Evolution Scares Conservative Commentators

Or at least, the question of whether they believe in it does--

Via Kevin Drum, at Political Animal, I saw this TNR piece, asking prominent conservatives about their views on evolution and "intelligent design." Drum breaks down the count as 8 believers in evolution, 3 un-believers, and 4 who refused to answer the question.

In fact, the results are more complicated, since many deflected or qualified their answers in ways that look suspiciously like attempts to dodge the issue. Indeed, tho a few answered the questions forthrightly (Jonah Goldberg, for example), I'd say the reaction of the majority is best characterized as a fraidy-cat refusal to give straightforward answers.

More below the fold...

For example, Pat Buchanan--whom Drum counts as an un-believer in evolution--disavowed belief in "absolute evolution" (whatever that is) and said it can't "explain the creation of matter" (well, duh) but did allow that a "Darwinian evolutionary process ... inspired by a creator" is a "real possibility."

Stephen Moore of the Free Enterprise Fund--whom Drum also counts as an un-believer--says he believes in "parts" of evolution, but thinks "there are holes in evolutionary theory" (a first in the history of science!).

Norman Podhoretz said the question "is impossible to answer with a simple yes or no"--but declined to provide a more complex answer.

And in the "have their cake and eat it too" department, several (including David Frum and Tucker Carlson) seemed to express belief in both intelligent design and evolution--that is, in evolution as a process set in motion by a divine creator.

But my favorite answer has got to be this one: William Kristol, who makes his living spreading his opinions like fertilizer, replied that "I don't discuss personal opinions."

Cross posted from hiramhover.typepad.com

•  William Kristol

  He doesn't discuss personal issues.  He's uncomfortable about the years he spent as an amphibian.

  by DCDemocrat on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

  •  I also loved this part of his answer

    Asked "How evolution should be taught in public schools," he replied:

    "I managed to have my children go through the Fairfax, Virginia schools without ever looking at one of their science textbooks."

    And here I was thinking that was how the Bushes went thru school....

    by Hprof on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:54:02 PM PDT

    •  Republicanism at its root

      is just a steady hand in parenting.

      by DCDemocrat on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:57:14 PM PDT

    •  I went to 5th - 8th grade in Fairfax Co, VA...

      and, at that time, they were among the best in the nation.  I had a science class that was required in 8th grade that used the exact same textbook as a 9th grade honors course I was going to take in California.  I challenged the class and was able to take the 10th grade honors science class instead.

      As far as his not looking at the science textbooks, why waste time looking at something you're never going to understand?  Kindergarten taught him all the science he would ever comprehend.

      by ranger31 on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:26:38 PM PDT

    •  WIllful Ignorance

      Can you imagine being proud that your children never cracked a science book!?  Willful ignorance has become a hallmark of the right, from science to the economy to Iraq, and on and on...  

      by Geronimo on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 05:07:39 PM PDT

•  Social Darwinism

  I'm just about finished reading Keven Phillips'(sp) Wealth and Democracy.

  The gilded age and beyond sold the "American Dream": that anyone fit enough could become rich and powerful in America (i.e. Social Darwinism/Evolution).

  Now that inherited wealth has stagnated here in America, they need to change the story-line: It's OK and I'm Rich and Powerful because I was born that way; historically the Right of Kings; Intelligent Design.

  Yes, the next paradigm shift.
  

  by ROGNM on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:52:35 PM PDT

  •  you may be giving them too much credit

    None of them flatly declared evolution to be false--they're just dodging and feinting because they're afraid of the evangelical wing-nuts in their own party (note that some of the greatest acrobatics are coming from Jewish conservatives).

    by Hprof on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:58:41 PM PDT

    •  Now *there's* a first

      I was just chatting with my cousins last night, and I have come to the conclusion that I understand Jewish Republicans.  I just don't like them very much.

      (oooh, yes, the Holocaust was terrible, but it couldn't happen here, and if it did, it wouldn't happen to us... pass the caviar!)

      by ultrageek on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:07:42 PM PDT

•  not to defend them or anything, but...

  These guys do provide decent arguments against evolution for conservatives

  For example, if natural selection really did eliminate the weak in a society, then how are morons like tucker carlson and pat buchanon still alive? Shouldn't they have wandered into traffic or dropped a toaster in the bathtub by now?

  hmmm

  by cd6 on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:52:39 PM PDT

  •  Actually - the toaster in the bathtub theory

    would explain a lot about how they got that way.

    by Hprof on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 01:55:35 PM PDT

  •  That's so obvious

    Come on: half of them try to plug the toaster in the wrong way and give up. The other half get killed but you don't hear about that because it's all hushed up by the SCLM.

    by DrReason on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 06:17:57 PM PDT

•  Evil-lution

  As a Biologist I must say that one does not "believe" in evolution or any other process in science. Evolution is observable in nature and scientist make hypotheses about the nature and process of evolution. Some people believe that many of the concepts of evolutionary theory are incompatible with their religion.
  I have spoken with many a student in this mindset and I find giving them this simple proclamation is very useful.

  If you reject the ideas of evolutionary theory then you reject the processes of science.

  Many intellectual conservatives (I acutally don't think that is an oxymoron!) dance around this topic so as not to piss off the fundie troops of the party.

  I have heard several hilarious exchanges when fundie callers get on the Neil Bortz show and get reamed by him after they attack evolution.

  Just my $ .02

  by friendscallmelenny on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:08:51 PM PDT

•  Evolution

  Creationists confuse three things.  They confuse the origin of the universe, the origin of life and evolution, and think them to be the same thing, which they are not.  They may object to evolution, because they believe that God created the universe, but evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

  Intelligent Design is mushy at best.  It's purpose is to get people to reject evolution, and so they will make it into whatever "sells".  Some forms of intelligent design are really evolution, just with some form of divine intervention.  Since evolution doesn't say anything one way or the other about the existence of God, and doesn't preclude the possibility that a god could intervene, this is pointless.

  by A Citizen on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 02:20:45 PM PDT

•  Not a subject for those with brains

  Evolutionary theory postulates that what is observed in the world at large (survival of the fittest, etc) is a fundamental process which determines how species on Earth (and possibly elsewhere) developed.

  It's not wild speculation, merely cogent analysis. Those who think otherwise are in peril of not thinking at all.

  As to how those beings which develop according to a process of evolution came to be in the first place, the theory suggests that an all-knowing researcher with all relevant evidence might be able to retrace the process backwards to a point of origin. However, lacking such an omniscient researcher and an infinite supply of relevant data, one can only speculate. Darwin did not specifically reject the notion of "intelligent design" so much as to say that the design, intelligent or otherwise, looked a lot like evolution.

  By the way, the obvious counterfactual to intelligent design theory is the 8-track tape.

  by thingamabob on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:03:46 PM PDT

•  I happen to believe in Intelligent Design

  That Darwin was right, but that God was involved in the process.

  I went to Catholic schools and that was what I was taught.  We studied Darwin and Mendel, and learned that it didn't mean that God was not part of creation.

  However, I do not think that my religious beliefs, or anyone else's for that matter, should be taught in public schools.

  If I want my children to learn Intelligent design, I'll send them to Catholic schools or an after school religious program.

  by CTReformedRep on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:04:10 PM PDT

  •  Who's to say

    that evolution is not the process through which God creates?

    I have no problem with intelligent design, or any other creation myth, being taught in the public schools...as long as it is taught in the context of philosophy or religious studies.  It has no place in science curricula in public schools.

    by ranger31 on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:34:22 PM PDT

•  They are just afraid

  of being left behind.  

  by jmaier on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 03:17:36 PM PDT