The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 4 of 17)

What ID supporters fail to tell folks is that their theory, called the "Theory of Creation" was once the dominant theory at every university and in every journal. However, it became increasingly hard to square with fact after fact after fact, and even though it had every institutional support imaginable, it was surpassed by a theory that made more sense to those who worked in the fields of geology, biology and paleontology. For decades now that theory, called erroneously "Darwinian evolution" at times (since evolution supporters hardly worship Darwin but consistently accept him where correct and challenge him where wrong), has been ascendant. So with such shortsighted hindsight IDers pretend it is they fighting the establishment!

p>Conservatives have always known that some things cannot be decided by a vote. And science is one of those things. If, as Peterson claims, there is a "flood" of scientific evidence for ID then why must ID proponents seek elected school boards, politicians, and newspaper support to get their theory a hearing? Why not, like proponents of the Big Band (which many thought had religious overtones), don't they convince the scientific community? I submit because they would find, as is the case now, few qualified folks convinced by the flimsy theory. Perhaps until then Peterson and folks like the Discovery Institute can stop wasting precious conservative political capital on such a faulty investment as ID and turn to more pressing subjects such as protection of property rights, judicial activism, immigration reform, and support for intermediate institutions. br> -- Prof. Kenneth Wagner br> Radford University /p>

What's the big deal about intelligent design? Because at a foundational level it is all about the relationship between the individual and the state. If your order of business is to radically remake society, you instinctively know that it can only be accomplished with the overwhelming power of the state. Once at the controls, you can attempt to reconstruct society to your own notion of justice and right.

But the suggestion that there is a higher power to which the state is accountable means that that there is a competing "agent" to assign meaning to behaviors, actions and things. No self-appointed social engineer wants that because what he pronounces "good" could be over-ruled by the judge of all things as "evil."

This is why progressives will first argue that what God said isn't what God said. They soon give that game up and argue that in the name of equality theism is to be demoted to just one opinion among many. Then they finally assert that the founders were really a bunch of atheists or agnostics at heart and so by its very nature the constitution commands us to publicly ignore any notion that there is a transcendent order to which we are to measure all things.

p>When progressives refer to religion as a private affair, this is what they mean: you are free to believe whatever you wish -- you just aren't free to act out those beliefs. "We" will decide your ultimate obligations. br> -- Michael Dooley br> Indianapolis, Indiana /p>

According to Dawkins, "If just a mention of ID were to be allowed into the classroom, that would be the end of science education in America."

topics:
Taxes, Education, Mainstream Media, Business, Satire, Religion, Catholicism, Abortion, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, NATO, Communism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Immigration, Alaska, Oil