Mr. Campbell of Science 2.0 has been nursing a grudge against Wesley Smith — why, I do not know. There must be some backstory to it. Whatever, now he comes after me with this:

David Klinghoffer at the anti-science front group that ironically calls itself the Discovery Institute thinks that by invoking well-known political conservatives (Buckley, Weaver, Kristol, Neuhaus, et al.) that their rants about evolution must be valid.

Appeal to authority much, Dave?

If I understand what Campbell is trying to say, it is that I said (so he imagines) that because the founding fathers of modern conservatism were Darwin doubters, that validates — as a scientific matter — the case for skepticism about Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Clearly, at least part of Hank’s problem has to do with reading comprehension.

He’s referring to what I wrote here in reply to his trying to argue that a conservative magazine, National Review, should ban anyone associated with Discovery Institute since conservatism is at loggerheads with Darwin doubts. I pointed out that such skepticism has distinguished roots among the men (and women — I should have mentioned Gertrude Himmelfarb) who have been the leading lights of the movement.

It’s interesting how that fact is true across the board, including all the major conservative streams of thought: William Buckley described himself as a libertarian (though some might argue the point), Richard Weaver epitomized philosophical traditionalism, Irving Kristol neo-conservatism, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus was the foremost theo-con. Commentary magazine published David Berlinski’s great series on Darwinism and related matters. And so on.

Obviously, obviously, none of that makes Darwin skepticism valid as science. I never said or implied that it does. It only means that National Review, in providing a home for Wesley Smith, operates in the conservative tradition to which it is an important heir. For a competent reader, there should be nothing so hard to understand about that.