#31093: Greg Burgas — 07/07  at  01:45 PM
This is sort of off the topic, but have you heard about the natural science museum being built in Kentucky that will include a whole section on Genesis and the creation? If you have, sorry for wasting your time. If you haven't, the story is here.

#31097: — 07/07  at  02:22 PM
I'd like to call attention to the discomfort that Straussians have with basic facts of biology. This would be consistent with the suspicion that Straussian intellectuals reject evolution because they fear it to be a truth dangerous to men's rights.

Consider the following individuals:

Harvey Mansfield (William Kristol's advisor): Manfield's book Machiavelli's Virtue is nothing less than brilliant. When I read it, I imagined that it would be a terrific intellectual treat to get an unsurpassed Machiavellian humanist like Mansfield together with a superb evolutionary biologist like E.O. Wilson. My only reason for not suggesting an event like this was that I feared that these two would have little on which to disagree. Then I ran into Mansfield's "sermon" in which he argues that science should submit to the Abrahamic religions from which it sprang, using the captive woman metaphor! Mansfield really does have style. Straussian opposition to evolution may be captured as a corollary to this difficult-to-disagree-with statement:

In that management [ruling] religion or its like is an indispensable instrument. Religion makes men faithful to the gods, and hence to the men the gods recommend. ... Only when rulers see or sense that men obey themselves in obeying necessity can human necessity appear as the foundation of human freedom. [Machiavelli's Virtue, page 76]

Mansfield is has a forthcoming book out on the Straussian subject of manliness (Yale; see his recent essay on the manliness of Teddy Roosevelt for a preview). I have no doubts that this will be an insightful bit of research, but I will also be reading between the lines for Mansfield's views on the source of our manliness.

William Kristol: If you want to read the quintessential Straussian quote, see Kristol's blurb on the dust cover of Machiavelli's Virtue—it's the perfect praise for the perfect book on Machiavelli. I wonder how many people caught that. William Kristol's expressed views on evolution must be taken in this Straussian context—not ur-waffler, but ur-Straussian. Well, he could have done much better than he does in this phone interview, so just Straussian.

Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb, William Kristol's parents: Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote an anti-Darwinian book that seriously misrepresents evolutionary theory and is commonly cited by contemporary creationists.

Irving Kristol, though I'm not sure if his views on science ever made it to print, was quoted by Ronald Bailey in his Reason magazine article saying:

If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded--or even if it suspects--that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe.

There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.

Personally, I just don't get it. I think anyone who listens to what Leo Strauss says about the classics, then goes and looks for themselves can't help but being bowled over by the multiple levels and clever ironies that permeate these great works. How this has translated into Straussian evolution-fear is beyond me.

The first duty of a ruler is defense, and in a modern technological world, ignoring basic facts of science is dangerous and disgraceful.

You'd think that Straussians, of all people, would embrace this basic fact.

#31099: Arun — 07/07  at  04:01 PM

Only when rulers see or sense that men obey themselves in obeying necessity can human necessity appear as the foundation of human freedom.

So I depend on rulers for providing me freedom?

#31100: jay denari — 07/07  at  04:09 PM
The first duty of a ruler is defense, and in a modern technological world, ignoring basic facts of science is dangerous and disgraceful.

I agree with you, but that depends on what they believe they're defending. Too many of them see that to mean defending their power at all cost, in which case keeping people ignorant makes their job a lot easier. We see that with religion, but also with such technology as nuclear weapons, where deceiving the public about their effects, strategy, how many exist, and who else has them in the name of "national security" has always been part of the game.

The fact that promoting ignorance of reality actually endangers their power in the long run rarely dawns on these fools.

#31142: coturnix — 07/07  at  08:41 PM
A number of others have now commented on this around the blogosphere. I agree with your classification scheme 100%.

#31146: — 07/07  at  09:12 PM
I don't agree 100%. Jonah Goldberg is on record saying that he thinks ID Creationism is "worthwhile" for "scientific" reasons:

"And for the record, the reason I find intelligent design interesting and worthwhile is that evolutionary theory is still a theory -- one I think is almost certainly right in the big picture. But in the details, I think it's very interesting to hear where or why it may have gone wrong. And sometimes only people outside the consensus can offer those sorts of criticisms."

