You must be new here because just about everything you said does not make sense if you have read a lot of the things discussed here.

Personally, I don’t believe every judge appointed by Bush is a conservative and even if Judge Jones has good conservative credentials we can discuss the nonsense in his decision. It is available in lots of places. Stupidity can reside anywhere on the political spectrum. Are you defending Jones’s ruling based on his logic and his fair interpretation of the evidence presented? You should read the evidence and how he interpreted it.

I know nothing about Michael Ruse except in one debate all he did is accuse the ID side of introducing religion into the discussion when in fact he was the one doing it and on top of this had nothing to say about Darwinism except that it was so overwhelming accepted. If he is a conservative then he is disingenuous one too. One side does not have a monopoly on brains or stupidity.

There are lots of conservatives who defend Darwinism. See the reactions to Bush’s remarks last summer. Many conservatives were horrified he made the statement. I know no prominent liberals who support ID so maybe you could point some out. By the way it tends to be liberals who force the association with a political movement not the ID people. You are operating under too many stereotypes.

There are lots of people here defending ID who are not creationists and if the discussion ever gets down to religion there could be some horrendous arguments going on. Your comment on how most people understand ID is one fostered by the liberal press. They rarely print the truth about it. It is not ID that fosters the creationist religious connection but the Darwinists. One of the comments about Darwinists is that as soon as the argument is not going their way that they immediately play the religion card as an ad hominen attack.

ID will never be debated seriously by academics at the college level. Anyone supporting ID and who does not have tenure will be denied it and if they have tenure they may be ostracized. There are several examples to back this up and the fact that you propose it means you are unaware of what is going on.

Ann Coulter, to use an expression of my day, likes to yank liberal’s chains with outlandish statements but which usually have a semblance of truth in it. But I doubt the t-shirt comment is true but only meant as sarcasm. She is selling books but if she didn’t have a message that was pretty much correct she wouldn’t sell too many of them. She is not Alexander Pope but she can certainly drive the dagger home better than anyone else on today’s stage but only because there is mainly truth in what she says. Yes she is over the top but she has an amazing pen. Currently she is #1 on Amazon so she is doing her job very well but this sales position will change shortly.

If you want to look for liberal writers who also have acid pens read the NY Times for Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich. The main difference is the amount of fiction and distortion they have to use in their writings to make others look bad.

ID is seen by most people as being a thinly disguised version of Creationism, decked out in neutral, scientific language to pose as a legitimate scientific theory. So I would expect most thinking people, liberal or conservative, to eye its teaching in public schools with a good deal of suspicion.

You expect wrong.

Harris Poll. June 17-21, 2005. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“Regardless of what you may personally believe, which of these do you believe should be taught in public schools?

Evolution only 12
Creationism only 23
Intelligent design only 4
All three 55
None of these (vol.) 3
Unsure 3

Any questions? -ds

And when ds writes, “ID is already associated with a political stance. Do you think it’s wise to ignore reality? I don’t,” that just adds fuel to the fire. It confirms to liberals that ID is nothing more than a politcal/religious issue, sponsored by the political conservative and religious right.

If you want to insist on wedding ID to that movement, go ahead. But don’t expect the rest of society to still take ID seriously.

If you follow my advice, you’ll distance yourself from all politcal and religious movements, and present ID as a scientific issue, that should be debated by scientists and academics at the college level.

BTW, did Coulter mean to be taken literally when she said that students in Dover are required to where “Creationism is Shameful” t-shirts?

To know that ID is not viewed as politically neutral just look around. What are some of the most politically left elements of our society? Academia, Media, Entertainment, Activist groups such as the ACLU, elements of the Democrat party. How many of each has supported ID? What is the general attitude of each of these groups on this issue?

Has anybody read the total body of op-eds published by the NY Times on this issue? For every pro-ID editorial there are 10 against, nearly all disingenuous nonsense. Has there been a prominent Democrat politician that has supported the teaching of ID? Not if they want to win their nomination.

Anyone who doesn’t think this is a political issues of liberal vs. conservative has their head in the sand or like the editorials of the NY Times is disingenuous. Certainly it is not 100% black and white liberal vs. conservative but those shades of gray are either very light or very dark.

If you are pro ID and consider yourself liberal, test out the waters with your liberal friends and see how they react to a pro ID discussion.

You misunderstand. ID is politically neutral. The people who are for and against it are not politically neutral and as it happens the greater support for it comes from the conservative side of the political spectrum and the attacks on it come predominantly from the liberal side. I didn’t make these associations. That’s just the way it is. -ds

Just to put this in perspective, if Hillary Clinton came out in favor of ID, I’d be happy about that too. But what are the odds? -ds

gives the left a chance to call us flat earthers

Children will say the darndest things. Consider the source. -ds

The sucess of Intelligent Design will depend on the creation of a broad coalition of supporters that crosses party lines. Ms. Coulter is potentially too devisive a personality to aid the formation of such a coalition.

I may be speaking too boldly. It sounds like Dave really likes her. She is cute-definitely babeage in my book!

You seem to be totally ignoring Coulter’s huge following many of which are not ID supporters but will be positively influenced by her embrace of it. I think the net result is vastly in favor of ID. Certainly some of the political left will be influenced the other way but not that many. She is only controversial amost exclusively amongst those who are already Darwin worshippers. -ds

This might help you understand. http://www.uncommondescent.com.....hives/1071 -ds