4. I suggested exactly the opposite. Biology classes convey the current, consensus theory of evolution to pupils. Despite its limits, this theory represents the state of the art. It is no more "presented as fact," nor any less iterative and incomplete, than are the theories of physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, or of any other discipline. The way evolution is predominately communicated is, for all intents and purposes, the status quo in classrooms across the country. This is not to say anything about its correctness (6). And to the extent that there are gaps in the theory of evolution, they ought to be discussed in the context of the natural sciences.

5. My point was that creationism is a form of progressivism, in that it aims to supplement, if not supplant, what is traditional, current, and lasting. As I stated before, it claims to offer wisdom that transcends the shortcomings of contemporary knowledge and natural science. On this score, Chesterton is instructive. Your point explains exactly why many have tired of the political discussion of evolution, and, as you say, "marginalize" its political exponents.

...What exactly is the public policy implication for the discussion over evolution? Let's cut through the baloney here. It doesn't exist as an abstract intellectual argument. It exists because a number of school districts, communities, or pressure groups demand the the right to introduce alternative theories to evolution into the public school curriculum. Where anyone is making a bona fide critique of evolution, separate from any discussion of creationism in any form, it is as an academic argument, in the language and context of natural science. As such, it plays itself out in research and peer review journals. In this case, any categorization of "liberal" or "conservative" becomes irrelevant.

1. Let's not get upset. I invited a clarification of your points, which, as I understood them, revolved around marginalizing voices critical of evolution. Have I misconstrued this?

(cont.)

3. This point first, because it speaks to what I feel is the elephant in the room. Nowhere did I state that that was your argument. You made it clear that conservatives shouldn't marginalize certain voices. But while (2) you might be right that being critical of evolution is not necessarily equivalent to creationism, why does the controversy even exist in public life? 

(cont.)

Another assumption is that creationism is somehow a natural fit with conservatism. On the contrary, creationism has all the features of progressivism. It aggressively tries to upend the status quo. It claims to offer wisdom that transcends the shortcomings of contemporary knowledge and natural science. Though for all the purported gaps in the theory of evolution, its basis is the universal, objective, and secular language of biology and other disciplines, without respect to any religious or political philosophy.

We then might surmise that those who dismiss creationists as an embarrassment, and those who reject creationism out of hand, do so out of a common sensibility that recognizing creationism amounts to respecting an establishment of religion. In short, the view might be that creationism threatens individual liberty.

Let me see if I follow your reasoning: Evolution is a flawed science. Therefore,

1) Evolutionists should not be dismissive of Christians as "anti-science";

2) Conservatives should not marginalize voices that argue for teaching, or introducing as an alternative theory, creation science, in schools.

If that's an accurate distillation, then regarding the first point, it's an error to conflate Christianity with creationism. Christianity and the theory of evolution aren't incompatible, but it seems creationists themselves frame the discussion as a dichotomy between the two.

As for the second point, there's an assumption that conservatives "marginalize" creationists and assume plausible deniability over the argument in order to appear reasonable. It's rather more likely that conservatives, generally, don't actually believe the alternative theories to evolution that creationism offers; it is, after all, a (diminishing) minority opinion. 

(cont.)

May I also suggest optional, alternative sort modes? For example, one might want to view a feed by "most recent comment first," which would display at the top of the page the conversation that most recently had a comment added to it, regardless of when the conversation started.

Funny, but the humor seemed a little dumbed down in contrast to Iannucci's other comedies. The token goofball felt out of place, and kind of pulls the show in the direction of Will Ferrell-grade antics. If you enjoyed this, though, you'd like The Thick of It and In the Loop. The Malcolm Tucker character really makes the series (and the film) with some of the sharpest invective in any political comedy. Take a look http://youtu.be/BGzM08Z-XNw

I can appreciate your point that the advert depicts something different from what many might envisage. From my experience as a former servicemember, though, most veterans don't join the military to take a "direct action" role. In fact, military personnel who've taken part in disaster relief operations or humanitarian missions generally find the work to have been some of the most rewarding in their careers.

As conflicts have become more intra-state over the last two decades, humanitarian missions have become a core competency among the service branches, as we've seen in the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, Japan, and so on. In the context of peacebuilding in a hostile environment, Thomas Barnett calls it the "sys admin" function--in a sense, a sort of security layer on top of constructive, capacity-building operations.

Mindful of this, I'm not sure the Marines produced this spot to allay activists' criticisms. I think they're targeting the demographic of 18-24 year olds who want to translate their grit and sense of duty into making a difference in the world.

P.S. True, the "Aid" graphic on the cargo containers was kind of cheesy. It looks more like this: 

That's a marvelous little anecdote. I've also had dinner at the Texas Embassy, once, while I was stationed in the UK a couple of years ago. The interior was as garish as the food was unremarkable. 

No, that's about right. Santorum really is not in the race. As I've pointed out in earlier remarks, he's an unabashed zealot, and has no chance whatsoever of winning in the general election. His electability problem can't be lazily dismissed as a "meme" (as I've noticed some here are wont to do -- that word seems to have taken on a life as shorthand for "You're wrong, but I can't present a cogent counterargument at the moment"). His problem is that not one person, including the candidate himself, has articulated a credible strategy for taking the battleground states in the fall; his rhetoric, his tactics, and his thoroughly unpopular views (vis-a-vis Americans at large) are absolute liabilities. Moreover, Santorum has no leadership experience, and is a failed legislator with no remarkable achievements. Yes, Obama was similar in this regard, but faced no incumbent; though now he can cite his experience as executive, and is the incumbent. Santorum is utterly deluding himself to believe that Americans will elect him.