Redstate

Posted at 9:45am on Jul. 21, 2007 Associate publisher of GOOD charged with felony drug possession

By Homunculus

The son of a popular-vote elected President of the United States was charged with multiple counts of narcotics possession yesterday. The New York Times buried the story on their website just before midnight last night.

Al Gore, III, an associate publisher of the philanthropy-advocating periodical "Good", is free on $20,000 bail and will be arraigned August 1 in California. The son of the former President-elect is a repeat drug offender, having been busted for pot possession while allegedly studying at Harvard University. He served time in progressive-minded substance abuse counseling in order to help him modify his drug problem. Apparently the drug counseling was effective, modifying simple marijuana use to include abuse of powerful narcotics such as vicodin.

Posted in Archived — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:47am on Dec. 23, 2006 To a world full of religious fascism of one stripe or another, Merry Christmas.

By Homunculus

Religion is a man made belief system; man's weak and self-indulgent effort to make a god in man's own image. Twin towers fell for the self-indulgent twisted faith of despots and their puppets.

But we are also under siege by cultural fascists whose jihad is ultimately Marxism in the sheep's clothing of a holy environment and worshipful tolerance for anything and everything except traditional values and Christianity. They are foundational atheists; their god's name is "NO GOD". Call it what you will; it is all nonetheless religion.

Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:37pm on Nov. 1, 2006 John Kerry's Heart and Filter

By Homunculus

When I was an uninspired high school student growing up in Thomasville NC my brilliant academician/physician dad admonished me: "son, if you don't knuckle down on your studies you'll wind-up in the army in Vietnam." Ever the hard-head, I developed a liberal pretense of "peace-now", pondered out-loud the merits of moving to Canada to avoid the draft and in general maintained my inglorious if not disastrous academic career. Dad ultimately was wrong, as the college deferment was eliminated, my draft-card deemed me 1-A and my lottery number in 1971 was 88. Fortunately, Nixon bombed Hanoi for Christmas in '71 and no one from that high school graduating year was ever called-up, the first year no one was drafted.

Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:34am on Jul. 3, 2006 America the Beautiful

By Homunculus

This week I find myself reflecting on God's grace in blessing our beautiful country.  Waking up each morning in Florida is always a little surreal; it is indeed the isle of flowers, especially in July.  But I so love the beauty of all our land.  The mountains of North Carolina (be sure to hit "refresh" on browser to update webcam) are as heaven-like a place as you'll ever experience.  I could go on naming places of breathtaking beauty...(can't resist: Vail Valley, eastern shore of Maryland, Yosemite, Portland Maine & Oregon; Big Sur, the Overseas Highway from Key Largo to Key West, the Blue Ridge Parkway...).

This morning during my devotional time I found the story of Katherine Lee Bates, who wrote America the Beautiful (click on the "Real Audio" or "mp3" link to hear the song), combined with "Eternal Father Strong to Save". You may also find instructive and convicting the devotional this site offers.  

Finally, our beautiful country is beseiged by enemies from within and without.  Another prayer of David (click the speaker icon to hear Max McLean read the passage) is appropriate, I believe, petitioning God's protection from our enemies who hate the freedom He has blessed us with. Particularly note verse 15, and never forget it. Remember in the work you do for our neighbors and our nation that ways of selfishness and indignity will not bring blessing.  This Psalm petitions Him to teach us  His ways of freedom and truth as we serve our fellow citizens and the world.

The 4th of July is a time to celebrate the blessings of God's grace that He shed on us and our Nation.  How will you use those blessings in service to America the Beautiful?

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:02am on Jun. 30, 2006 Morning Devotions

By Homunculus

I am impressed with the good work that is being done for our nation, and ultimately the world, through the political discourse occurring on Red State.  So many really insightful and knowledgeable people from all over the world who love our country are spending much of their most precious commodity, time, in service to others. The sharing of political ideas often leads to heated debate, but I see learning happening in that process. I am convinced that the conservative political philosophy is the most compassionate and offers the most hope for a future of peace and prosperity for the people of our nation and the world.  I also believe it is the model that will prevail if we are diligent and work not to glorify ourselves but to serve others.  Insight, truth and wisdom are precious gifts that must be shared by those God has gifted.  And there are many gifted and truly insightful people writing on Red State.

Our political philosophy has its historical foundations in the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and ultimately Jesus Christ.  I have developed a habit (shared by many Christians) of spending a small portion of my time each morning in devotional offering to God.  As a Christian I have been convicted that the time I first offer to the Lord in worship, prayer and study of His precepts is the most important time I spend each day.  Whatever seems most important in my day will be better served if it if first lifted up in prayer to the One Who can and will answer all our petitions that are offered according to His will and in obedience to His commands.

I humbly offer my morning devotional process for your consideration and use. I encourage all readers, whether a believer or not, to spend a few minutes in this process, even if you change the source materials to others that fit your sincere guiding life philosophy.  Finally, I would like to ask you to consider Jesus; not the One mocked daily in profanity but the One Who made everything and desires a personal relationship with everyone! His yoke is easy and His burden is light.  His love endures forever!

Devotional Sequence:

1.  I begin each morning with praise and worship.  I am a poor singer but God doesn't care about our voice quality; it all sounds great to Him. After all, He gave us the singing voices we have, and He blesses us all differently.  There are several good Internet resources for devotional music.  I just click on the website each morning.  They offer both lyrics and musical accompaniment.  Some sites are rudimentary (cyberhymnal.org) and others have beautiful choir music.  Still others are simply popular Christian songs by nationally known artists.

I usually go with two songs each morning.  It is amazing how singing to God will take our minds away from all the morning urgencies and give us focus for the rest of our devotional process and our day ahead.

Try these two songs this morning. On the first song be sure to click the "Listen" link (either Real Audio or mp3) to hear the music.  The second song just starts automatically.

2.  After worship I like to go to Oswald Chambers' classic devotional "My Utmost for His Highest".  I have heard President Bush say that he uses this source of brilliant Christian insight.  There are at least two Internet sites for Chambers.  I will link both; I studied the original text for years but found the modern English version recently online. I've been using the modern version.  Many of you scholars may enjoy the original.  Both are masterworks.

Modern English Version or Original.

3. Finally I finish with a Bible text which serves either as a prelude into prayer or as prayer itself.  Biblegateway.com is one of the most valuable resources on the Internet.  I use the New International Version, which is the default on Biblegateway although they offer every conceivable version of the Bible.  Using the NIV comes with a great bonus; Max McLean reads the text if you just click on the audio link, just below the "Passage Results".  For my devotions I click on the audio and read along with Max.  

Today's reading serves as a prayer of confession that is good for all our souls.  Sometimes the Bible text will be more instructional.  Always at the end of the Bible text I take some time to lift up others who need prayer for healing and/or help, for my loved ones and for our country and her leaders.

That's it.  Have a blessed day!

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:34am on Jun. 22, 2006 Ann Coulter's Intelligent Design

By Homunculus

Coulter's new book and its ensuing explosions of cases of the vapors from both liberals and so-called conservatives occurred while I was happily away from civilization in Islamorada controlling the fish population.  Three local bookstores down there were proud in their refusal to carry "Godless".  I did catch some of the outrage on Fox in between fishing and snorkeling trips.

I have now returned from paradise and finished reading Coulter's greatest book yet (and topping "Treason" was not easy).  This evening I decided to see what the intelligentsia at Red State had to say about it and I'm sorry to say I was not surprised... a little disappointed (particularly with Leon), but in general it was about par for the course from Mike and Moe.  

