I’ve run across a couple of interesting articles in right-wing journals.

First there’s “Darwin’s Divisions,” by Martin Hilbert, in this month’s Touchstone. It comes out against Darwinian (naturalistic) evolution, though it accepts common descent; it has strong intelligent design sympathies. Though Hilbert is a bit clueless about the science, and clearly has no concept of randomness (common religion failing, that), his criticisms of some pro-evolution Catholics from a conservative theological perspective are telling. Plus, somebody should point out that Father George Coyne’s “fertility of the universe” as a third option besides chance and necessity is a load of nonsense.

Then there’s David Klinghoffer’s “Where Religious Left Meets Right,” in the National Review. He thinks more politically liberal religious types such as Michael Lerner, Jim Wallis and so forth using a more left-wing religious langauge is a good thing — makes political discourse less secular. It reinforces my worries about the political left finding religion.

A common thread between the two is that they bring out my ambivalence about religious liberals. The thing is, secularists need liberals. Though he may also talk some minor nonsense in the process, Coyne coming out against ID is politically invaluable. And though Lerner and Co. may drivel about biblical values, political liberalism still puts up a stronger defense against the more obnoxious intrusions of religion on public life. Sigh…