I haven't read the whole thing (it's twenty-thousand words) but Lee Harris has what looks to be an interesting essay over at TCS on evolution, ID, religion and beliefs in general with which, at least glancing through it, I suspect I'd largely agree.

[Update a few minutes later]

If you don't mind registering, or are registered, with The New Republic, and are (unlike me) a conservative, Russ Douthat writes about the danger of Intelligent Design to conservatives.

[Update at 11:30 AM EDT]

A commenter seems puzzled as to why I don't want to be labeled a "conservative." Well, simply put, it's because I don't think of myself as a conservative, though there are (as he points out) some "conservative" positions with which I agree. There are also many with which I strongly disagree. I don't just object to the "conservative" label--I object to single-word labels in general, because none of them very accurately describe me, and they constitute laziness on the part of the labeler and are often a substitute for a willingness to actually debate (e.g., see this more recent post). It's easier to call someone a "conservative" or (for that matter) a "conspiracy theorist" than it is to actually engage in a serious discussion of the issues (in which one might risk actually losing the argument).

I'm sure that, being Rand Simberg, you have your well-thought-out and logically defensible reasons for not wanting to be labeled a conservative.

But just thinking out loud, and making a general observation not necessarily applicable to you... what's so dirty about that word? Why is it so bad to let oneself be labeled a conservative when one's political beliefs actually coincide well with some flavor of conservatism?

Last night I was reading Robert Charles Wilson's new novel "Spin." Wilson (in the guise of the narrator) noted that the story's weird Christian cult New Kingdom was disavowed "by both mainstream and conservative Christian churches." You can only go straight, or turn left. Politics as pylon racing, heh!

I feel for you Rand. My wfie labels me a Republican, other label me as a conservative. While I do believe in many things the conservative movement stands for...smaller government, tax relief...there are many things I am on the opposite side of. I'm very liberal on religion. So, I agree that the one-word labels are useless, but its a downside to our society. We are such a fast-paced, instant gratification culture that most people won't take the time to research their own views. They'd rather accept the label for their opinions and be on to the next thing.

The liberal and conservative labels are very porr descriptions of even the diehards in the Democratic and Republican parties who toe the party line, let alone those whose beliefs aren't in lockstep with one side. That's why I dislike using these labels and try not to pin them on people.

As a B&L* conservative, I have to admit that since becoming a citizen of Pajamastan I have been thinking much less in terms of liberal-or-conservative than I used to. Although, the signal-to-noise ratio in among those POVs, and in the ground in between, is significantly higher than out beyond, in moonbat-or-wingnut territory.

Given the scale of the map when you take the outer limits into account, the distance from liberal conservative suddenly seems downright quantum-scale.

*"by and large" -- sorry, forgot to footnote before I clicked POST.

Regarding Lee Harris' essay, while I am reluctant to criticize anyone who gets published at TCS, there are a few things about it that bother me, and that I expect would bother Rand as well. I'm open to the possibility that I've misunderstood him, but if I understand him correctly, he makes four points that are either outright false or misinterpretations of the facts:

1) The theory of evolution is largely based on random chance. While a good amount of chance is involved, neither natural selection nor chemical processes are random, but follow certain rigorous rules.

2) In deciding upon a adefinition of "science," Mr. Harris almost ridicules the idea of "falsification," and he does it by erecting a strawman: if "falsification" is insufficient, by itself, to define science, it is therefore of no value at all and can be discarded.

3) Mr. Harris moves on to define science as "that which scientists do," then defines a "scientist" as being equivalent to cardinals and priests in a theological organization such as the Roman Catholic Church, with the "cardinals" at the top being the ones who get to define what is "correct science" and what is not. No mention of such ideas as peer review, etc.--scientists are just members of a church of scientism or something who believe what they do because their superiors told them to.

4) He states outright that the theory of evolution makes no predictions, and indeed cannot make any. Ignoring Darwin's prediction that a moth with a ten-inch proboscis would be discovered after having seen flowers with ten-inch-deep flowers (I think I got that correct), or statements such as "human fossils will never be found in precambrian strata," others listed on this page, evolution, like any other true science, does indeed make predictions.

If anyone can show where I've made a mistake here, I'm open to it, but I don't think Mr. Harris accomplished what he had hoped for--indeed, what I myself had hoped for.

Well of course it's obvious that everyone (well, most everyone) has a mix of opinions that span the spectrum of conservative-moderate-liberal, and that these are fuzzy, moving labels anyway, defined more by convention than logic. And of course no one likes to be pidgeonholed ("_I_, sir, am neither liberal nor conservative. _I_ think for myself!"). I'm just amused that so many, er, "non-liberal" people are so quick to avoid the conservative label, as though they have internalized the Leftist mythology that being "conservative" means you're either a fascist, a fundie, or just not smart enough to be a liberal.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. :)

The problem with labels is simple... they are an abstraction of the truth. It also happens to be there purpose. No label (even moonbat, which comes darn close) really fits any actual person.