Content by Homunculus
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!
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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".