The political and religious opposition to evolutionary theory (there is no scientific opposition to it) is made up exclusively of conservatives. Opposition to evolution is a basic dogma of America's Christian Right; but what to prominent political conservatives really think about the matter?

The New Republic asked several prominent conservatives what they think about evolution:

Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I've never understood how an eye evolves."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "Put me down for the intelligent design people."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "The real problem here is that you shouldn't have government-run schools. ... Given that we have to spend all our time crushing the capital gains tax I don't have much time for this issue."

 

Pat Buchanan, The American Conservative

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Do I believe in absolute evolution? No. I don't believe that evolution can explain the creation of matter. ... Do I believe in Darwinian evolution? The answer is no."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "Evolution [has] been so powerful a theory in Western history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and often a malevolent force--it's been used by non-Christians and anti-Christians to justify polices which have been horrendous. I do believe that every American student should be introduced to the idea and its effects on society. But I don't think it ought to be taught as fact. It ought to be taught as theory. ... "

Some conservatives support and agree with evolution:

Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "Of course."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "At most, interesting."

Whether intelligent design should be taught in public schools: "The idea that [intelligent design] should be taught as a competing theory to evolution is ridiculous. ... The entire structure of modern biology, and every branch of it [is] built around evolution and to teach anything but evolution would be a tremendous disservice to scientific education. If you wanna have one lecture at the end of your year on evolutionary biology, on intelligent design as a way to understand evolution, that's fine. But the idea that there are these two competing scientific schools is ridiculous."

Much support is rather lukewarm, though:

David Frum, American Enterprise Institute and National Review

Whether he personally believes in evolution: "I do believe in evolution."

What he thinks of intelligent design: "If intelligent design means that evolution occurs under some divine guidance, I believe that."

How evolution should be taught in public schools: "I don't believe that anything that offends nine-tenths of the American public should be taught in public schools. ... Christianity is the faith of nine-tenths of the American public. ... I don't believe that public schools should embark on teaching anything that offends Christian principle."

So, regardless of whether something is fact and fundamental to science, if enough people are offended by the facts, then those facts should not be taught. Conservatives have often prided themselves on adhering to a very practical and realistic political philosophy, but a practical political philosophy is one that deals with reality as it is rather than as we wish it would be. Conservatives like David Frum do exactly the opposite: they favor teaching comfortable falsehoods if the facts are too inconvenient. David Frum is an excellent example of someone who isn't part of the reality-based community.

Jesse Taylor comments on the article: Keep in mind these are people who regularly pop off about the cultural divides across the entire nation, who frequently position themselves as savants of American life. Out of the fifteen, eight admit that they simply don't know much about the issue (I have to wonder if that percentage would go up or down depending on the inclusion of the crack female pundits on the right). Now, you ask fifteen of the preeminent conservative pundits what they think about one of the major issues of conservative activism of the past few years...and most of them don't really know what it's about.

Digby comments on the article:

Remember, these are highly educated people. The problem is not that they may believe in God or have a religious view of the origins of the universe. That is quite easily explained. It's the weaselly, mushy way they try to divert the question elsewhere or explain what they know is a ridiculous position. It's as if they are all terribly afraid that James Dobson might read TNR and berate them for not having a religiously correct fundamentalist view.

Read More:

• Evolution vs. Creationism
• Science vs. Religion
• What is Creationism?
• What is Intelligent Design?
• What is Science?