The Plot Thickens

Matt Drudge has the inside scoop which shows that Florida congressman Mark Foley was apparently played for a fool by a bunch of young guys who were out for laughs. Somehow, the prank went awry and the instant messages wound up in the hands of some people sympathetic to the Democrats.

Not worried, apparently, that a sexual predator might be preying on young men under his charge, whoever had the IMs decided to sit on them until they could be used for political gain.

It's hard to tell who in this sordid tale is sleaziest: The pederastic Mr. Foley, the young men who egged him on, or the people who held onto the instant message exchanges until they could be used to destroy not just Foley, who deserves it, but also any other Republicans they could tarnish.

We say it's a tie between #1 and #3.

Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker believes this is going to have painful ramifications for Democrats:

Present state of play-the Dems and CREW* are implicated; ABC's Brian Ross has his own Rathergate, the FBI and Ethics Committee are going to find out which Dems were involved and CREW will probably lose their tax exempt status. The Dems have shown themselves to be perfectly willing to use homophobia to win when they have no saleable platform or issues; the Republican base is charged up and once again Soros turned his gold into Dem dross.

Foley will become a living example of the Dems' willingness to smear a homosexual for gain and will write a book, go on Oprah and make a mint. He will be this year's wronged victim. Mark my words: A fit ending to a sordid smear.

Patrick Godfrey puts it all together in this fine summation titled The Worst October Surprise, Ever. That is, it's the worst surprise for the Democrats, ever.

*CREW is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The claim to be non-partisan which gives them tax-exemption, but if they're implicated in this fiasco their tax exempt status could be in jeopardy.

Senate Races

The Democrats need to gain six seats to take over the senate in November. Real Clear Politics has them picking up five. The averages of the major polls on the senate races can be viewed here.

Even if the Democrats don't gain control of the senate an increase of five seats would be very worrisome for the Bush agenda. Throw in the half dozen or so liberal Republicans and the Democrats could have enough votes to block a Supreme Court, or federal judgeship nomination, or almost any piece of legislation that Bush tries to get passed.

For those who are hoping that Bush gets to make another nomination to the Supreme Court the possibility of a 50-50 senate is not comforting.

Peace on Earth

Well, it's the holy month of Ramadan and Muslims are presumably greeting each other with wishes of peace on earth and good will toward men. Or not. It turns out that on the Muslim feast of Ramadan the celebrations turn, at least in some Muslim precincts, toward ratcheting up the pace at which the brethren in Allah blow each other to bits. Ethel Fenig has the cheerful details at The American Thinker.

For example:

....a gunbattle erupted at Gaza City's main hospital when relatives of one of Sunday's victims arrived to retrieve his body. Fatah gunmen accompanying them opened fire on Hamas militiamen patrolling the hospital. No one was hurt, hospital officials said.

In the northern West Bank city of Nablus, Fatah militants shot at Deputy Prime Minister Nasser Shaer's bodyguards as they rode in a government car, injuring two of them, said Shaer, who was not present during the attack. Hospital officials said a Fatah militant was also injured.

In Jericho, a Fatah gunman trying to enforce the general strike shot a shop owner in the head, seriously wounding him, Fatah officials said. The wounded man was also a Fatah member, the officials said.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a Fatah-linked militant group, also circulated a flier threatening to execute Interior Minister Said Siyam, Syria-based Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal and Youssef Zahar, the head of the Hamas militia.

See how they love one another. Fenig wonders "If all this violence occurs during a holiday period what will happen when the festive month is over?"

Let's all join in singing a couple of verses of Silent Night.

Toronto ID Conference

Denyse O'Leary reports on her experience at an academic conference in Toronto on the ID/Darwinsm controversy. Her report comes in three brief but interesting parts at Uncommon Descent and should be read in this order: Part I, Part II, and, perhaps the most interesting for those who follow the debate, Part III.

Disturbing Fact

According to a NewsMax article:

It is not a widely disseminated, downloaded or discussed fact that the average life expectancy for all pro football players, including all positions and backgrounds, is 55 years. Several insurance carriers say it is 51 years.

The article talks about the injuries associated with football, and suggests that these play a role in the early demise of retired players, but I doubt it. The article never comes out and states flatly what the causes of these deaths are so here's my guess: Most of the early deaths are caused by accidents, homicide, or drug and/or alcohol-related problems. Among those who die from natural causes, however, I suspect the leading killer is heart disease brought on by steroid use and excessive weight.