Coulter's book is brilliantly written on par with the early years of the Rush Limbaugh program.  Leon seems to think that Ann's humor hurts her credibility in making her points on issues of fact.  I began listening to Rush the third week of March, 1988, right after my honeymoon with my first (and still current) wife and 3 weeks after Rush went national.  Within the first hour of listening to this guy I'd never heard of, he played the first Barney Frank update using the old Millie Small tune "My Boy Lollipop" as the update theme. I almost simultaneously wrecked my car and wet my pants I was laughing so uncontrollably.  Rush is given credit (along with Newt) as the "majority maker" in the Congress in '94, but his humor and showmanship has always worked hand in hand with his brilliant political insight.  

Coulter is the female Rush exactly because she is hilarious (especially in print) and at the same time cuts to the no-spin core of the issues of our time.  All this hand wringing and righteous indignation over Ann's interpretative statements on the Jersey girls and John Murtha is a clear sign that someone needs a long trip to the Keys more than I did.  If Rush made the same comments (I'm sure he's made worse), conservatives would just send "dittos".  

So why are the brights at Red State getting uppity about Ann?  I know! I know!  It's because she said the same stuff about Intelligent Design that I did last year plus added a lot more.  I remember that Krempasky and some of the others (doubting Thomas?) were concerned about staying in the good graces with the Chuck Krauthammer wing on the reality of neo-Darwinain theory. It apparently is critical for Red State to not besmirch its sterling Ivy League credentials with Bible thumping Creationism.

Coulter's final chapters on ID are exactly what I tried to articulate in my several diaries on the topic.  Her presentation on the intrinsic evil of evolutionary theory is accurate; it is the theory of sex and death, of totalitarianism and racism.  Darwinism was a driving force for Hitler and Marx (and Freud, although Ann didn't bring that part in).  Darwinian theory is the science that gives atheists a platform to stand on; if blind naturalistic force and necessity can make the universe and life with no push from God (as the theory requires), then why is God needed?  

The reason the press has focused on the Jersey girls issues and her biting, politically incorrect humor is a rope-a-dope attempt to divert the attention from Coulter's withering attack on Darwinism.  Red State execs seem to feel they have to stay in good graces with the Krauthammer Kamp and have joined the attack (I'm pleased to see so many of the rank and file sprang to her defense).  Ann rightly points out that Darwin's defenders are most concerned about hiding the facts about the fatal flaws of evolutionary theory. She does an amazing job of revealing how Darwin's theories are the foundation of the culture war the left is waging against civilization.  Again, it is a little pathetic to see how intellectual insecurity can lead obviously intelligent and otherwise conservative minds into defending the proven nonsense that is macro-evolution.

Ann Coulter's arguments regarding the godless nature of the religion of liberalism, founded on the pseudo-science of Darwinism, is literary proof of Intelligent Design.  I recommend you read this book and see for yourself how much her humor diminishes her brilliant analysis, as Leon laments.  Rush has taught us to use humor to take it to the left.  In the '60s it was the stodgy Republicans that were considered square and uptight.  Now the old guard are the liberals; they've lost their humor and are on the defensive.  Why on earth, when Coulter moves in for the kill, do we allow the shrill left to intimidate our side into backing down?  Do we really care that much what Matt Lauer (or Krauthammer) thinks?  

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (180) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:39am on Feb. 20, 2006 Why is Pop Music Dead?

By Homunculus

Pop music is at the end of it's rope because the genre is past capacity for originality.  Not that there isn't plenty of talent; heck, we've got a young lady in our church that sings like Rita Coolidge in her prime and is prettier.  She's better than Kelly Clarkson but doesn't dream of being an American Idol; she's just a sister in Christ and expectant Mommy who sings some Sunday mornings.  The point is, there's probably more talent out there than ever before.  So why is the new stuff (anything past 1990, but that's liberal; past '79 is a big fall-off) so terrible?

To make any dent in the truth this rhetorical question unveils, as kowalski profoundly queries in his post, one must review the history of modern popular music.  The problems of the present cannot be divined and resolved without an understanding of the road taken to this point.  In other words, if you think great pop began with Green Day and but really began to stink with Linkin Park, then you're just too teeny-bopper to understand reality.

My parents generation (WWII, "the Big One") after the war listened to Perry Como, Nat King Cole, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Frankie Lane,  to name a few. The foundations of rock and roll began in the early 50s by adding the pronounced, syncopated beat of American jazz with the smooth "old school" pop music of my parent's day.

In the movie "That Thing You Do" you can see a picture of what happened (although the setting for that movie was the mid-60s).  The lead singer-songwriter intended his tune "That Thing You Do" to be a "slow-dance" ballad.  But when the regular drummer didn't show up for rehearsal and the jazz-influenced drummer/kid down the street sat in, he took a mediocre, slow and dragging love ballad into modern pop/rock anthem that made the girls swoon and everybody get up and dance. The drummer was the difference. It's a great picture of what really evolved from the early 50s until the Beatles, who brought the concept to its ultimate level with "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".  But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

At the same time rock was crawling out of the musical primordial soup, black artists made this new pop (rock and roll) their own by merging it with their own unique genre (blues) which evolved into rhythm and blues (R&B).  Along with the obvious rock giant Elvis, other key early (50s & early 60s) players were Fats Domino, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley,  Little Richard, Joe Turner, Johnnie Ray, Ritchie Valens, Ricky Nelson, Fabian, Bill Haley, and the great Buddy Holly, (just to name a few off the cuff). Early R&B groups like the Platters and the Drifters were also critical to the early evolution.

The primal yet innocent "high-school" rock of the 50s began being modified by the more earthy, explicit and more musically evolved early R&B.  Artists like Roy Orbison put out powerful classics like "Oh Pretty Woman".  Phil Spector was a great influence for better or worse.  Meanwhile, Motown and Philadelphia gave the primitive R&B sounds more polish and achieved true genius more than once (especially the compositions of Kenny Gamble and Leon Huff in Philly and Lamont Dosier and crew at Motown).

Then came the two great white musical hopes:  Brian Wilson in the US and Lennon-McCartney in Britain.  The Beach Boys and the Beatles changed rock from teen-dreams to something else (or more accurately, everything else).  Of course the Beatles were ultimately the most influential.  But John and Paul were not only influenced by Muddy Waters and BB King.  They also were watching Brian Wilson closely; they were awed  and envious of "Good Vibrations" and the "Pet Sounds" album.  All this lead to "Sgt. Peppers", and at that shining moment pop music had found it's cornerstone.

The Beatles played out their tenure and the Beach Boys became a parody of themselves as Brian fought drugs and psychosis, but the foundation for the classic era of popular music had been laid (with strong assists from the Stones and Bob Dylan).  It was the musical equivalent of the Cambrian Explosion.  

Two hundred years from now the classical music of the 20th century will be this evolved pop/rock/R&B from about 1964 to 1980.  The names speak for themselves:  Hendrix, Clapton, Joplin, the Who, the Yardbirds, Moody Blues, the Animals, Cream, Steppenwolf; the Four Tops, Marvin Gaye, the Isley Brothers, Temptations; the Kinks, the Mamas and the Papas, the Byrds, the Turtles, the Righteous Brothers, Peter and Gordon, Chad and Jeremy, Gerry and the Pacemakers, the Beau Brummels, Simon and Garfunkel; James Brown, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, Otis Redding, Billy Stewart, Aretha Franklin, Smokey Robinson, Wilson Pickett, Stevie Wonder,  Sly and the Family Stone, the Fifth Dimension, Tina Turner, the Supremes, the Spinners, the O'Jays, the Intruders, the Tymes, Isaac Hayes, the Jackson 5 (and yes, Michael).  And don't forget Jethro Tull, Alice Cooper, Black Sabbath, Joe Cocker, Leon Russell, Mitch Ryder, Johnny Rivers, Tom Jones, Jefferson Airplane/Starship, Deep Purple, The Dead, The Doors, The Band, Procol Harum, the Grass Roots, the (Young) Rascals, the Spencer Davis Group, Traffic, Zappa, Van Morrison, James Taylor; the James Gang, Chicago, Steely Dan, the Doobie Brothers, FLeetwood Mac, George Michael, Elton John, Robert Palmer, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, the Eagles, America, CCR, David Bowie, Lou Reed, Rod Stewart, Alan Parsons, Boz Scaggs, ELO, Emerson, Lake & Palmer, Yes, Pink Floyd.  The Allman Brothers Band, the Marshall Tucker Band, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Glenn Campbell, Dan Fogelberg, Bruce Springsteen, U-2, Jimmy Buffett, Bob Marley, Al Green, Barry White, Bill Withers, the Bee Gees, Prince, the Ramones; Roberta Flack, Anita Baker, Dusty Springfield, Sonny & Cher.

