For those who think that Intelligent Design is a "conservative" (as opposed to a religious) fetish, Anthony Dick has a review of what sounds like an interesting documentary, Flock Of Dodos, over at National Review. No new arguments in support of science, but he puts forth the old ones well.

What disturbs me about this important debate is the poor demeaner which often accompanies it. I have always held Science in the highest of regard, but noticed of late the She's had a distrubing tendency to flirt with Politics on occassion. As a result, certain subscriptions were cancelled, letters were written...

From what I've noticed, most of the proponents of ID either are or were proponents of Darwinism and have come forward to ask of Darwinism to explain itself: the holes, the gaps, etc. If I understand this correctly, Darwinism, which I've always embraced, remains a theory which remains to be proven. ID seems to be a very necessary critique of that theory.

To have, as Mr. Dick suggests, separate truths for Philosophy and Science is intolerable. I'll admit it may have to suffice for now, but the role of Science is to ultimately find a singular, objective truth.

It does seem that the ID proponents, even those who do not carry a Bible into the conversation, have erected a cathedral of sorts upon the grounds of things "irreducibly complex." While I found myself intrigued by this, I did not go find a church and light a candle. Instead, I welcomed this as a necessary - a vital - question to ask of our science. After all, as Mr. Dick wisely points out, Science relies on empirical evidence. Unfortunately, and for understandable reasons, Darwinism has come up short in this regard...at least for now.

I feel the emergence of the ID proponents onto the scene will enable us all to keep our minds as well as our pencils sharpened, as a most instructive debate continues. Once we've gotten past the hurt feelings, the shattered egos (and cancelled subscriptions), we will have all to gain from the courage of those who've asked a question and the determination of those to answer it faithfully.

Nah, most ID proponents I've seen, while sometimes scientists, always also been religious types. And theory this, theory that. There are things like theory of relativity which are used technologically every day.

If ID ain't a conservative trait, "global warming is a hoax" must be still though.

Religious people cannot help but get on the bandwagon. And why not? They believe something as yet unobtainable is responsible for existence. So did Einstein, whose theories have been verified by observation, a point which Darwinism, no matter how appealing, has yet to do with undeniable certainty. Not an advocate of ID myself, I find the inclusion of its proponents into the debate essential - and "conservative" in that it is allowed to be included.

The only global warming hoaxes have come from the Left which, as Michael Fumento and others have alerted us, has tried to obliterate the Medieval Warming Period from our store of scientific knowledge. Accordingly, the mini ice age in which Sir Isaac Newton lived would also succumb to political fancy. I suppose the first few dominos, having thus proceeded to collide, would then continue to eradicate a history of solar activity which has caused global climate change for eons.

The slight bit of global warming is not being denied by serious people. What is being denied is that it was caused by Republicans, capitalists and Rush Limbaugh. Recent findings, to include those by the Mars Global Surveyor, have indicated a similar climate change of the surface of Mars. As there has been no evidence of "big oil" on the Red Planet, it may be said with a some certitude that the Sun might be the most significant contributor to this phenomenon.

The beards are more grey, the postures less undeviated, the speech susceptibly slower, yet it's the same perpetually dyspeptic crowd who 25 years ago chased after snow storms in places like Buffalo, NY and warned us about the "Global Cooling" threat...and how that was Ronald Reagan's fault.

If some left wing nuts say stupid things that are not true, that doesn't mean that the serious global warming is not true. Don't throw the baby with the bathwater.

I've also seen right wing nuts claim that the measured co2 increase is because the volcano where the measurements were made, released co2... and Rand was cheering to that. Or other things that are just so whacked, things that have been debunked countless times but just won't die. It's very much like the moon hoax, relying on the general public's lack of information. People somehow want to believe in something despite the evidence.

The politics is polarized over there, yeah, but don't take everything opposed to your (party's) viewpoint to be just political nonsense. There was this liberal university professor who did some questionable things since he thought it was safe to just be the opposite opinion to republicans, and later regretted it. I know that stuff becomes less credible if the "other" party says it, but it becomes crazier all the time when things have to be kept on to because of internal politics.

In the internet it's pretty easy to go straight to the source, in this case IPCC. If some media outlet makes some flashy headlines, you can usually get the data and see that it was more moderate. Why not publish that yourself in the blog, and not some rants against the media and claim it's all just politics.

Because that is the media's job: to report fairly and objectively.

Our job is to maintain the environment without sacrificing humanity.

I like to keep objective truth as my personal aim.

It appears we are now in agreement.