Despite the tacit message of the article which was that retired players are dying from the cumulative effects of injuries they suffered while playing, I doubt that many of them actually do. It would be interesting, though, to see a study done on the cause of death of retired NFL players and to see a comparison of the causes of death by position. My guess is that offensive linemen and defensive tackles, the behemoths of pro football, have the shortest life expectancies among those who die from natural causes.

Miscellaneous Thoughts on the Foley Furor

A few further thoughts on the Mark Foley Follies:

1) Despite the MSM's asseverations to the contrary, Mark Foley is not a pedophile. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Foley was attracted to sixteen and seventeen year old boys.* The correct label for his type of sexual perversion is pederasty - sexual relations between an adult male and a boy.

2) The mention of perversion reminds us that Foley has been called a pervert by observers on both the Left and the Right, but this is a dangerous tactic for those on the Left who are otherwise engaged in the project to morally legitimize homosexual conduct. An adult heterosexual would not necessarily be considered a pervert if the adult found a seventeen year old of the opposite sex physically attractive. To call Foley a pervert is to strongly suggest that his perversion is not his attraction to the much younger individual but rather his attraction to, and sexual explicit conversations with, another male. This is tantamount to calling homosexuality a perversion, and that's a judgment that the liberal-Left, at least, has been fighting against for four decades.

3) The exchanges between Foley and the pages were not merely sexually "suggestive" as one news reader on the radio put it this morning. They were as explicit and revolting as they could be without involving violence.

4) Foley, in an attempt to achieve the victimhood trifecta, has announced that he's gay, alcoholic, and was abused by a priest when he was a boy. I suppose this is intended to make us feel sorry for him, but it's an odd threesome given today's PC orthodoxies. Alcoholism is a disease and sexual abuse is a crime so how does being gay fit in with these? Is it a disease? Is it a crime? Why does Foley think his sexual orientation is relevant to this situation? Does being gay explain why he has had internet sex with an adolescent? Does Mr. Foley believe that being gay makes his being a sexual predator more understandable and forgiveable?

5) The Democrats are anxious to use this episode to impugn the Republican Congressional leadership which, they happily allege, was much too slow to take action against Foley. Yet William Jefferson, the Louisianna congressman who had $90,000 of bribe money stashed in his office refrigerator, is still in congress. The Democrats have done nothing to purge him. Gerry Studds, a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, was sexually involved with a 17 year old male page in 1973. He was censured by the House in 1983 but was unrepentant, refused to resign, and was re-elected by his strongly liberal district five more times. His Democratic colleagues in the House gave him a standing ovation when he gave a speech saying that what he does in a mutually consensual relationship is nobody else's business even if his paramour was only seventeen.

Bill Clinton, despite his forceful denials, had sexual congress with Monica Lewinsky, who was a subordinate, of course, and the Democrats vigorously defended him. Clinton had "phone sex" with Monica Lewinsky at least fifteen times, and the pervert, the man whom Democrats called upon to resign, was special prosector Ken Starr for publishing the details. Clinton was also accused of rape (Juanita Broderick) and sexual harrassment (Paula Jones), but the Democrats rallied to his defense to beat back the allegations and tarnish the reputations of the women who made them.

At the end of his presidency, Clinton pardoned a number of ne'er do wells from prison, among whom was Mel Reynolds, a former Democratic congressman. In August of 1994, Reynolds was indicted for having sex with a sixteen year old campaign volunteer, yet his party allowed him to continue running for re-election. In November of 1994 he was reelected by Democratic voters. Reynolds initially denied what he claimed were racially motivated charges of sexual misconduct. On August 22, 1995 he was convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1, 1995.

Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison, but in April of 1997 he was convicted on fifteen counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. As a result, he was sentenced to an additional six and a half years. After serving 42 months of his 78 month sentence President Clinton commuted his sentence, yet there were no loud protestations from Democrats upset about the message this commutation of a sexual predator sent about the seriousness of Reynold's offenses.

So, when liberals wax indignant over Mr. Foley's contemptible behavior, their fury seems totally inconsistent with their past record in similar situations. It sounds contrived and insincere.

