OneSDTV poses a series of questions and I thought I’d answer them:
Does it really matter what we teach children about evolution?
Yes – I would support teaching the truth. I think it is always destructive to teach lies, whether they be of the "we are all equal" variety or the "earth began 4000 years ago" variety.
Is religious creationism, even the Young-Earth variety, more practically benign than liberal creationism?
Probably, but I’m not sure what would happen if the elite believed in the religious sort of creationism. In that case, I think we might have a different set of problems. The real problem with a set of lies is when they are believed by the elite. In our current setting, liberal creationism is therefore much more problematic.
Should conservatives who accept both evolution and HBD yield on the creationist issue if religious creationists accept cognitive realism?
Yes – I don’t believe that there is any threat of elites converting en masse to religious creationism, so it is not a threat.
Do conservatives who accept evolution have an ally in either religious or liberal creationists?
When I argue about HBD with liberals, I like to refer to them as "creationists" to their face. I found this tactic to be effective, since being a "creationist" is almost as bad as being a "racist" in their religion. So, HBDers should understand both viewpoints, but not expect help from either side.
Are there really any harmful practical consequences of religious (macroevolution) creationism?
Not unless the elites convert en masse to evangelical Christianity. In other words, "no."
Do you personally know any very bright religious creationists (I know one with a physics degree from Stanford)?
Yes. One of the five smartest people I’ve ever known well is a religious creationist. He believes God at least intervened in the evolutionary process at some point to create man. He goes further and actually seems to doubt that the evolutionary process could create man.