The firmly scientific PZ Myers has been on a bit of a humanities kick this last few days. This time he posts about neoconservative influences on creationism, providing us a long email he received on the subject of Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, and the writings of them and others on the matter of creation and evolution. I thought that this would tickle some of our regulars *cough*.
The Panda's Thumb: A critique of Himmelfarb's scientific views.: Contrast Leo Strauss' views on the scientific fact of evolution with those of Irving Kristol and Gertrude Himmelfarb. To see which anti-evolution arguments are considered intellectually meritorious by the nation's leading neoconservatives, consider these passages from Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (from the 1967 edition published by Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA). For those of you familiar with the history of the anti-evolution movement, all the howlers are there: the "impossibility" of the evolution of the eye, even auguring Michael Behe's debunked irreducible complexity arguments about biochemistry, the tautology of survival, the improbability of "nature working blindly and by chance" could create anything, legitimate scientists reject evolution, and so forth. And I didn't cherry pick these passages—nonsense like this is suffused throughout the book.