Mr. Foley's only real transgression, in the eyes of a lot of people on the Left, is not the age of the boy, nor his gender, nor his subordinate status, nor that the boy and Mr. Foley were conducting a salacious and disgusting dialogue over the internet. They've been just fine with each of those sorts of things in the past. For many on the Left Foley's real crime, the offense for which he and the House leadership must be made to pay, is that he was a Republican.

* UPDATE: Drudge tells us that the page with whom Mark Foley carried out his infamous IM exchange was 18 or barely shy of it at the time.

Biological Measures and CounterMeasures

In an article titled Biological Design Research: The Bat's Intercept and the Moth's ECM, Cornelius Hunter tells us this:

Military aircraft under enemy missile attack may use a variety of strategies to escape. There is, of course, the strategy of executing an evasive maneuver to avoid or disrupt the incoming missile. The aircraft may also use a variety of electronic signals to jam or fool the missile's sensor and tracking computer. These electronic strategies fall under the general category known as electronic counter measures (ECMs). As usual biology has its own incredible, organic, version of such technology. In the case of the bat and moth encounter, it is being elucidated by some excellent research.

Many bat species have a phenomenal biosonar, or echolocation, capability used to track insects. As they fly they may emit hundreds of ultrasonic squeaks per second. The squeaks are frequency-modulated and at frequencies in the hundreds of kilo Hertz. During the pursuit the bat shortens its squeaks and increases the transmission rate as it closes on the prey. In the terminal stage the bat rapidly adjusts its trajectory and posture to capture the insect. The return echoes are passed through a range-compensated automatic gain control to reduce signal strength variations during closure. The result is a tracking capability that is several times more accurate than our best military equipment.

While executing these tracking and intercept functions the bat is performing a complex signal processing task. For instance, the bat can discriminate the prey from background clutter. It also has a sort of synthetic aperture technology with which to construct image information. And it also uses complicated geometrical calculations to solve an advanced guidance scheme, as it closes on the target.

And what about the prey? Often on the receiving end of this carbon-based interceptor is the lowly moth. Some moths, however, sport their own battery of impressive capabilities to counter the bat's onslaught. They are not only able to hear the bat's ultrasonic squeaks, they also can perform complex, aerobatic escape maneuvers, and some moths even counter the bat's squeaks with their own ultrasonic reply. These designs are not simple, and while years of excellent research have elucidated much of the details, many of the complexities have yet to be fully understood.

Sometimes it just makes me giddy to contemplate the miracles that blind, random processes like natural selection and genetic mutation can accomplish. I also stand in awe of the enormous credulity displayed by those who believe that such systems as Hunter describes could have evolved solely from such processes without any intelligent input. It's just astonishing what one can make oneself believe if only one tries hard enough. Would that we all had such faith.

Islam's Long War Against the West

Jonathan Last writes a column in The Philadelphia Inquirer about Islam's centuries-long war against the West. Last offers some good perspective on the nature of the conflict, and he begins with this:

Soon after 9/11, the Bush administration labeled the conflict into which it plunged this country the "war on terror." But this is no more descriptive than calling the fight in Iraq a "war on IEDs." The more pressing question is: Are we, or are we not, engaged in a larger clash of civilizations?

If the answer is "We are," the clash long predates 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and George W. Bush. It predates America itself. It is a clash between Western civilization and the Islamic world.

Harvard professor Samuel Huntington first made this case in 1993, in his famous article "The Clash of Civilizations" in the journal Foreign Affairs. "Conflict along the fault line between Western and Islamic civilizations has been going on for 1,300 years," he wrote. After the founding of Islam, Muslims spread their faith by the sword. Islam conquered North Africa and pushed into Europe, where it ruled in Sicily, Spain, Portugal, and parts of France. Twice, the forces of Islam laid siege to Vienna. For 1,000 years, Islam advanced and Christendom retreated.

As Pope Benedict XVI explains in his book Without Roots, the very concept of "Europe" emerged as a reaction to the surge of Islam. Not until the failure of the second Turkish siege of Vienna in 1683 did the Islamic tide recede definitively. For the next 300 years, Western civilization was ascendant and the Islamic world stagnated.

