Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: The Protocols of the Elders of Bryan--The Discovery Institute Inherits the Wind Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_protocols_of_the_elders_of_bryan_the_discovery_institute_inherits_the_w#22257 Post contents: @Caper: Yeah, I've always thought that forming coalitions based on shared hatred (i.e., of neocons) to be dangerous at best, absurd at worst. That is, after all, the mindset that allowed neocons to get into power in the first place. If everyone will excuse the crudity, it seems to me that Mr. Seitz is dropping trou and taking a big ol' dump all over the work of Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Eric Voegelin, and just about any other classic conservative thinker who critiqued the ideology of Scientism and the Cult of Materialist Progress. I'm highly skeptical of the ID movement myself, but I wouldn't typify everyone involved in it as some dishonest idiot. For that matter, all the Creationists I know fall into either two categories: A) Honest, down-to-earth country folks who know a lot more about tending their own land, engaging nature, and minding the business of their own communities than any enlightened blue-state metrosexual ever will or B) Products of the homeschooling movement, many of whom are astonishingly gifted & intelligent. I'd much, much rather somebody adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis and know their Plato and Shakespeare backwards & forwards than the alternative proposed by the busybody educrats of the State teaching racket. What's odd to me is that I don't see how rallying behind the benevolent educracy fits into either the paleo wing or libertarian wing of Takimag. You'd assume from Mr. Seitz's piece that all the Darwin crusaders out there are motivated solely by a dispassionate commitment to truth, and that there are no materialist or atheistic ideological commitments intertwined with their passion for the man. "...easier to wrestle with than The Enlightenment as the Founders saw it." Not that I drink from the Enlightenment Kool-Aid myself, but at the least I would doubt that the Founders wanted a State which had the power to override parents' authority on what their children were taught. Another gem: "Bethell is one of many comically anxious to lay the ideological horrors of the 20th century at science’s door, but the historical reality is anything but funny." Yeah, the insatiable desire for power over the material world, while banishing the Aristotlean notion of final end, or purpose (as prescribed by Bacon) had *nothing* to do with the horrors of the 20th Century. All those atom-bombs and chemical weapons just grew up in the middle of the woods by themselves, like mushrooms. And the Germans were clearly Luddites -- as evidenced by the V-2 rockets which were later evolved/intelligently designed into the Saturn V. The Soviets, too. (Cough!Sputnik!Cough!Cough!) Of course one could claim that these regimes were able to engage science in some practical areas, while being ideology-blinkered in others -- but this only begs the question of whether the regime represented by mainstream liberal society is any different. Dawkins and his fellow-travelers don't believe that we evolved from beasts any more than a Creationist does -- they believe we *are* beasts, only with some extra accessories like language and mathematical reasoning, which are seen as no more fundamental than adding air-conditioning , GPS systems, and CD-players to automobiles. The proper claim of the Dawkins camp is "All critters great and small are, being made of matter, naturally subject to the laws of physics," PLUS something along the lines of "and those laws are completely and thoroughly understood by us today, and are all-encompassing explanations which debunk any notion you may have had that pleasant delusions such as poetry, philosophy, literature, or art can provide substantive insights into Truth." From crime to the conflict in Palestine, the "scientific" approach is that we should see these things in terms of evolutionary psychology rather than considering the cultural, theological, or religious issues at stake. "a stem-cell debate as doomed to historical obscurity..." From the viewpoint of someone opposed to fetal stem-cell resarch, this is rather like saying Auschwitz is doomed to historical obscurity. I suppose I shouldn't worry about the perversions going on in the here-and-now, since future generations will see entirely new and exciting perversions which render the old perversions obsolete. "Forget Darwin and Einstein—not even Newton’s Law of Gravity is safe these days." Uhhh... does the author realize that one of Einstein's most notable accomplishments was the radical overthrow of the Newtonian picture of the Universe? Or are these just important names he likes to invoke as authority-figures? As to Derbyshire, the most generous thing I can do is assume Mr. Seitz is careless in making it out as if Derbyshire went from being mildly pious to being an unbeliever, all as the result of a single debate with an ID proponent ("I even count myself a religious person," wow, now there's a classic trophy of fuzzy-speak. Was Einstein "religious"?) According to Derbyshire in an interview about his religious convictions (or lack thereof), Derbyshire said, "To say I lost my faith would be to over-dramatize it, since I was never a person of strong faith anyway." He also made clear that although he was not a materialist, he did not believe in the personal Trinitarian God of Christianity. He attributed his loss of faith (his expression, not mine) to a number of reasons -- such as growing up in a lukewarm Anglican tradition (rooted in nothing more than habit & Englishness), and because he "got acquainted with a lot of academic biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and the like", immersing himself in the latest in evolutionary theory. Although he does mention Creationism -- to say that his immersing himself in biological research worked against his faith -- he never mentions Bethell, the debate, or Bethell's book. Sent at: 2008 08 21