heard even a whisper of my father ever fighting anybody. He considered it a sign of insecurity best left to the titches.