But the conflict between the two cultures never fully abated. Throughout the 20th century, Western countries tussled with Islamic states or their non-state proxies. And, as columnist Mark Steyn points out, when you gaze at conflicts around the globe today, the one constant is Islam. Muslims are fighting, or have recently fought, Jews in the Mideast, Hindus in Kashmir, Christians in Nigeria, atheists in Russia, Buddhists in Thailand and Burma, Catholics in the Philippines, and Orthodox Christians in the Balkans.

The rest of the essay is very much worth reading.

Liberals And the Foley Fiasco

Left-wing blog The Daily Kos and its readership are in a righteous stew over Mark Foley's "despicable" behavior. This has led me to wonder what it is, exactly, that they find despicable in Mr. Foley's pederast fantasies.

Are they outraged that Mr. Foley is a homosexual? That can't be it, of course, because they're deeply commited to the liberal doctrine of moral equivalence between homo- and hetero- sexuality.

Are they incensed that his lubricious attractions are directed at subordinates? That can't be it either since they weren't upset at all about Bill Clinton's similar attractions for his subordinates.

Perhaps they're furious because the boys Mr. Foley was instant messaging were only sixteen years old. Indeed, this is the high ground liberals on the talk shows are trying to occupy, but I don't think it works. Attraction to young boys is a common aspect of gay culture. If the Kos Kids are upset about that then they're essentially rebuking or renouncing the Left's entire history of facilitating and championing sexual deviancy and libertinism.

Not every liberal, of course, supports laws that would make it easier for adult men to have sexual liaisons with adolescent boys, such as lowering the age of sexual consent (which, by the way, is sixteen in Washington, D.C.). Even so, virtually everyone who does favor them is on the political Left and everyone who strenuously opposes them is on the political Right. Sexual freedom and the abolition of laws limiting sexual expression are Left-wing issues, so it's a little unusual to see Lefties condemning the very behavior they or their ideological allies think should be legal.

Maybe their moral "outrage" is simply a convenient ploy to try to make political hay against the Republicans whom they hate, in part because Republicans stand in the way of the emergence of the kind of society in which laws against sex with minors would be a thing of the past.

New ID Site For HS Students

There's a new site for high school students interested in Intelligent Design called Overwhelming Evidence. It's a site that enables high schoolers to network and communicate their views on Intelligent Design and evolution.

The site managers write that they believe that "today's students are smarter than they are given credit for, and that rather than being told what to believe, they have the ability to explore the range of possibilities and figure out what to believe on their own. The site is meant to encourage students to explore the facts, report the facts, and debate the facts."

If you're in high school, or just out, and interested in the controversy swirling around ID and Darwinism, give this site a look.

Fearing For His Life

Robert Redeker is a French philosopher who can no longer spend more than two nights in any one place. He must be constantly on the move to elude those who seek his life. What was his offense? In an article in Le Figaro titled "Faced with Islamic intimidation, what should the free world do?" he said this:

"Pitiless war leader, pillager, butcher of Jews and polygamous (people), this is how Mohammed is revealed by the Koran."

For this Redeker is in fear of his life, not in some dysfunctional Arab state, but in France. The Islamists know nothing of the freedoms we in the West take for granted and they're determined to wipe them out. Their weapon now is to intimidate those who speak against Islam by killing some and threatening others. Eventually their goal is to reduce the West to a state of abject servitude to Islamic overlords who will demand that it be written into our laws that no one be permitted to speak ill of Islam or the Prophet.

Read Redeker's story here.

Vindicated!

Ever since 1969 I have been silently convinced that the whole world was wrong about a certain historical event and that I was right. I could never prove it, of course, and besides it wasn't a big deal, but it was always an irritant for me whenever I heard the mistake repeated.

When Neil Armstrong stepped down onto the moon's surface and uttered his famous words, quickly engraved in stone by, I think, Walter Cronkite, as "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," I recall saying to my future wife, who was with me at the time, "That's not what he said. That doesn't even make sense. It's like saying 'One small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind. What he said was one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." Subsequently, every time I heard the apocryphal rendering repeated, I cringed, just as I cringe when someone says "I could care less" when what they mean to say is "I could not care less".

Anyway, now, after all these years, I have been vindicated, and I want to tell the world:

HOUSTON (Sept. 30) - That's one small word for astronaut Neil Armstrong, one giant revision for grammar sticklers everywhere.

