Conservatives Against Intelligent Design
(This post will be stickied for a week or two, if you’re after newer stuff, just scroll down)
A new science advocacy group and community (soon) blog has opened its doors at Conservatives Against Intelligent Design. Our Mission Statement and a petition to allow your signatures is currently up. As time goes, I’m hoping this effort will grow and become a formidable force in preventing the perversion of science by those in power who we call our representatives. At the moment the web portal is small but will grow over time. Those of a conservative or libertarian bent who stand opposed to the dilution of science by teaching so-called ‘alternatives’ and want to write about it or help out with management of the community, please email me at
indiancowboysblog - at - gmail.com
For a more in-depth look at why I decided to start, I’ll quote an earlier post of mine:
This is a new group I’m trying to get off the ground. The reason for the ‘conservatives’ part is simple. Like it or not–and for reasons that kind of upset me–the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate has become a right vs. left thing. As the Republican Party become more and more theocratic everyday, it’s easy to understand why Intelligent Design has suddenly become a rallying point for many conservative state legislators and officials out here in flyover country. The Left hasn’t helped anything by pointing fingers and both consciously and unconsciously implying a correlation between ‘progressivism’ and evolution. A correlation that’s rationally false but one that’s been pushed ever since Marx and others averred a connection, continuing on through Alfred Russell Wallace’s avowed socialism, Robert Trivers’ membership in the Black Panthers, and, near as I can tell everyone on scienceblogs.com.
But, as bitter as I am, I don’t want to point fingers. For while those guys imply that evolution and leftism go hand in hand, I’m no better since I say the same thing about evolution and libertarianism/classical liberalism. And wow am I off track. Where I was going with this was that it was typically Republicans sponsoring these ID bills. So liberal evolutionists would lump in ID with the rest of their complaints about Republicans. Republicans would go on the defensive, and equate evolution-support with liberalism. Now, we have people like Sally Kern (state rep in Oklahoma) supporting these bills with perceived immunity, confident that the people who actually vote for her and her ilk are creationists, like themselves.
From personal experience, that isn’t necessarily the case. I know plenty of conservatives and Republicans that are vehemently against Intelligent Design in all its forms being taught in the classroom. I’m one of them. I know far fewer who are creationists. My hope is that by organizing, collecting names (and credentials) of bonafide conservatives against ID, we can show the Republicans that this is not by any stretch a partisan issue.
It’s to that end I’m attempting to do this. I live in Oklahoma, and we have a creationist bill in legislation right now, HB 2107. I’d love to see this quashed, I’d love to see similar stuff killed in Kansas as well. It’s in these areas particularly we need to make our voices heard. Anyway, comments, feedback, ideas on how best to do this would be appreciated. I’m just throwing the idea out there for now, seeing what sticks.
In addition I’d like to thank Victor Hutchinson of Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education and several at National Center for Science Education for their help in ideas and getting it off the ground. I’d also like to thank John Derbyshire for noticing this humble effort and providing a great jumpstart.
Conservatives Against Intelligent Design
Good. Sign me up.
Trackback by The New Editor — June 1, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
I’m not an Intelligent Design As Science chap myself, even though I am a Christian. But I think you’re going to find that the pseudoscience that actually goes down in the public schools comes from another direction. Check out the middle school posters on AGW sometime.
Comment by Assistant Village Idiot — June 1, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
I have to agree with AVI, while I don’t think the man-made global warming body of work is pseudoscience per se, it is certainly a good example of how the Left also conveniently abandons science when it deems convenient. Nuclear energy is another good example of this. I sat down this Saturday to watch cartoons and was treated to an anti-nuclear energy themed episode and a stopglobalwarming.com Ad.
Regardless, this ID stuff has gone to far. I’m a conservative atheist and would like nothing more than to see this battle end. I would like to point out, however, that I only have a problem with ID being taught in science class. I have no problem with it being taught in Philosophy class (my sophomore and senior year english classes were more philosophy-based than literature-based). I think this is an important distinction and one I would like to see emphasized.
Comment by Bret — June 1, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
So Queer Theory and such are “science” (even deserving of departmental funding) but ID must not be mentioned, except to condemn of course?
I guess the point is that the “new heretics” must be silenced.
Comment by mikem — June 2, 2006 @ 12:34 am
I guess the point is that the “new heretics” must be silenced.
only the idiots. you know of what i speak o often silenced one!
Comment by razib — June 2, 2006 @ 2:45 am
Brlliant rejoinder, Razib! Ad hominem attack, always impressive.
Comment by mikem — June 2, 2006 @ 5:16 am
Why are you against intelligent design? Things work out so much better if you use it. I wrote a program to scan sites for pictures, but I did not use intelligent design, and it got into an infinite loop. It was useless.
Then I rewrote it using an intelligent design, and it works like a charm! We should all be supportive of intelligently designed things, and promoting the use of intelligent designs in school seems like a good place to start.