I'm out of names off the top of my head; I'm sure I missed more than a few that are worthy, but not all that many more deserve to be in the list above.   The point is, when it comes to new pop music there is no place to go.  What new artist (post '90) deserves to be in the above group?  When we're old and senile sitting in the old folks home, what will we play for an encore to the Greatful Dead's "Europe '72", the Beatles "White Album" or Pink Floyd's "Meddle"?  "American Idiot" by Green Day? "From Under the Cork Tree" by Fall Out Boy?  Vomit and boredom.  Better the Archies playing "Sugar, Sugar" or Barry Mannilowe singing "Mandy".

Unfortunately most of the new stuff, at best, sounds like retreads of the old stuff, sometimes mixed and matched in attempt to sound new, but it's easy to spot the attempts at originality as just another mix of the same old sounds. As we Boomer's so haughtily proclaim:  been there, done that.  I try to listen to new music but it's invariably just a weak rehash of something done better by somebody twenty or thirty years ago.  And I don't believe it's the musical talent or the desire to do well.  IMHO, it is just that the genre has done all it can do. It's at the precipice and there is no place to go except off the edge to infinity and beyond. It's finished.  

So the other question is what's the next great genre that will give us true genius of historical proportions?  Hip/hop ain't music and is (for the most part) an icon for the post-Great Society malaise in the permanent ethnic underclass (although thank God it seems to be ending; or maybe I'm just an optimist, but hold that thought).  Most of the good country music has gone back to blue grass, and otherwise has become retreaded pop with a country accent; pitiful.  Jazz isn't on the radar screen for the most part and its glory days are probably in the past (although that's where I've found most of my favorite new music; there's some good pop/jazz out there).  

But the stuff they call "Alternative" is just as bubble-gum as whatever is considered mainstream; I can't discern a difference.  It's all equally uninspired, regardless of the musical aptitude of the players or the high-end production values.  In my day "Alternative" was Juicy Lucy, Wishbone Ash, Spirit, Blue Oyster Cult (at least for their first album) or New Riders of the Purple Sage. Heavy!

I'm not sure there is always a next thing on the horizon when it comes to truly great music; at least not now.  And here is where we keep to the posting rules; I think it's going to take another world cataclysm before we have another musical "Cambrian Explosion".  I think it takes more than capitalistic or even artistic intent and human best effort.  When was the last time in history that we had influences like Lennon/McCartney, Gamble & Huff, Brian Wilson, Keith Richards/Mick Jagger?  Probably not sense Bach, Brahms, Beethoven and Mozart.   It takes genius yes.  But that genius needs to be inspired by unique circumstances in the zeitgeist.  

Not all times are unique in that way.  The 17th century classical giants were writing for the glory of God with the revelation of a new world and gaining artistic and intellectual light after the long dark ages.  Our generation's music was born after a Great Depression bracketed by two hot World Wars and during the Cold War. And this combined with unbelievable technological innovation and modern mass media.  Even though we are still roaring ahead with technology, I'm not sure we're "On he Threshold of a Dream", musically speaking.  

My fear (this is where my optimism may have a blip) is that we may actually be facing another world war.  And if so, it could be the one that ends it all.  That is, I know, not a popular vision.  The Cold War was held in check by MAD.  The Islamofascists could care less about MAD; they would consider it a victory. Let's pray that eventuality isn't what's next.

Nevertheless, it may be a few more centuries (if God grants them) before world events align in such a way that gives rise to human ingenuity generating something truly unique like the music of the mid-twentieth century.  I believe mid-20th century pop is truly classical music that will played for as long as people like music; just like true classical music is played and loved these many centuries later.  Pop/Rock/R&B had a wonderful ride.  But that old dog needs to be put up for something; I know not what.  The feeble attempts since 1990 in pop, rock, and R&B are not the answer.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:19pm on Dec. 24, 2005 Merry Christmas !

By Homunculus

Merry Christmas to one and all!

Amen!

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:20pm on Dec. 22, 2005 Darwinism: Science is not always science

By Homunculus

These comments are possibly going to be unacceptable to the Red State hall monitors, given the explosive nature of my pending example.  IF so, sorry for using this example.  I do believe it is definitive of the same thing that has happened with Darwinism, and as such demonstrates my ultimate point.  

My point is that secularist culture warriors will go to any length to have it their way, and conservatives must be ever vigilant to defend our national character, our Constitutional freedoms and never cease to seek the truth, even if it isn't politically correct.  Millions of aborted babies cry out evidencing my point.  A secular and socialist western Europe decays evidencing the ramifications should we fail.  

If you censor it, so be it.  Just to prepare you, I believe my following story contain elements more insensitive than Leon's aborted baby pictures.  If Red State were my blog, I might censor my following story too, given the complete political incorrectness of it.  I assure you the following story is completely true.  To paraphrase Joe Friday, the names are withheld to protect the innocent.

With all this disclaimer, here goes:

12 years ago I was at a Christmas party in my former culdesac neighborhood in the southeastern city where I used to live.  My next-door neighbor was there.  He was professor-emeritus of psychiatry from a leading Ivy League medical school on a visting professor's program at a major, prestigous university in the South (I'm veiling his identity even though he passed away a year after this encounter; his wife possibly survives him).

Even though we had chatted in our front yards a few times I had never spent significant quality time with him.  But that night we chatted for about 30 minutes on the topic mental illness (my graduate studies majored in psychiatric counseling).  I asked him why a supposedly "scientific" document like the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illness" (DSM) would allow itself to be pressured to change "science" via political interest group pressure.  I assumed the good doctor was of the liberal presuasion given his awesome Ivy League credentials, but as is often the case, I assumed wrong.  He immediately knew what I was referencing by my comment and concurred with my observation.

He said that the DSM was an excellent and scientifically accurate medical reference book, but indeed political pressure had changed one small part of it.  He said that the diagnosis of "Homosexuality" as a referenced diagnosis under the subsection of "Personality and Character Disorders" had been removed from the text due to political pressure, and not because of any finding that this diagnosis had ceased to be the mental disorder it had long been classified. He expounded in detail of the significant psychopathology intrinisic to the disorder.  He also said that the vast majority of psychiatrists understood this, but that the political pressure overwhelmed the clinical judgment.

I told him I found it disturbing that political pressure had been used to take away the potential for treatment of people that were in need of it.  I said something along the line of "what if they removed Cancer from the manual of diseases, and stopped making efforts at affecting a cure?"  He said the ramifications were potentially as dire given the onslaught of AIDS (this was in '93)".

The point of this story is not intended to stir up any controversy on the psychological congruity of sexual preference.  The point is, as Orwell and the Apostle Paul taught, totalitarians will invent ways of deceiving people in order to subjugate them and gain power for themselves.  This includes misrepresenting science that doesn't fit their cultural agenda.  Sometimes, when it is politically inconvenient, science ceases to be science.