An Australian computer programmer says he found the missing "a" from Armstrong's famous first words from the moon in 1969, when the world heard the phrase, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." The story was reported in Saturday's editions of the Houston Chronicle.

Some historians and critics have dogged Armstrong for not saying the more dramatic and grammatically correct, "One small step for a man ..." in the version he transmitted to NASA's Mission Control. Without the missing "a," Armstrong essentially said, "One small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind."

The famous astronaut has maintained he intended to say it properly and believes he did. Thanks to some high-tech sound-editing software, computer programmer Peter Shann Ford might have proved Armstrong right.

Ford said he downloaded the audio recording of Armstrong's words from a NASA Web site and analyzed the statement with software that allows disabled people to communicate through computers using their nerve impulses.

In a graphical representation of the famous phrase, Ford said he found evidence that the missing "a" was spoken and transmitted to NASA.

"I have reviewed the data and Peter Ford's analysis of it, and I find the technology interesting and useful," Armstrong said in a statement. "I also find his conclusion persuasive. Persuasive is the appropriate word."

See? I knew it.

Self-Destruction

Rep.Mark Foley (R-FL) resigned from congress when e-mails and instant messages he had been sending to congressional pages all under the age of 18 came to light last week.

The internet dialogue reveals a sick man who desperately needs help. Like former NJ governor Jim McGreevy who resigned when the sordid details of his double life were exposed last year, Foley's life and reputation are destroyed.

On one hand one can't help but be disgusted by the sleaziness to which these men have descended (the incriminating dialogue Foley engaged in with a minor can be accessed through the above link, but I don't recommend it unless you have a high tolerance for human degradation), on the other, one must feel very sorry for them. Their lives, even before they were found out, must have been filled with fear of being caught and self-loathing at what they had become.

It's easy to feel contempt for powerful people when, despite their transgressions, they are arrogant, defiant, and unrepentant, but surely when they're broken and devastated, contempt must give way to compassion. To the extent that Jim McGreevy and Mark Foley are humiliated and laden with self-reproach they need, and should have, our prayers. Unfortunately, it's not clear that either of them are yet at that stage.

In any event, as if the Mark Foley imbroglio hasn't done enough to harm Republicans going into the mid-term elections, it turns out that House speaker Dennis Hastert and House Majority leader John Boehner are both being accused of having known of Foley's illicit involvement with underage House pages and lied to cover it up.

If this is true, and I'm not persuaded yet that it is, it would be absolutely astonishing, especially in light of the ordeal the Catholic Church has been undergoing for the last decade over similar revelations about some of their clergy. It's hard to believe that in light of the Catholic Church's nightmarish experience the Republican party would make the same mistake.

Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has details and is calling for the resignation of both Hastert and Boehner from their leadership positions. I think this is a little premature since it's not clear yet how much anyone knew about what Foley was doing. If it turns out, however, that anyone, including Democrats and media types, knew for months what was happening and didn't do anything to stop it, then those people should indeed be required to pay a price.

UPDATE: Dennis Hastert has just come out with a statement insisting that the Republican leadership knew nothing of the salacious instant messages, but, he notes, somebody did know about them and evidently did nothing to stop them. It's beginning to look as if these messages have been withheld in order to use them for political purposes close to the election. That's almost as immoral as the messages themselves.

Feedback

There are a couple of good replies on our Feedback Page to the posts this week on the Open Letter to the Religious Right and Mr. Cell Phone Guy.

Give them a look.

John Calvin's Theological Legacy

Christianity Today has an article which discusses the appeal Reformed (Calvinist) theology has lately been exerting, especially on young people. For those of our readers with a theological inclination we've duplicated the sidebar to the main article. It lays out in basic form the doctrinal heart of Reformed theology.

Calvinism as an identifiable theological school began with John Calvin (1509-1564). Also referred to as Reformed theology, Calvinism draws on pre-Reformation theologians like Augustine. It has taken a variety of forms over the centuries, but the acronym TULIP is still a handy summary of its distinguishing marks.

Total depravity: We cannot respond to God's offer of salvation, since our will-indeed, our whole being-has been rendered incapable by sin (Rom. 3:9-10; Rom. 8:7-8; 2 Cor. 4:4). Regeneration by the Holy Spirit must precede our response of faith. This contrasts with Christian traditions that say we have sufficient free will to respond to God's offer of salvation or that we can "cooperate" with grace.

