Why don’t you ask Professor Marks at Baylor what type of research is being done and being prevented from being done? Stop speaking out of ignorance.

I have listened to plenty of Medved over the past few years, and none of it leads me to believe that Medved will add any credibility to the DI’s efforts outside those who are already true believers in ID.

Regarding research. What research?

He entertains opposing points of view on his show constantly and has very good and meaningful interactions with them. He routinely debunks conspiracy theories, so the Bigfoot thing is no big deal to me. He is not given over to those types of things.

Comments regarding research, etc. Does anyone seriously believe that ID research and thinking will come to a hault because there is a formalized relationship between DI and Medved? What is even the point of the comment?

Yes, they are liberal in many ways—one worldism, open borders, big government, nation building, —absolutely right. No argument here.

—PaV

That is an excellent definition of conservative/ liberal by the way. Conservatives do conform their way of thinking to reality and liberals do try to conform reality to their way of thinking. Marx, Freud, Mead, and Kinsey all tried to remake the world in their own image and likeness. They wanted the world to be just like they were. Its a lot easier to create a phony morality than conform to the real one.

Pav:

To that I would add–Conservatives think that we make the world the way it is, liberals think the way the world is makes us.

PaV, I don’t think this is a very good argurment, given the liberals fondness for thinking porn is free speech.

One way I contrast liberals from conservatives is this: Liberals conform reality to their way of thinking; conservatives conform their way of thinking to reality.

Which means that the present administration, especially in the Departments of State and Defense, is comprised almost exclusively of liberals. And if one thinks about the situation in terms of how much government spending has expanded over the past seven years, it seems even more plausible to think of them as basically liberal.

Just remember: I’ve been urging you to keep the door firmly shut against politicizing the evolution/design debate. If you want to frame it as a scientific debate over competing theories, that’s fine. If you want to frame it as a cultural-political debate over competing world-views, that’s fine too.

But you can’t have it both ways.

Guess which part of this dichotomy the Darwinists belong to?

As to examples of liberals conforming reality to their way of thinking: (1) men and women are the same [one presumes that those who proclaim this “truth” have never seen naked photos of men and women; (2) infanticide is really a “late-term abortion”; (3) “divorce is better for the children”, etc. etc.

This change does not mean the death of science, as our theorists claim, but the beginning of a new form of science that is not infatuated with men and their ideas and not ashamed to celebrate the handiwork of God.

Sounds like religion to me, and we’ve already got plenty of that.

This type of conservatism is rooted in a deep and abiding love of nature. It s based on the premise that nature is good—indeed, “very good”—and that any theory of value must be rooted in the goodness of nature in order to overcome the nothingness and potential for error produced by the love of pure intellect.

From this love of nature comes the notion of natural law. Aristotle’s golden mean may have lost some of its gravity, since nature is no longer seen as a middle term of intellect and matter, but natural law, properly explicated, provides a useful antidote to the various speculative theories of value that characterized the Modern age, including natural selection, the superman, and dialectical materialism.

Now that some of the glow from those theories has worn off, the tide is turning away from pure theory to concepts of value that are reliably grounded in sense. Aristotelian conservatism insists on rooting all theories of value in observation. If Neo-Darwinism cannot be proven by empirical means, then it should be rejected.

Finally, this form of conservatism is rooted in the value of life, which is relevant today because of the growing realization that life is not the simple bauble described by Darwin and Nietzsche. The more closely we examine life, the more we become aware of its astonishing goodness, which far surpasses the thinking of men.

This change does not mean the death of science, as our theorists claim, but the beginning of a new form of science that is not infatuated with men and their ideas and not ashamed to celebrate the handiwork of God.