When I studied science as an undergraduate in the first half of the '70s my professors were honest in their skepticism of Darwinism.  It was a theory.  It had problems.  It was improbable.  They were not against it and they certainly weren't fundamentalist Christians or Creationsists.  They just thought it wasn't very good science and that it over-reached in what it tried to prove in a very unscienfitic way.

Then in the '90s new technology allowed some leading-edge scientists to demonstrate the enormous complexity that Darwin's theory could not describe.  Michael Behe wrote "Darwin's Black Box" in '96 and at the time it was well received critically and by his scientific peers.  But the anti-religion wing of the left got wind of it, and in realizing the theological implications of Intelligent Design we now have the battle we are facing today.  Now neo-Darwinism is "settled science" and anyone who discounts it is a muddled Creationist.  Just ask DIR.

Before the first modern Intelligent Design insights were made, at least in the major university I attended and minored in chemistry, Darwinism was suspect and not a big deal.  The Creation/science arguments were the first round, but people with science backgrounds (including me) didn't have much problem with it's dismissal.

Intelligent Design, however, is real science.  As in all real science, the first work is to review the literature.  ID does that and in the process neo-Darwinian theory is correctly and convincingly debunked, to the shrill outcry of secular culture-warriors and their minions.  AS I stated earlier, were macro-evolutionary theory culturally neutral, there would have been no uproar, just the standard academic give-and-take similar to when plate techtonic theory radically changed geology in the '60s.  

But Darwinism has been fashioned into one of the many bombs used by secularists in an attempt to blow-up the civilizing institutions of our western world.  Leftist ideology is built on a Trojan Horse of John Lennon's song "Imagine".  Inside that artifice stand it's anti-Christian and anti-conservative foundations of nihilism and tyranny: abortion on demand, same sex marriage, restriction on free speech and religion, peace at any price, taxing of producers to redistribute to non-producers, Big Brother control of everything, from what we can read to what we can drive to where we can do business, to hit the tip of the iceberg.

My late psychiatrist friend was right.  Science is sometimes not science when political or cultural imperatives are at stake.  The culture war in this country is, I believe, more of a threat to peace and freedom than was the Cold War.  At least in the Cold War there was MAD as a modifier.

The attack on Intelligent Design and the deifying of Darwin is one instance of Big Brother in action; another effort at tie-dying the old "establishment" by secular culture warriors intent on having it their way.  I pray the Red Staters will wake-up and not pull that Trojan Horse inside the gates.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (20) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:44am on Dec. 21, 2005 Intelligent Design and Darwinism: Science Will Prevail

By Homunculus

How intelligent people on this site, who so "get it" regarding abortion (see Leon's brilliant story of today) yet are so oblivious to the validity and importance of Intelligent Design, is beyond me.  I guess it ultimately is the wannabe intellectualism of the Krauthammer wing of the red-staters couched in fear of dismissal and ridicule by the omniscient northeastern academic elite.  Yet it is they (the academics) who have a vested interested in evolution as a cultural lever in favor of the secularist agenda. It is the science equivalent to the MSM; untenured young scientists who do not toe the Darwinian line wind up in Siberia.  

Evolutionary theory is culturally left-wing and secular, with dramatic cultural impact.  It is an ultimate catalyzer of abortion and overall license for drugs, sex and rock-n-roll in the godless culture of the secularist ("...and if you can't be, with the one you love, love the one you're with").

After two diaries on the subject of Intelligent Design and Evolution and the rash of nonsense coming even from people who seem intelligent in general on other subjects, I abandoned the idea of trying to teach ID 102 after 101 was flunked by the majority of the class.  But today's court case and the worry of some Red-State mainstays that an eruption on this rarefied site might once again occur on this uncomfortable topic goaded me into one last effort at persuading the cripple and infirmed.  Alas, I know it is futile, but what the heck.  Yet any site with enough gumption and spine to post photos of aborted babies has my eternal respect and support; it can also handle my mild rantings on ID.  Thanks for the cyberspace, guys.

Against my better judgment, let's give one last shot at divining sanity.  Here is reality.

1.  Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory that has been deemed "settled science" by mainstream scientists, and ardently supported by the MSM, not because it is good science but because it carries with it the ultimate reality (if it were really true) that there is no God / Creator.
   
2.  The same Darwinists encourage the rope-a-dope misperception that Darwinism isn't atheistic, even though their most notable advocates (i.e. Richard Dawkins) laugh up their sleeves that anyone would actually buy that nonsense.
   
3.  The Darwinists repeat the mantra "Intelligent Design is thinly disguised Biblical Creationism" over and over; I have every Google news post on ID for over 8 months, and they hit daily with many entries; 90% of the stories are on that topic:  ID is Genesis/Creationism in sheep's clothing.  It is a well orchestrated smear campaign by people who know little about science, neo-Darwinian theory and especially Intelligent Design. Neal Boortz today parroted the same nonsense on his radio show and he knows less about science than I know about his "fair tax" ideas, which is a lot (although I'm inclined to like his tax thinking).

Question:  Where are the Red State truth detectors?  Answer:  Wishing this topic would go away because they don't want to face making a stand that could get them ostracized by the academic elite as stupid Bible-thumpers. (Ground control to Major Tom).

4.  Evolutionists do not want the major problems inherent in their theory taught in public schools, which is the only thing true ID advocates really want at this time (ID science is new and a work in progress).  Darwinian evolutionary theory is junk science that has been propagated because of it's cultural impact (check out a western Europe that has gone (vast) majority atheist/agnostic/secularist since WW II; check out how many millions of abortions of babies in this country since 1973?).  If Evolution were somehow culture-neutral it would have been given-up years ago for the unproven and unprovable pipe dream, "just so" story it is.  If it were a new theory today it would never make it past the metal detectors of the peer review boards.  But it isn't new and it is culturally explosive.  So it is championed by the left, and for some reason some otherwise intelligent conservatives agree, for fear of being labeled Creationist hicks and hayseeds.  

And yet those same conservatives wonder articulately why liberals can't see that aborting a baby is wrong.  It is because the liberals believe in evolution, that there is no God and there is no eternal consequence to having it "their way".  And that is correct.  If there is no God, let's eat, drink, be merry and abort unwanted babies  because after all, it's my life and I'll do what I dang well please (now let's all sing a rousing chorus of "Imagine").

5. Finally, Intelligent Design science is about complexity.  Darwin assumed life was a simple thing, as easy to make as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein monster or as postulated by the defunct theory of Primordial Soup.  Now, with modern scientific methods (including REALLY GOOD microscopes), we see beyond the veil to the details of living structure.  Everyone, even the Darwinists, now agree life is extraordinarily complex.  ID says "we only see this complexity when it comes from intelligent sources, like Mt. Rushmore or a piano or an apple pie".  ID says the odds of this complexity occurring by naturalistic explanations are beyond impossible.  The fascinating thing about ID is that it's not about who the designer is, but that these living structures demonstrate what is otherwise known as "information" which is only the product of intelligence and never by nature. No one could make that statement accurately 50 years ago.  Today it is a case that cannot be refuted.  

And neo-Darwinian evolution has no proof.  It's "gaps" that are downplayed by the elite of academia are not gaps at all, unless you think the Grand Canyon is an ant hill.  The gaps are actually major flaws and inconsistencies, any one of which would immediately disqualify any other culturally-neutral scientific hypothesis.  But Darwinism is the secular King Kong, the 50,000 pound gorilla that gives science nerds standing with liberal politicians and secular trend setters, an unholy alliance if ever there was one.