Unconditional election: God chooses to save some people, not because of anything they have done, but according to his sovereign will (Acts 13:48; Rom. 9; Eph. 1:3-6). Some Calvinists have also taught that God elects certain people to damnation, but few advance this view aggressively. This contrasts with other Christian traditions that teach that God desires to save everyone, but only elects those whom he foreknows will respond to his grace.

Limited atonement: Christ died for the sins of the church, not for the whole world (John 10:15; Mark 10:45; Rev. 5:9). This contrasts with traditions that teach that Christ died for all, even though all may not appropriate the benefits of his sacrifice.

Irresistible grace: Those God elects cannot resist the Holy Spirit's draw to salvation (John 6:44; 1 Cor. 1:23-24; Acts 16:14). Again, this contrasts with Christian traditions that teach that we are able to reject God's forgiveness-thus, while God may choose to save everyone, not everyone chooses to believe.

Perseverance of the saints: By God's power, believers will endure in faith to the end (John 10:28; Rom. 8:30; Phil. 1:6). Other Christian traditions teach that people can forsake faith and lose salvation.

Each of these five petals of the TULIP raises interesting questions. Are we indeed "totally depraved"? Does God predestine some people to be saved for eternity and others to be lost? Was Christ's death an atonement only for those who had been predestined to be saved? Is God's calling irresistable or can someone reject God even though God is calling him/her to Himself? Can someone whom God has "saved" lose that salvation? Any comments from the theologians among you?

Quotes From the Darwinism/ID Debate

Following are a series of quotes that bear on the Darwinian/Intelligent Design controversy.

First is University of Delaware physicist Stephen Barr's literary allusion which illustrates why Divine creation and evolution are not necessarily incompatible:

Did this insect evolve or is it created by God? To ask that is as silly as to ask whether Polonious died because Hamlet stabbed him or because Shakespeare wrote the play that way.

Barr, who is a theistic evolutionist, believes that just as Shakespeare used the character of Hamlet to bring about Polonious' death, so to God could have used physical laws and an evolutionary process to bring about those forms of life He wished to create.

----------------

Jonathan Wells is officially an IDer and personally a creationist. He's writing on the topic Why Darwinism is Doomed, and makes an important distinction which writers on this subject seem almost perversely unable to grasp:

The issue here is not "evolution" - a broad term that can mean simply change within existing species (which no one doubts). The issue is Darwinism - which claims that all living things are descended from a common ancestor, modified by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.

The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion - especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

I would add to what Wells says about Darwinism that the trait which makes it anathema to many theists is not that it is a form of evolution but that it insists that only physical forces were involved in the emergence of life and all of life's diversity. In other words Darwinists hold that intelligence is irrelevant to the existence of the cosmos and the biosphere. This strikes many people as implausible to the point of incredulity.

-----------------

Jonathan Wells also notes that it is a myth, and a false one at that, that biologists have actually witnessed one species evolving into another:

So except for polyploidy in plants, which is not what Darwin's theory needs, there are no observed instances of the origin of species. As evolutionary biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan wrote in 2002: "Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratory cages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of the paleontologists, still has never been directly traced." Evolution's smoking gun is still missing.

From: Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design , p. 55, quoting Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, p. 32).

-------------------

Richard Dawkins is a militantly atheistic Darwinian who makes a startling admission in an essay which first appeared here, but which subsequently disappeared. Speculation has it that Dawkins was pressured to take it down by fellow Darwinians because his admission makes it very difficult for them to maintain the twin fictions that Intelligent Design is religion and that it can't be science because it can't be tested:

You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science.

I wonder if the Big Bang is spectacular enough to qualify.

Here In America

This song by Diamond Rio deserves a wider audience than what I'm told it's getting on most radio stations. Maybe if Brittany Spears sang it....

Thanks to Dick Francis for the link.

JDAMs

Strategy Page has a fascinating piece on the development and impact of the JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), a bomb guided by GPS satellites. This weapon has revolutionized modern warfare in ways that should please advocates of just war theory.