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_02_06_corner-archive.asp#055600

In other words "evolution is just a theory" and evolutionary scientists are caught in an echo chamber and can only be rescued from their muck by the "objectivity" of the ID Creationists. Jonah clearly doesn't understand or care about evolution, and only doesn't deny it because he knows it would make conservatives look like idiots, and therefore work to undermine their stances on unrelated positions that Jonah considers more vital (i.e. Iraq war). If he thought it politically advantageous he would cheer for the 6000 year old earth - the Straussians are funny like that.

#31151: — 07/07  at  09:55 PM
As for why Krauthammer got it right, he has an MD. One assumes he may have taken biology, and still occasionally pays attention to the scientific method in these matters, when it doesn't interfere with his fealty to the Republican party.

#31154: Mrs. Coulter — 07/07  at  10:22 PM
The only one who has it even remotely right is Krauthammer. He's the only one who flat out says that evolution is the best scientific explanation and that ID is bullsh*t and shouldn't be taught in schools. Most of the others clearly believe evolutionary theory but are too afraid to say so, for fear of offending the wingnut base. Goldberg's answer is a total lilly-livered waffle. Frankly, Podhoretz' answer isn't "honestly ignorant"--it's a totally lame cop-out because he's afraid of going on record. As far as I'm concerned they are a much lower order (those who know evolution is true but are afraid to say so) than those who hold genuine (though ignorant) creationist beliefs.

#31157: Mithras — 07/07  at  11:21 PM
Frankly I wonder what the results would be if you polled 15 prominent left-wing bloviators. I worry that even outside of the penumbra of the religious right, we wouldn't do so well... 'twould be interesting to see.

Trackback: Conservatives Opine on Evolution Tracked on: Abnormal Interests (64.81.36.251) at 2005 07 07 18:02:34
The New Republic Online reports on interviews with 15 "conservative pundits" on how they feel about evolution and intelligent design. None of them is a biologists. Nor does it seem that any of them rise to the level of informed...

#31159: coturnix — 07/07  at  11:28 PM
Nobody expects the pundits to be able to explain evolution well, or to be able to deconstruct IDC the way PZ and other biologists can. But I believe that any 15 Lefty columnists would, with no mealy-mouthing, support evolution, especially as the only thing to be taught in science classes.

#31161: — 07/08  at  01:05 AM
FYI, I live in Fairfax County, and just so everyone knows what Kristol is missing (or more likely, lying about), there's no creationism in the science books here. We did have one avowed creationist who got elected to the school board for a while and made some trouble, but it never went very far.

#31162: — 07/08  at  03:44 AM

I wonder what the results would be if you polled 15 prominent left-wing bloviators

How would one go about doing that - including choosing them? I don't know the "conservative pundits" above or why anyone would have chosen them. So what are the selection criteria for sufficient prominence (among a US audience anyway!) within a particular political affiliation (ie rather than them having any genuine merit, eg qualifications, for giving an opinion)?

#31166: — 07/08  at  05:14 AM
Well, we choose them by picking some random names - I'd say Paul Krugman should be one.

#31184: — 07/08  at  08:27 AM
It isn't that hard. The names on the original list were chosen for public
prominence, as conservative pundits. They don't have to agree with one
another, or have any formal political position (although they could).

Also, they shouldn't be bloggers.

So......

I'll see your Paul Krugman and raise you

Molly Ivins
Frank Rich
Howard Dean
Maureen Dowd
Jimmy Carter

#31185: — 07/08  at  08:28 AM
Also

Al Franken
George Soros

#31186: — 07/08  at  08:42 AM
The one I'd give the most credit to is Richard Brookhiser, Much more so than Jonah Goldberg. He's also much less of a hack than the others. He's written some real books. He doesn't hang around the Corner as much as the other National Review people. I actually kind of like him.

He didn't expand on his answers, but they seemed the most direct to me.

#31188: Hank Fox — 07/08  at  08:51 AM
Molly Ivins could write a kick-ass piece on schools and evolution, I'll bet. I'd put serious money on her getting the science right, too.

Y'know, I think the point should be made that some people on "the left" today are on the left not because they exhibit some lockstep allegiance to left wing ideas, but because they're prone to be clear-thinkingly right about certain things that the right-wingers are so wrong about.

Ivins is one of those people. She's just a thoughtful, intelligent woman who's been around long enough to see clearly into current-day government, politics, school funding, war, corporate shenanigans ... and George W. Bush.