ID will continue to learn how to become persuasive to more and more people as the years go by.  Evolution will not ever be able to prove itself; the fossil record isn't there and won't be.  In the meantime, as we struggle to end the catastrophe of abortion, remember that what we approve (or acquiesce to) WILL lead to consequences we never want or expect.  Birth control pills (a very good thing) lead to promiscuity in females and the sexual revolution that begat abortion-on-demand.  It was all catalyzed by the agnosticism of the mainline churches in Europe and America driven by the atheism of Darwinism and the philosophy of David Hume and his followers.

Reality is a wonderful thing.  People tend to stray from it for a season.  Then we look back and realize we were wrong.  Our culture is beginning to get it right on abortion; we're going to win that battle some day soon, at least in America (not that it will ever completely stop, but the abortion industry will die and the mass killings will stop).  

Intelligent Design is the leading edge of science facing the antagonism of the old guard, and facing all the fascism inherent in usurping the status quo.  The good news is, if ID is not so, it will go away.  ID is playing in the big leagues, with real scientists that do real science.  But Darwinists are hanging on to an antiquated theory that likely will fall in a decade.  Ultimately I believe in science, and science will prevail.  If it really demonstrates (which I believe it has already) that the complexity of life cannot occur by the means of neo-Darwinism, so be it.  Even if that happens, it won't mean that Genesis is literally true or that God even created the universe.  Remember that Francis Crick believed it was space aliens (Panspermia) that seeded life on earth.  Faith will still be faith, regardless of what science discovers.  

As our culture comes back to reality after a generation of acid-induced (secular) schizophrenia, our science will become more scientific and less driven by cultural machinations.  That will be a good thing, no matter where Intelligent Design and Darwinism land.  No judge's ruling in Pennsylvania in 2005 will make any impact on this fight. It is a fight about science, and in the end, science will prevail.  

Let's hope that regardless of the outcome, we can never give in to the amorality and immorality of the secularists.  Our money says "In God We Trust", and we are "one Nation, under God", not because of science but because of faith in something much bigger than science.  

Our parent's generation has been called the Greatest Generation because they stood against the tyranny of secularist ideologies.  Our Woodstock / Baby Boom generation is the worst generation.  We have given the world millions of dead babies, lost souls and shattered dreams; we have lived John Lennon's (Lenin's) song "Imagine", and while imaging there is no hell created it on earth in the process.  We were cool in the tie-die with our Bob Dylan platitudes. And now that we're grownup we are ridiculously rich.  But so many are lost, and so many continue to shrug like Atlas while Rome burns and babies die.  

Yes, I believe Darwin has a lot to answer for, unless it is true, in which case everything happens via natural necessity and morality is therefore subjective and an optional luxury that will ultimately doom human life on this planet.  One cannot have it both ways; but leave it to the Baby Boomers to demand their cake and eat it too.  The ID / Darwin argument exemplifies the psychosis of our wounded generation.  As an optimist, I believe insight will prevail.  But to paraphrase that great Baby Boomer poet David Crosby, "it's been a long time coming; it's been a long time gone".

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:58pm on Oct. 13, 2005 Whither Bush?

By Homunculus

Let's see.  First there was his election fight in November 2000.  Americans saw the stark dichotomy between Gore and Bush.  By the time that cliff-hanger ended, those of us who voted for him felt enormously vindicated and relieved.  No matter what a horror Gore might have seemed prior to election day, those long days of clenched sphincters, hanging chads and the Florida Supreme Court decisions regarding recounts showed us the metal of the two men.  Gore is an oaf; we see it frequently to this day in his speeches too silly to repeat except as parody.  Bush, by contrast, was Mr. Cool.  He was at peace in Crawford, letting his front guys and Greenberg Traurig fight his battles.

Most of a year later the real horror hit on 9/11. Even life-long Democrats were singing his praises and thanking God that Gore wasn't in office.  No one living could have done it better.  

Since that time he has hung tough on his judicial nominees.  He has fought and eventually won on most of them.  

He has taken the fight to Iraq, a tough decision but the correct one.  Has anyone read Tom Clancy's book "Executive Order"?  Recently there is more vindication of Bush's decision, as we see the plans of Islamofascists moving to make a "United Arab Republic", as Clancy prophesied a decade ago. Say what you will about leaving Saddam in place; at his death (or assassination) the same insurgency would happen. "UAR" might be a reality, even today, without Bush's hard decisions.

Bush has made tough decisions.  Clinton made none, except what room to take Monica next. It's easy to be popular in the wake and glow of the other party's bull economy as a do-nothing bimbo.  When it's only about sex, big approval ratings are a cinch for a celebrity hound wearing briefs, not boxers (what a horrid thought, especially in those "Big Mac attack", pre-heart attack "Fat Willy" days).  

So Bush is an adult.  He is a patriot.  He makes the hard decisions to fight the war the left says should be a police action.  He has the MSM after him on all points.  He is the anti-Clinton; no wet finger in the wind, no changing his position with public opinion; unlike Clinton who was merely breaking wind.

Finally, the first nomination shot for Supreme Court justice comes his way.  And let's face it; he got the smartest guy in America.  Will he be the guy millions of conservatives worked and prayed for so long? Looks pretty good so far, but we won't know for sure for a while.  But Bush looks vindicated at this point with Roberts.  

So now we're at Miers.  The big question is, why do so many fellow travelers insist on having this group gran mal seizure?  Is it because W. is untrustworthy?  So far he has been extraordinarily trustworthy.  More Americans own their own homes than ever in history.  Individual American net worth is ahead of the peak of the NASDAQ bubble due to home appreciation.  Unemployment is nil.  Tax cuts keep coming our way, praise God!  

Of course, Supreme Court nominations are the most important thing Bush will do.  But look at the politics; he is a political man.  

Why doesn't he close the borders to illegal immigration?  Is it because he likes the laws of the country ignored?  Or is it because he sees a bigger picture?  He is working on a permanent conservative majority. Go shut down the borders and see how the Hispanic vote holds up.  I don't like open borders either, but he has a vision and I'm glad he's in charge. It's a political decision.  Be sure he will always make the "compassionate conservative" decision, every time.  

The guy that makes hard decisions will take the arrows every time as well and pay for it with low poll numbers. Goofballs like Clinton rarely make hard decisions, stand for nothing and enjoy high approval ratings and hang out with the Hollywood crowd.  Who do we want, Hollywood or a visionary that will change the country to a conservative majority for the long haul?

So what if he nominated Estrada?  Here comes Schumer and the filibuster, the nuclear option is exercised and we cram down Estrada on the bench, just to get President Hilliary in '08.  Because that is what you get if you blow away the target demographics:  Hispanics and socially conservative / religious African-Americans.  Is Estrada, or any other conservative "sure thing" nominee (if there is such a thing) worth that?  We may be winning the tough battles, but the war is far from over. Like Han Solo told young Luke Skywalker after he made a few early kills of Empire star fighters: "don't get cocky, kid".

Bush has demonstrated wisdom throughout his tenure in office.  He is far from perfect, but who can be in that job?  We have a roaring economy, have gained seats in both houses since he arrived, lowered taxes, freed Afghanistan, captured Saddam and installed a brilliant chief justice for the next three decades.  He has for the most part avoided scandal (assuming Rove dodges this current set-up).  

So now why all the outrage and projectile vomiting regarding his nomination of Miers?  It is all about trust.  Is it not possible that he could actually have that "perfect" stealth candidate?  Of course, if that were the case, we would expect the reaction we're getting from the majority of "vocational conservatives" like those that haunt this blog, tv talking heads, talk radio pundits, etc.

I just do not believe that the President has a "Souter Wish", which is far worse than a death wish.  I cannot imagine the man who has caused serial near-death experiences in Maureen Dowd for years, who makes laughing stocks of George Soros and his comrades, who deflates Air America to the point of insolvency, is now abandoned by his base over such an important nomination.