The essay begins with these words:

Military commanders the world over are struggling to figure out how to deal with the massive changes created by the arrival of GPS guided bombs (like JDAM). The United States has them, most of them, and the ability to stop others from using them (because America control the GPS satellites). The impact of JDAM has been enormous. It has made air power much more effective, reduced casualties for the force using them, and speeded up combat operations. Few non-professionals have noticed this, but generals and admirals of the major military powers have. These changes are enormous, but the mass media has not really noticed what is going on here. So few people are aware of how much JDAM has changed the way wars are fought.

The rest of the column explains how the JDAM has come about, why we have a monopoly on their use, and why just war theorists should hail their development.

Only if We See it as a Gift

Stephen Barr writes a review of E.O. Wilson's new book (The Creation: A Meeting of Science and Religion) which pleads for a concerted effort to save the rich and vanishing diversity of living things in our world. The review appears in the current issue of First Things (subscription required).

Wilson, as Barr points out, is a naturalist in both the biological and philosophical senses of the term. That is, he's someone deeply in love with plants and animals, and he is also a man who believes that nature is all there is.

Wilson's hope, according to Barr, is that man will eventually adopt philosophical naturalism as his religion and come to revere the natural world so much that he will do whatever he must to save it.

This, I suggest, is a forlorn hope. Naturalism as a metaphysic can offer us no reason why we should save the world. It can give us no reason why we should care whether beautiful species of birds and flowers survive after each of us has died. Once we're dead what does it matter whether every beautiful bird and butterfly goes extinct? There's no naturalistic reason why we shouldn't exploit the earth to make our lives as comfortable as we can while we're alive. If this means that our descendents will not we enjoy the wonders and richness we have experienced, so be it. Naturalism affords no reason why we should care about that. Once we're dead nothing matters.

Ironically, it is only the theist, indeed, the Christian theist, who has a non-subjective, non-arbitrary reason for valuing the natural world. The Christian has at least three such reasons. First, the world and its ecosystems were created by God and are ours to use and enjoy, but they're not ours to destroy. We are merely renters, not owners. Second, the wonders of the natural world are a gift to us from God, a token of His love, and as such they're to be prized, cherished, and cared for just as we would any precious gift given to us by one we love. Third, we're commanded by God to be responsible caretakers or stewards of the world we inhabit.

The Christian, then, has a solid basis for an environmental ethic that prominently features preservation, conservation and responsible management. The philosophical naturalist who adopts these same values does so only as a result of an arbitrary subjective preference. Neither the decision to preserve nor the decision to exploit and destroy are right or wrong in a moral sense in a Godless universe any more than there is a moral right or wrong involved in one's decision to paint his house blue or to paint it green.

I share Wilson's hope that we can preserve most of our planet's natural beauty and biological diversity, but contrary to Wilson, I see naturalistic philosophical assumptions as doing nothing to aid that cause. Preservation and conservation, if they're to be more than just an aesthetic preference that some people have for nature rather than housing developments and shopping malls, have be founded on the belief that we are not mere consumers but rather grateful stewards of God's marvelous gift to us.

Some Things Never Change

Bill passes along a link to an exchange of letters that evidently took place c. 635 A.D. between an Arab Muslim Caliph named Omar Ibn-Kat'tab and an Iranian (Persian) ruler named Yazdgerd III. The first letter is an ultimatum from the Caliph demanding the surrender of the Iranians to Islam. The second is Yazdgerd's wonderful and heroic reply. Here's the ultimatum:

Bism-ellah Ar'rahman Ar'rhim
To the Shah of the Fars

I do not foresee a good future for you and your nation save your acceptance of my terms and your submission to me. There was a time when your country ruled half the world, but see how now your sun has set.

On all fronts your armies have been defeated and your nation is condemned to extinction. I point out to you the path whereby you might escape this fate. Namely, that you begin worshipping the one god, the unique deity, the only god who created all that is.

I bring you his message. Order your nation to cease the false worship of fire and to join us, that they may join the truth.

Worship Allah the creator of the world. Worship Allah and accept Islam as the path of salvation. End now your polytheistic ways and become Muslims that you may accept Allah-u-Akbar as your savior.

This is the only way of securing your own survival and the peace of your Persians. You will do this if you know what is good for you and for your Persians.

Submission is your only option
Allah u Akbar
The Calif of Muslims Omar Ibn-Khat'tab

Read Yazdgerd's response at the link. May the Yazdgerds of the world increase, and may all the Omars follow Yazdgerd's excellent advice.