Comment by Ms. The Point — June 2, 2006 @ 8:19 am
[...] Whether it’s moonbat right-wing creationists — bad science, better economics, strange paranoia about commie homo atheist plots to take over the world — or moonbat leftists such as the Pharyungula Phunsters — bad economics, better science, strange paranoia about social Darwinist theocrat totalitarian plots to take over the world — those are the sorts of quarters we enjoy seeing all flustered. From here, you can almost hear skulls popping at Pharungy as they attempt to wrap their heads around someone who’s non-white, owns a gun, thinks free markets are generally pretty cool, and believes ID is junk pseudoscience. We get that from time to time ourselves. And so we recognize a kindred soul. From the Indian Cowboy blog comes Conservatives Against Intelligent Design, and we are instantly enamored of the synchronicity in Darwin Central’s first real trackback going to such a worthy recipient. Conservatives against Intelligent Design — hey, that’s us. I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together. Goo goo ga joob. The Black Operations Division of Darwin Central stands with the Indian Cowboy, conservatives who refuse to concede the mantle of science and reason to the left, and who refuse to concede the mantle of conservatism to creationists. As we said in a previous post, we may be outnumbered, but with such men as this campaigning alongside us, it is they who are hopelessly outgunned. [...]
Pingback by Darwin Central » Well, WE knew what it meant — June 2, 2006 @ 8:34 am
If you are successful in repelling the takeover of Conservativism by the Dominionists I would consider being consevative. Good luck. ID is supported by large amounts of money, and a bully pulpit(the real pulpit), and as such is irresistable to Republican politicians.
Comment by intellectimpure — June 2, 2006 @ 9:07 am
Large amounts of money? Where? How come no one told me? I’m changing sides.
Comment by Assistant Village Idiot — June 2, 2006 @ 9:13 am
“So Queer Theory and such are “science” (even deserving of departmental funding) but ID must not be mentioned, except to condemn of course?
I guess the point is that the “new heretics” must be silenced. ”
Oh come on. Yeah, because being gay is the worst fucking thing in the world. What utter bullshit, not to mention it has absolutely nothing to do with ID, but you like to play this guilt-by-association garbage.
Comment by SYC — June 2, 2006 @ 12:09 pm
“Yeah, because being gay is the worst fucking thing in the world.”
Your words (and telling), not mine nor representative of my beliefs. I personally don’t think God cares much about who does who except where abuse is involved. I certainly don’t.
The point, as you conveniently ignored, is that Queer Theory is not science. Still, its presentation as science is not only not censored or banned, such a characterization is enforced. And that is pure hypocrisy.
I could use any number of fields of psuedo-science that enjoy such a counterintuitive classification (as science) that are nothing more than what ID Theory is, a view of the world through the eyes of [homosexuals, Afro-Americans, and yes, believers].
Comment by mikem — June 2, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
A little depth would be nice
In the post Conservatives Against Intelligent Design, Indian Cowboy reveals the astounding ignorance of what ID proposes which is sadly so common among those who oppose it, especially those who do so because they consider it a “perversion of science”…
Trackback by dangerous liberty — June 2, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Sign me up too. Let’s see, I’m pretty conservative (internal locus of control, responsibility, liberty, etc.) and I’m against ID. I’m against ID (not necessarily against it being taught in philosophy classes, though I would take an opposing side in a debate) because it is about surrender. ID is about cowardly yielding the field of knowledge to the forces of ignorance. This is a strategy I oppose with every breath in my body.
So I defy the ID surrender monkeys. Maybe they’ll surrender themselves to extinction (we can only hope).
Adam
Comment by AdamC — June 3, 2006 @ 5:20 am
John Derbyshire identified pretty accurately one of the problems with ID supporters. While it is theoretically possible for someone to want ID taught at its basic minimum of a vague theism being one hypothesis that fits at least some of the data - and I imagine there are some folks who actually support that - in actual practice the ID people want to use it as the thin edge of the wedge to make people consider more specific religious claims. I write this only from observation of people in churches and Christian schools, (people I am otherwise fond of) not from any study of same. The suspicion that nonbelievers have is accurate: what they really want is something more than ID. While I don’t disbelieve any specific person who protests otherwise (unless I have actual knowledge), I do disbelieve the protestations generally.
The discussion between those who truly advocate a minimalist ID and those who oppose it without anti-religious rancor might be interesting - if a sufficient number could be found. I’m not spending my time looking for that needle in the haystack.
Comment by Assistant Village Idiot — June 3, 2006 @ 10:26 am
One thought is, that campaigns like “CAID” may be to the detriment of both science and religion. Both science and religion are so important at least far beyond human understanding today. Maybe a more to-the-point cause to fight against, a more important pitfall in choosing a curriculum to educate young people with, is not adequately emphasizing the moot necessity of open inquiry, for example allowing political moods any role in education at the cost of sacrificing important lessons. Drawing distinctions in terms such as “Conservatism” as a stance for or against science or religion is to establish a branch cause so diluted as to have negligible relation to the meaning of the term. Education should help young people to reach the best understanding available, which is to say, remain committed to seeking the truth, of which, through encouraging the study of both empirical and philosophical progress, we can claim to have achieved only a modest part.
Comment by No one important — June 3, 2006 @ 9:27 pm
down roulette system tab
down roulette system tab
Trackback by down roulette system tab — February 11, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Men’s Health
Men’s Health
Trackback by Men's Health — February 28, 2007 @ 8:39 am
baumann’s blog
baumann’s blog
Trackback by baumann's blog — April 11, 2007 @ 6:05 am