Another Mass Murderer is Dead

The Serbian Saddam has died. There's a brief sketch of Slobodan Milosevic and what made him infamous here. A more detailed picture can be found by going here and following the links.

Milosevic, Saddam, and their ilk in Rwanda were the last of the twentieth century's mass murderers. As long as the civilized world has the power to stop such men it is a moral disgrace to refuse to do so. This is why "Bush's war" in Iraq was the right thing to do even were there no reason to believe that Saddam had WMD. It was as right for the U.S. to unseat Saddam as it was to stop Milosevic, as it was right for the U.S. to enter the war in Europe against the Nazis.

To stand by and let mass murder take place when one has the power to stop it is to be either complicit in the crime of genocide or to be craven in the face of it. In either case, it is a shameful stain on a nation's honor.

Yet much of the left is outraged that the United States employs military might against tyrants around the world when other measures fail. It's not that they object to force itself, mind, because throughout the twentieth century they never uttered a peep when the Soviets used it to keep their satellites in line. Rather they recoil from American use of force because they loathe this country and its values and do not wish to see either its power or its honor increase vis a vis the rest of the world.

A strong, dynamic and just U.S. is a reproach on all they believe and all they have given their life to convince others of. It's a reproach that they cannot bear, and it's one reason why they are not dismayed by American setbacks or when Americans betray their own principles, as at Abu Ghraib. Rather many on the left revel in these meager confirmations of their basest suspicions. It's really quite pathetic.

Look at Life From Both Sides Now

Academics and media types often give the impression that those who would like some mention of alternatives to evolution taught in their high schools are backwater rubes so far out of the cultural mainstream as to be flopping like beached fish on the riverbank.

A recent Zogby poll, however, gives us some insight into the question of who it is, exactly, who's floundering on the fringes of the "mainstream":

In response to a question as to whether biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it, 69% of respondents said yes.

If asked whether biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it, only 21% said yes.

By more than three to one, according to Zogby, voters say that biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it. Approximately seven in ten (69%) side with this view. In contrast, one in five (21%) feels that Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. One in ten is not sure.

When asked whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statement: "When Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life" the pollsters got this result:

Strongly agree 51%

Somewhat agree 26%

Somewhat disagree 6%

Strongly disagree 13%

Not sure 4%

In other words, three-fourths of respondents (77%) agree that when Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life. Furthermore, a majority (51%) agrees strongly. In comparison, one in five (19%) disagrees with the statement.

Four generations of indoctrination have not persuaded the vast majority of Americans that only one side of this issue should be presented in the classroom. This is one reason why this issue is not going to go away.

The elites who know what's best for us are alternately bemused, frustrated, and outraged that the masses seem unwilling to accept their word for it that materialist explanations for life are perfectly adequate and true. In their simple-minded way the common, unenlightened folk appear to think that if something looks designed that, heck, it just might be.

Wonder Why

The Chicago Tribune informs us that enrollment in Christian Colleges is on the rise:

Evangelical Christian colleges are attracting record numbers of applications this year in a trend that bodes well for an educational niche that was struggling to survive just a generation ago.

Applications have jumped between 8 percent and 10 percent at the 238 colleges that belong to the North American Association of Christian Admissions Professionals," Religion News Service reports. "More applications mean more students on campuses next fall ... and that's good news since 25 percent of those schools are barely breaking even financially. ... Enrollment has increased 70 percent since 1990, from 135,000 to 230,000, at the 102 evangelical schools belonging to the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities.

Parents are evidently awakening to the fact that one of the best moves they can make for the spiritual, moral, intellectual and political health of their child is to enroll him or her in a school that offers an overtly Christian environment. Many students are themselves arriving at the same conclusion.

Secular universities have, in many cases, become joyless, sterile places where the only relief from the stifling bleakness of the materialistic, anomic, politically correct atmosphere is the weekend party binge. That's scarcely the sort of ambience one is eager to fork over $30,000 a year to have his child immersed in.

The Mathematical Genius

Charles Edward White explains why three special numbers give powerful testimony to the existence of a mathematical genius behind the structure of the universe. The article will be of special interest to those with an interest in mathematics, but anyone who has had high school academic math courses and/or physics should be able to comprehend White's discussion.

By the way, it may be that White omitted from his essay the most impressive mathematical indicator of design, the Fibonacci sequence. You can read here why this particular series of numbers is so astounding.