« Fair-weather theocrats | Main | Refresh my memory »

Conservatives against ID

I'm not much of a petition-signer, but I went ahead and signed this one.

Conservatives Against Intelligent Design (CAID) was founded to give a voice to Republicans, Independent Conservatives, and Libertarians across the country who stand opposed to the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ and other forms of creationism in the classroom. In recent years Republican legislators at all levels of government have authored, sponsored, and voted for various anti-evolution bills with perceived immunity, confident that those who vote for them are creationists like themselves. CAID is intended as a wake-up call to these legislators, to remind them that the teaching of evolution is not a partisan issue, but rather one of the separation between theology and science.

I'm working on a long-ish post about evolution and ID in more detail, and why conservatives (or anyone else, for that matter) should be hesitant to jump on the ID bandwagon, but it's not quite done yet. In the meantime, consider checking out the petition if you have an interest.

(Hat tip: Derb)


"Creationism" and evolution are only mutually exclusive if you let them be.

Evolution actually strikes me as just the kind of outwardly extravagent, but inwardly elegant solution that God favors.

I mean, why get your divine "hands" dirty making a bunch of squishy, smelly animated meat-bags when you could accomplish the same objective with some very simple chemistry and a little patience -- remember, God is eternal, so 3.5 billion years is just an eye blink in heaven.

Besides being a just plain cool way to accomplish a relatively messy objective, it provides a means for your sentient creations to exercise their expanding intellects. And when we finally get to the point where we are actually worth divine time to hang out with, it will probably make for some good laughs -- "You guys actually thought that giant bazooms were hot? They're just bags of fat! what were you thinking???"

You are obviously right, but you have to realize that you are in a small minority among conservatives. The "conservative" movement has been hijacked by the extreme religious right and is controlled by it. Look what kind of serious influence the wingnuts exhibit on the republican party of today. They, literally, elect presidents. Rational conservatives Reagan-style do not exist anymore. Conservatism these days is synonymous with names like George W. Bush, Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney, Pat Robertson, Sean Hannity, and Jerry Falwell. Thats the reality of the "conservative" movement of today. Sorry, but in reality you are not a "conservative". You have some conservative values, but you are clearly rational.

I have to admit, the divine purpose to creating left-wing thought elludes me.

"The "conservative" movement has been hijacked by the extreme religious right and is controlled by it. Look what kind of serious influence the wingnuts exhibit on the republican party of today. They, literally, elect presidents. Rational conservatives Reagan-style do not exist anymore." (BW)

Here's the realities we all face on this level; (1) There are appx 50 million Religious Conservatives in the country, they vote and they're not going anywhere, (2) there is NO organized anti-religious movement in this country, probably due to overall lack of interest and (3) Reagan DID pander to the Religious Right on social issues as much as anyone whose followed him and the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh and Cheney are all pretty much "Reagan-Conservatives," which is to say, "NOT Conservative enough" for me. That's why I support the likes of Buchanan and even Gingrich.

The current WH occupant is far closer to a Rudy Guiliani-Republican than a Reagan-Republican...and real Democrats should LOVE that. He's failed to shrink government, steadfatly refused to do anything about our porous border with Mexico and embraced a lot of Liberal policies like NCLB.

Like Guiliani (best friend of NYC Liberal Party boss Ray Harding), G W Bush has pushed for "more efficient governemnt, NOT smaller government."

No one's been able to make the argument for "bigger and better government" because there is NO argument to be made for that. Certainly no Democrat today is capable of making it, otherwise one of them would have.

Some Dems are trying to come around - even Howard Dean is trying to reach out to the religious and has said, "The Democratic Platform says Marriage is between a man and a woman."

Lotsa luck Howie!

"That's why I support the likes of Buchanan "

Do you realize that some of Buchanan's position may not that far from being antisemitic? Buchanan's positions are reminiscent of Le Pen's positions in France, although not as bad. LePen is a declared neo-fascist, while Buchanan is not.

Buchanan is not at all anti-Semitic.

He defended John Demunjiak, who was wrongly accused...an Israeli court actually recognized that fact.

Other than that, there's little controversy surrounding Buchanan, other than his positions AGAINST the Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq and the Balkans, claiming the first two were primarily supported by "Israel and its Amen corner in the U.S. Congress."

Moore, Rhodes, Franken, Soros and many other anti-Israeli Jews have said much worse on that score.

Buchanan supports a truly Conservative, albeit an almost isolationist agenda, an end to what is euphemistically called "Free Trade" in favor of Fair Trade (where we tariff those nations that tariff our own goods) and an end to the porous U.S.-Mexican border that has been supported by many "Moderate Republicans" who innaely believe that cheap labor is "good for the country."

Cheap labor is a short-term advbantage to the investor class alone and actually does irreparable harm to working people.

I see that you carefully evaded commenting on LePen. What do you think of him? I hope that you agree with me that his activities, and the activities of other active neo-fascists in Europe, are shameful.

You rightly said that Buchanan was no LePen. I agree with that and thought my comments made that clear.

Le Pen is a very flawed man, with a flawed ideology (Socialism, albeit National Socialism), but he is currently positioned well to exploit France's growing anti-immigrant (anti-Arab and Muslim) sentiment.

I applaud that sentiment and desperately want Europe (especially France, England and Germany) to expell the Arabs and Muslims that now reside there. They never should've been welcomed into Europe in the first place.

I don't know what could've possibly motivated such an inane experiment, but I'm glad the idea of a "multi-racial Europe" looks dead on arrival.

I'm very uncomfortable with the, to me, fetid idea of a non-European Europe.

We don't live in the industrial age, the age where huge numbers of workers are needed, so Europe shouldn't need this unnecessary contamination by non-Europeans. It serves no useful purpose.

I support those who rally around phrases like, "France for the French," and England for the English."

I consider the Arab and Muslim populations that are now trying to turn Europe into Eurabia a blight...a plague.

Best to expell them now, rather than face a veritable Civil War later.

If even a flawed pol like LePen can bring that to fruition, then I could accept that as short-term solution, as it beats the alternative, an increasingly non-European Europe, though LePen is, in my mind, without a doubt, the second worst thing that could happen to France.

So...I'm a little confused here: You guys are saying that Buchanan created the universe? Or are you saying that LePen evolved from the French?

In either case it doesn't appear that you have either proved or disproved the concept of Computer Aided Insipid Debate.

Post a comment