#31189: — 07/08  at  08:52 AM
Eek, it appears that my comment did not go through. I'd give Richard Brookhiser the msot credit. He's much less of a hack than the others, and he's written some respectable biographies.

For all you scientist-types, is it really right to talk about believing in evolution. Isn't "belief" pretty close to the language of faith and religion?

If someone asked me whether I believed in evolution by natural selection, I'd be sorely tempted to say, "no, but I do accept it as the best explanation we have for the origin and development of life on earth."

I'm also inclined to think that evolution is not a theory, but a fact. Natural selection is the theory, and a damn good one at that. Discuss.

#31191: PZ Myers — 07/08  at  09:10 AM
Yes, "belief" is an inappropriate word. The language compels us to compromise sometimes, though.

Yeah, Brookhiser's comment was fine, but terse. I tried to judge them only by the comments in the TNR article. From their other comments elsewhere, I wouldn't hold Goldberg and Krauthammer to be paragons at all.

#31192: Alon Levy — 07/08  at  09:20 AM
Arianna Huffington and Michael Moore probably belong on the list, too. If we could include bloggers then I'd add Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum, but evidently Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan didn't make it to the conservative list.

#31226: — 07/08  at  11:48 AM
Robert Scheer
Jon Carroll
Cynthia Tucker
Noam Chomsky
Richard Dawkins (Is that cheating?)

#31244: coturnix — 07/08  at  02:04 PM
Pundits only, I guess.

Katha Pollitt
Elen Goodman

#31263: Arun — 07/08  at  03:52 PM
Paul Krugman:
http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/evolute.html

But there is another reason I am here. I am an economist, but I am also what we might call an evolution groupie. That is, I spend a great deal of time reading what evolutionary biologists write - not only the more popular volumes but the textbooks and, most recently, some of the professional articles. I have even tried to talk to some of the biologists, which in this age of narrow specialization is a major effort. My interest in evolution is partly a recreation; but it is also true that I find in evolutionary biology a useful vantage point from which to view my own specialty in a new perspective. In a way, the point is that both the parallels and the differences between economics and evolutionary biology help me at least to understand what I am doing when I do economics - to get, to be pompous about it, a new perspective on the epistemology of the two fields.

#31264: Arun — 07/08  at  04:03 PM
Frank Rich
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0325-31.htm

That bullying, stoked by politicians in power, has become omnipresent, leading television stations to practice self-censorship and high school teachers to avoid mentioning "the E word," evolution, in their classrooms, lest they arouse fundamentalist rancor. The president is on record as saying that the jury is still out on evolution, so perhaps it's no surprise that The Los Angeles Times has uncovered a three-year-old "religious rights" unit in the Justice Department that investigated a biology professor at Texas Tech because he refused to write letters of recommendation for students who do not accept evolution as "the central, unifying principle of biology." Cornelia Dean of The New York Times broke the story last weekend that some Imax theaters, even those in science centers, are now refusing to show documentaries like "Galápagos" or "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea" because their references to Darwin and the Big Bang theory might antagonize some audiences. Soon such films will disappear along with biology textbooks that don't give equal time to creationism.

James Cameron, producer of "Volcanoes" (and, more famously, the director of "Titanic"), called this development "obviously symptomatic of our shift away from empiricism in science to faith-based science." Faith-based science has in turn begat faith-based medicine that impedes stem-cell research, not to mention faith-based abstinence-only health policy that impedes the prevention of unwanted pregnancies and diseases like AIDS.

and
http://www.peterhansen.com/frank_rich__the_plot_against_sex.htm

In the case of "Kinsey," the Traditional Values Coalition has called for a yearlong boycott of all movies released by Fox. (With the hypocrisy we've come to expect, it does not ask its members to boycott Fox's corporate sibling in the Murdoch empire, Fox News.) But such organizations don't really care about "Kinsey" - an art-house picture that, however well reviewed or Oscar-nominated, will be seen by a relatively small audience, mostly in blue states. The film is just this month's handy pretext for advancing the larger goal of pushing sex of all nonbiblical kinds back into the closet and undermining any scientific findings, whether circa 1948 or 2004, that might challenge fundamentalist sexual orthodoxy as successfully as Darwin challenged Genesis. (Though that success, too, is in doubt: The Washington Post reports that this year some 40 states are dealing with challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools.)