Of course, the question I keep coming back to is, is this a "rope-a-dope" by the base?  That would have to be a high level conspiracy, because those are real tears I read splashing on the diaries of those "true believers" posting on this site and others.  It probably isn't a rope-a-dope; it most likely is a Rove-a-dope.  

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:22am on Oct. 5, 2005 Holy Spirit on the Bench

By Homunculus

I was just as concerned as many conservatives upon hearing the news of the nomination of Harriet Miers.  Professional political types often talk the talk but then don't walk the walk personally or politically.  

Bill Bennett comes to mind. He is (apparently) a fine man but who's convictions never lead him to the level of "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Mark 10:21b) Bennett's license in his gambling, although courageously repented (apparently), does little to recommend the name of Christ amongst those living in darkness.  His recent follow-up foot-in-mouth disease only exacerbates the problem by proving to religiously conservative African-Americans that crazy liberalism (which systemically destroys their kids and culture) is more trustworthy than are hypocritical Republicans.  Bennett's problems are a sign of spiritual immaturity, and friendship with the world.  He is still one of us, but he needs more Jesus in his life.  His mis-steps are causing the weak to stumble.

The Conservative Movement has some problematic foundations; those founded in atheism as esousped by Ayn Rand and others.   This branch of the movement continues working full force, well cloaked under the radar for the rank and file Red Stater.  It can yield leaders that run widely afield from the heart of light moving Christian voters to give Republicans their thin majorities nationwide.  Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor come immediately to mind.  Ingore their words and look at their lives.  Hanging out with the DC swing scene is a first good indicator of a moderate tacking toward the left.  Opinions upholding the infanticide of Roe v. Wade demonstrate the moderation that kills.

The good news about Miss Miers is what we have learned in the last 24 hours about her heart condition. In life there exists only two "fundamental" realities; spiritually dead hearts and those that are made alive by the miraculous indwelling of the Spirit of Jesus.  If that is not true, toss the Bible, let's all become liberals (albeit RICH liberals) and "eat, drink and be merry".  

But the good news about this duality is the tangible difference between a "sold-out Christian" and a sold-out conservative. The Christ dwelling in a believer is demonstrated by their life-walk: no profanity, quiet, scarificial giving of time and resources, a temperate lifestyle.  People who live this way are not boring old monks and nuns who sit around doing nothing.  They are vibrantly alive, living life to the full for the the glory of God alone.  And they live this way, not because of any artifice, but because they have no other choice.  The God of Everything has powerfully revealed Himself to that individual and has invaded that person's heart forever, giving them the "blessed assurance" of His love, joy, peace and patience (to name a few of His "fruits").

On the other hand, a merely "political" conservative may sell-out his principles for any number of reasons, but primarily for self-interest.  They are undependable and hurt the movement. We see so many of those on "our side".

There are many Christians who have had the defining "born again" experience only to quench the spirit with equivocation and making friends with the world.  The rich young ruler who Jesus overwhelmed (Mark 10, esp v 26-29) was probably a believer, though no disciple.  The disciple is the one who daily "picks up his cross and follows Jesus, where ever He leads".  

Miss Miers' lifestyle indicates that she has indeed picked up her cross and follows her King every day.  She looks like a disciple.  If this indeed is the case, we can be sure it will be another seat for the Holy Spirit on the SCOTUS.  Remember that for those who have been saved, Christ and living to bring Him glory is the only priority.  This is the foundaitonal reality, and one the lost world laughs at and does not understand.  As the apostle Paul said to those moderate red-staters in Corinth:

1:18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:

   "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;

      the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."[c]

    20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1:18-25, NIV)

Justice Miers, assuming her heart is where it clearly appears, will sit on the bench with foolishness that is wiser than man's wisdom.  Whether the other side figures this out, who knows? They are blinded by the dark and spiritually dead.  But be sure they recoil in horror of the light, as do many who claim to be "on our side".

Our side can wail about judicial experience and qualification.  If Harriet Miers is truly the person she is reported to be, she is a best case scenario.  Only someone close to her could really know this for sure, and that person would have to possess the same Holy Spirit ruling his heart and life.  Someone like the POTUS.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:23pm on Sep. 15, 2005 Intelligent Design, Reason, Magic and Gay Marriage

By Homunculus

A serious computer problem along with intensified work and family responsibilities have kept me from completing my next post on Intelligent Design versus Darwinism.  I'm sure Thomas and dissention in the ranks are thankful. Unfortunately for them, it may be ready by next week.

I just finished reading an articulate essay by Fred Hutchison from RenewAmerica.  He makes some insightful comments regarding foundational necessities for civilization, using the concept of Intelligent Design as a foil for reason versus magic and otherwise unguided naturalism.  He even argues coherently against that long-held Darwinian proof of macro-evolution of "Because I Said So", or "BISS epistemology" (I knew I couldn't have made that up all by myself).

I hope one and all, weary of Katrina and laughed out from the antics of Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein et al on the Hill, may find diversion in reading Hutchison's fascinating and on-the-money analysis.  It's right here [http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050915hutchison.htm]

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:25pm on Sep. 4, 2005 Foundations Matter: Intelligent Design's first problem with Darwinism

By Homunculus

For many years public schools and great universities have been teaching a system of thinking that purports to answer the questions regarding the genesis and evolution of life on earth.  Until recently, that teaching was accepted by the rank-and-file parents of students as "just what they teach these days", without much firm understanding of the underpinnings of the theories taught. In my earlier post I attempted to give layman-like definitions so that typical parents could understand what all the shouting was about regarding the relatively new public controversy between "Darwinism" and Intelligent Design theory.  

Now what most parents know about Darwinism begins and ends with the notion that humans evolved from monkeys.  A few are familiar with the idea that our even more distant relatives were pond scum.  We also have a larger than expected cadre of young, black-clad, militant-looking students of evolution (often with prominant multiple piercings, scary jailhouse tats, and even scarier "Kucinich for President" bumper stickers) who drive their vehicles adorned with mockeries of Christian "sign of the fish" symbols with "evolved feet" attached and the name "DARWIN" emblazoned on the fish's eppanage. One wonders how many parents are pleased with this counter-culture outcome of their kids embrace of Darwinistic atheism resulting from their public science eduation. Personally knowing both the parents and kids of this calamity, I can attest to the decline in moral values of teenagers associated with the embrace of nihilistic atheism.

Twentieth century British atheist Bertrand Russell wrote extensively about how science had presented humanity with a world view that was "purposeless" and "void of meaning" in his book "Why I Am Not a Christian" (1957).  Russell ominously states:

"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspriation, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction...that the whole temple of man's achievement must inevitably be buried--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.  Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding espair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built".

Such is the zero-sum existence of life as postulated by neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.  Darwinism makes as a first priority atheistic principles of metaphysics rather than the pure empricism of pure science.  As such, we find a theory of macro-evolution that is flawed from its foundations.  At the same time, proponents of evolution dismiss Intelligent Design theory as not only "not science" (based on their own biased definition of terms) but as religion.  One pundit dismissed ID as "Creationism in a cheap tuxedo".  Yet it is ID, not Darwinism, that "follows where the evidence leads", without biased premises designed to yield the results the practitioners desire.

Nothwithstanding the long line of world-class biochemists, genius physicists and far-seeing mathematicians that haunt this blog, most folks know little in the way of facts about this debate. A majority of the editorial postings found on the internet and in MSM newspaper opinion carefully adhere to the academic zeitgeist of macro-evolution as settled science. The intention is to shout-down dissenting opinion as unstudied, ignorant and too ridiculous for comment. Unfortunately for the Darwinists, the cat is already out of the bag.  To paraphrase Lincoln:  "you can fool some of the school boards some of the time, but you can't fool them all all the time".  Never underestimate the "duh" factor when trying to foist nonsense on the general public; someone will eventually call you on it.  

