Intelligent Design and Conservative Journalism

John Farrell tears into conservative-leaning journals for their unthinking embrace of Intelligent Design.  The most reasonable treatment of science among conservative journals happens, in his view, in the most religious one: First Things.  He complains:

[A]s far as the current generation of gadflies posting 'science' articles to National Review and the American Spectator are concerned, if the philosophy suggested by science is intimidating or disturbing...well--by all means then, out with the baby along with the bathwater. Let's raise a generation of scientific illiterates so that they will have even fewer options to prosper in the challenging world of the future.

Rod Dreher's comments capture much of my own reaction:

[M]y personal sympathies are with the ID crowd. But that's not the same thing as saying I agree with them. To be sure, I believe in God, and that He created all life. It doesn't much matter to me how He did it. I am comfortable with the idea of Darwinian evolution, so I don't have anything personally at stake in this argument. At least I don't feel any personal stakes. I have a stack of books on my shelf that I've been meaning to get into to learn more about the controversy, but my intellectual curiosity simply doesn't run toward this issue. I find that I'm more engaged in trying to make sure the ID advocates get a fair hearing, because I don't like the way those opposed to them try to shout them down instead of engaging and attempting to rebut them.