I covered a recent National Review Creationist article in an earlier post. But just to show that all conservatives are not creationists, the National Review has published a reponse to the article as well - good for them for showing some intellectual integrity. (I have been linking to the National Review way too much recently - don't worry, it won't become a habit.)
There is a priceless quote in this article, by John Derbyshire:
"It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring."
I'm not entirely sympathetic to the philosophical sentiments expressed in the article, and some points are just confusing. (What the hell do these guys mean about "a computer model of protein synthesis?" Open any biochemistry textbook and you can learn all about protein synthesis in gruesome detail, as any student struggling through a biochemistry class will tell you. I'm not sure what questions a computer model would be trying to answer.)
But it's nice to see somone on George Gilder's own turf take on his absurd ideas.