My college experiences from early to late 70s included a focus in science. In recent years I have changed my mind from a general acquiescence to the neo-Darwinian teachings of my college science professors (many of whom were nonplussed regarding the veracity of neo-Darwinian theory).  I have been convinced through my current study to believe that Intelligent Design theory has demonstrated a probable knock-out punch to the primary tenets of macro-evolutionary theory, as defined in my last diary.

Intelligent Design (ID) makes its first frontier the controversy regarding the problems with Darwinism.  These are serious problems, many of which would be significant enough to bring down a less ideologically appealing (in certain quarters) scientific theory. (These serious problems are glossed over nonchalantly as mere "gaps" in the theory by Darwinists).  Remember that we use this term (Darwinism) generically to refer to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories that emphasize macro-evolution by way of atheistic premises of "naturalism".   Today's neo-Darwinists attempt to fix the definition of terms under their self-proclaimed axiom of "methodological materialism"(MM). But regardless of the terminology, it all rolls back to Darwin's first premise.

Darwin was first and foremost a naturalist.  His premise involved a rejection of any kind of what he considered "supernatural intervention" of God or any intelligent agent and focusing on only "natural" systems.  Prior to Einstein's discovery of the principles of General Relativity in 1916 most naturalists, including Einstein, believed the universe was static and eternal; naturalists believed the universe had always existed, without a beginning or end.  

Einstein's theory of General Relativity was something of an enigma for Einstein and his fellow travelers in naturalism.  General Relativity seemed to be saying that the universe may not be static, but expanding at great speed.  Ten years or so later, Edwin Hubble noted the "Red Shift" of galaxies, indicating that not only was there more than one galaxy in the universe, but that the galaxies were moving away from one another as Einstein had predicted.  Much later the telescope named after Hubble gave demonstration that the universe was not only expanding, but the expansion was accelerating and not going to slow down. This discovery doomed "oscillating" universe models that were considered accurate by Carl Sagan and other recent scholars and as more "atheism friendly".  This Hubble telescope discovery came shortly after Sagans death.

Einstein's enigma was that this universal expansion, when run in reverse, indictated that the universe was apparently (to use a layman's term) "exploding" from an infinitesimal original bit of something called by scientists the "singularity".  Prior to the singularity, there was absolute nothingness; no space, no time, no light, no dark, no energy, no matter, no vacuum fluctuations, no interaction amongst anything, no strings attached; nothing but mind defying absolute nothingness.  It appeared to Einstein (and to all but the radical fringe of scientists today) that the universe had a distinct beginning (now estimated at about 13.7 billion years ago).  

This concept of a non-eternal universe, one which seemed to start from "absolutely nothing", caused Einstein and many of his colleagues to become convinced of the necessity of a creating entity of some sort; a (for lack of a better term) designer had to do it.  Einstein discribed his agnst regarding this finding in his authorized biography "Albert Einstein: Scientist / Philosopher" (1949).  It resulted in a change of his view as an atheistic naturalist to a Deist; he became a person believing in a designing entity that was essentially axiomatic given the inevitability of a Big Bang causing the advent of the universe.

Today the Big Bang theory is accepted almost univerally among scientists.  Biblical Creationists, who believe in a young earth and premise their theories via an inerrant reading of the book of Genesis, dispute the Big Bang theory. And there are naturalists too who are fighting tooth and nail to disporve Big Bang, given its theological implications.  Intelliegent design theory makes no appeal to theism or atheism, but merely to "following where the evidence leads".

Stepehn Hawking, the great genius and atheist cosmologist, has worked tirelessly dispite his physical disability (ALS) on what he calls his "theory of everything", which he hopes will undo the Big Bang and its necessity for either a god or a magician.  But every attempt by Hawking has yielded a singularity in every model, unless he uses "imaginary numbers".  The bottom cosmological line to that attempt is, when the imaginary numbers are replaced with real numbers, the ubiquitous signularity rears its ugly head.  For the layman, Hawking's efforts are the scientific counterpart to taking a tenderfoot on a snipe hunt using an imaginary bag and an imaginary pack of dogs.

Big Bang cosmology has proven to be the Big Problem for naturalism. Neo-Darwinian evolutionists consider science by definition to only include matter, energy and the way they interact (MM).  To them that is what naturalism means.  And yet the Big Bang theory, which is a much stronger and emperically demonstrable theory as contrasted with macro-evolution, demonstrates that "naturalism" may by default include other factors than simply interaction between matter and energy. In other words, the universe's existence and its nature require laws and rules that cannot be achieved by MM.

Which gets us to the bottom line regarding the atheistic foundations of neo-Darwinian theory.  Darwinists make clearly atheistic claims, although some of the more clever (or confused) Darwinists today consider their theory to not exclude the possibility of an intelligent designer. Well, at least they say they believe in evolution and God, but then they say they don't believe in Intelligent Design, so go figure.  

This is disingenuous hyperbole; outspoken British zoologist and atheistic evolution gospelizer Richard Dawkins said "...naturalistic scientific discoveries" "...made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

But since the days of Darwin, and the prevalent belief in the eternal, static universe, atheism has permeated, impaired and defiled the claimed objectivity of evolutionary methodology. The result is a flawed, non-emperical scientific method based on the foundation of "Because I Said So" (BISS epistemology).

We find BISS epistemology lurking as the foundation of methological materialism.  The Darwinists say that science may only consider matter, energy and their interaction (MM).  Yet Big Bang cosmology (and there are many other examples) demonstrate that something besides those variables cannot emperically be ruled out. Darwinists are guilty of "begging the question", claiming MM as the absolute foundation, yet with no proof for this as legitimate besides "because I said so" (BISS).

In my previous diary I pointed out that Darwinism will allow any theory except intelligence as worthy of consideration in an attempt to vacate the necessity for design in life.  This concept, Anything But Design (ABD), can be seen in the multitude of mistaken and downright fraudulent theories that Darwinism has embraced over the last 100 plus years.

So we actually can discern the actual operating premise of the flawed foundations of Darwinism.  It goes something like this:  "Methodological Materialism Yields Science (why?) Because I Said So; Therefore Methodological Materialism approves Anything But Design (why?) Because I Said So.  

As a result of this founding premise we therefore see volumes of "peer reviewed" hypotheses involving hundreds of scientists that strongly support the premises of macro-evolution as "settled science", based on terms of engagement that are metephysical at best and a stacked deck at worst.  This is similar to the relatively recent elimination of theories involving statsis of the world's continents in favor of the relatively new theory of "plate techtonics".  Prior to the discovery of plate techtonics in the 1960s, scientists were writing volumes of peer reviewed articles on theories that became "flat earth" after the new theory was verified.  This is what is evolving in the world of evolutionary biology with the advent of the hypotheses of irreducible complexity by Behe and complexity arguments by Dembski, to name just two.  As evolutionist attack these new options, it should be remembered that whatever peer reviewed argument they may use it is potentially contaminated due to neo-Darwinism's flawed foundations.

This eventuality may not necessarily negate validity of some of the premises of evolutionary theory.  But given the non-scientific (epistemological and metaphysical) premises upon which such theory is precariously perched, how does one discern the wheat from the chaff (without invoking "BISS")?

It is noteworthy that this is the same argument used by many religious people both past and present:  "God made man in his own image because I said so" (or better yet, because "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it").  Now this is clearly an argument of faith, not of science, and is to be greatly admired in the faithful assuming terrorist activity, brainwashing or other fascist activity isn't instituted by the faithful. But this is clearly not science.  Similarly, saying "methodological materialism is the only way to determine how Nature made man in its own image, Because I Said So" (or "Dawkins said it, I believe it, and that settles it"), is also clearly an argument from faith, and clearly not science.  Most disturbing, the public schools are being used to indoctrinate the unsuspecting  public school students, parents and teachers, and quashing public debate via bile and vitriol in the process.

In conclusion it is obvious that the foundational underpinnings of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory are at best wobbly. Rather than an evolutionary theory based on emperical evidence, the guardians of the theory demand a limited playing field to define science in a way that science has demonstrated to be not tenable.  Injecting metaphysics into the mix, as do the neo-Darwinists, yields a theory dependant on a prior commitment to atheism, which is philosophically unprovable and scientically manipulative.  To quote Intelligent Design theorist William Dembski:  "To make methodological materialism a defining feature of science commits the premodern sin of forcing nature into a priori categories rather than allowing nature to speak for itself". Only when science rigorously "follows where the evidence leads", without putting limits on acceptable evidence, can truth be found.

Darwinism has a large corporate constituency; it considers itself "settled science" and does not like answering attacks and denies any controversy regarding the theory's viability.  Yet rather than subject itself to unbiased peer review, it has formulated the rules of the game to exclude the peers that might review them in a negative way.  And since it is an old theory with tenure and seniority, it can bully, bluster and enforce to maintian its standing.  Scientists with doubts about neo-Darwinian dogma are blackballed by the old guard.  These examples keep the rank-and-file in line, forcing the pledges to endure the hazing and tow the MM party line in order to stay in the fraternity.

There is a longer line of problems with Darwinism that I plan to discuss going forward.  But this foundational problem alone of injecting metaphysics into the emperical world of science  compromises neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory as a serious method for giving a description of the origin of the species.  The educational system in the United States has enough problems without teaching students disputed theories, such as macro-evolution, as though they were settled science.  

And as we will see going forward, Intelligent Design's criticism of neo-Darwinian theory doesn't stop at the philosophical roots.  Inexplicable examples of fraudulent studies purporting to support macro-evolution have been injected, and continue to appear, in high school textbooks nationwide.  We will look at some examples of those next time.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (132) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:40am on Sep. 1, 2005 Debate: Intelligent Design and Darwinism - Definition of Terms

By Homunculus

Most people do not understand the meaning of the terms being bandied about recently regarding "Evolution" or "Darwinism" and "Intelligent Design".  For a proper understanding of the heated debate, a definition of terms is in order.

Darwinism is actually an archaic term that is used generically to refer to the concept of "macro-evolution". Macro-evolution is Darwin's theory that random mutations over billions of years and survival of the fittest can account for the diversity and complexity of life on earth.  This concept can also be generally called "naturalistic evolution".

Darwinists believe that during Earth's infancy, from a mix of water-born chemicals, weather and atmospheric conditions, known as Primordial Soup, sprang the first primitive living organism.  From this first life form all living things evolved, including human beings.  The skeptical saying goes "from primitive goo to me and you by way of the zoo".  Darwinism postulates evolution from lower life forms to higher life forms, including human beings.

Since the time of Darwin, much of his macro-evolutionary theory has been whittled away by the revelations of more sophisticated scientific methods.  Darwin's more modern followers have "evolved" the theory of Darwinism to fit what they believe is a defensible position.  The correct nomenclature for this modern iteration of Darwinism is "neo-Darwinism".  In essence, this continues to be the theory of macro-evolution by the mechanism of micro-evolution.

A critical concept to grasp is that while neo-Darwinian theory is widely disputed, micro-evolution is essentially settled science.  Micro-evolution is the process whereby small changes occur within species that may result in adaptive differentiation within species.  An example is the mating of an English Cocker Spaniel and a French Poodle; the result is the popular mixed breed, the American Cockapoo. It should be noted that even conservative Biblical Creationists acknowlege that micro-evolution is settled science.  

For sake of brevity, we will use the terms Darwinism, neo-Darwinian theory and macro-evolution interchangably.  This is where the controversy resides, given the almost universal agreement on micro-evolution.

It is worth noting that some ardent Darwinists will sometimes state vociferously that evolution is "settled science", like gravity is settled science.  If they are referring to micro-evolution, they are correct.  However, there is ambiguity in the terminology.  Macro-evolution (or neo-Darwinian theory) is far from settled science.

Intelligent Design (ID) has its own issues of nomenclature.  Critics claim there is no theory or even scientific hypothesis of Intelligent Design. This is not the case.  Intelligent Design works by way of established good science. ID scientists work from emperical scientific method, as do most biologists, physicists, chemists, etc.  

But Intelligent Design, like Darwinism, can be understood as a "movement".  As such, ID can be understood by way of two primary positions.  

First, ID has done a thorough review of Darwinian evolutionary theory.  Darwinisms beginnings start from the thoughts of naturalist philosophers like David Hume, from the 18th century.  Darwin wrote "Origin of the Species" in 1859. ID propents believe there are numerous foundational problems with Darwinism. This first position of ID is to "teach the controversy" between comtemporary science and neo-Darwinian hypotheses.

Second, Intelligent Design uses multiple scientific studies to demonstrate that origins of the universe, life on earth as well as complexity in living organisms is not explainable by way of naturalistic, or Darwinian hypotheses.  ID uses the scientific genres of biology, chemistry, physics, geology, archaeology, cosmology, among others to demonstrate that Darwinism falls critically short of its goals.  Further, ID says that the complexity observed via emperical scientific observation and experiment yields life structures and processes that observationally look like non-living structures that are only a function of intelligent design.

Intelligent Design does not make claims regarding who or what the intelligent designer might be.  ID, like neo-Darwinian theory, is an observational field of study.  It looks and makes statements.  Neither Darwinism nor Intelligent Design contribute much to experimental biology; they are both focused on telling the history of the universe and life on earth.  

It is interesting to note that both Darwinians and ID proponents have philosophical underpinnings.  But contrary to the conventional wisdom, Intelligent Design has less inference to religion than Darwinism.

Philosophically, Darwinism points to an atheistic world view; often called naturalistic atheism.  As such, there is one overriding philosophical premise in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.  It can be summed up with the phrase "Anything But Design".  This means essentially that any naturalistic process is possible to potentially explain the history of life on earth.  The only possible causes that are rejected by Darwinists are those involving the potential for Intelligent Design, or "Anything But Design" (ABD).

ID, on the other hand, begins from a different position.  Intelligent Design relies on "emperical scientific method" to determine the origins of the universe, life on earth and life's incredible diversity and complexity.  Contrary to the outcry of critics, ID makes no comment regarding either atheism or theism.  Intelligent Design has no connection with the Biblical Creationism movement, which typically calls for a "young earth" (10,000 or so years old) and a strict interpretation of life on earth by way of the book of Genesis.  

The specific scientific findings Intelligent Design has made state that structures and processes of living organisms compare to inorganic structures and process that are most certainly designed by an intelligent method or agent.  ID analyzes living systems via standard scientific methodology and forms conclusions based on the emperical evidence, without any prior commitment to either atheism or theism.  The origin or identity of the designer that is strongly inferred is not of interest to Intelligent Design.  ID merely states and delineates the emperical presence of design in living organisms.

Darwinism has a long history and paper trail. Intelligent Design is a more recent field of study, dating to the late 1980s. But ID has offered up some compelling work that merits even-handed consideration.  For the debate on the relative merits of the opposing movements, a clear understanding of what each movement believes is critical.  

I look forward to outlining the case for Intelligent Design going forward.  This will include a careful evaluation of the shortcomings of Darwinism, including examples of scientific and educational fraud.  Given the ongoing barrage of emotional outcry from lay-Darwinists claiming Intelligent Design is religion, I feel it is important to clear the air of that misidentification. Finally, I will outline the  compelling scientific observations demonstrated by way of the science of Intelligent Design.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (209) / Email this page » / Read More »