Altering the Facts

Journalists traipse onto dangerous terrain when they presume to pontificate on Intelligent Design. They almost never look good in the doing of it.

Marcia Mercer, for example, inanely criticizes President Bush for answering a question about his opinion on teaching ID. His answer was honest and straight forward, but that's not good enough for the censorious Ms Mercer. She protests, oddly enough, that the president should've followed the example of Calvin Coolidge who, even during the provocative days of the Scopes' trial, said nothing about the subject of evolution.

It apparently hasn't occured to Ms. Mercer that President Coolidge may not have had an opinion on the matter that he deemed worth sharing, but never mind. Her suggestion is too weird to spend any time contemplating. After all, if all occupants of the White House should observe presidential precedents what should a future president do when he finds himself alone in the Oval Office with a young intern and a cigar?

As silly as Mercer's advice to the president was, an essay by Newsweek's resident philosopher Jonathan Alter wins this week's prize for polemical ineptitude. Alter writes:

A teacher in Kansas, where war over Darwin in the schools is still raging, calls the theory of intelligent design "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." Great line, but unfair to the elegant tailoring of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that has almost singlehandedly put intelligent design on the map. Eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial," the threat to science and reason comes less from fundamentalists who believe the earth was created in six days than from sophisticated branding experts and polemical Ph.D.s who are clever enough to refrain from referring to God or even the Creator, and have now found a willing tool in the president of the United States.

Lest you think this is merely of academic interest, consider the stakes: the Pentagon last week revealed that it is spending money to train certain scientists how to write screenplays for thrillers related to their specialties. Why? Because the status of science has sunk so low that the government needs these disciplines to become sexy again among students or the brain drain will threaten national security. One of the reasons we have fewer science majors is the pernicious right-wing notion that conventional biology is vaguely atheistic (emphasis added).

One wonders where Alter dug up this interesting little factoid. He doesn't tell us and gives us no reason to accept his assertion that we have fewer science majors today than, say, twenty years ago. Even if it were true however, it is much more likely to be a consequence of the reality that science is hard and the marketplace may be offering higher rewards for less difficult pursuits. Alter's assumption that the (unsubstantiated) dearth of science majors is due to right-wing suspicions seems dubious on its face. The "pernicious right-wing notion" that biology is vaguely atheistic, after all, is no more widely held now than it's been since the end of the 19th century.

Moreover, even if the suspicion that conventional biology is hostile to faith is more widely held today, there would be good reason for it since scientists and Darwinian philosophers, especially those who popularize science for a wide audience, keep telling us it is. Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, and others insist that Darwinism is a universal acid, to use Dennett's phrase, that is corrosive to religious belief. Dawkins is adamant that an anti-religious stance, to borrow from an article on him in the September issue of Discover, is a natural outgrowth of evolutionary thought. The article quotes Dawkins as saying that "It is very clear that much of the opposition to evolution in this country...is fed by the suspicion, which I happen to think is justified, that evolution really is antireligious." Little wonder that people have absorbed the "pernicious right-wing notion."

Alter continues:

Now President Bush has given that view a boost. When Bush was asked about intelligent design last week, he answered, "Both sides ought to be properly taught... so people can understand what the debate is about." This sounds reasonable until you realize that, as the president's own science adviser, John H. Marburger III, admits, there is no real debate. "Intelligent design is not a scientific concept," Marburger told The New York Times, committing a bit of candor that will presumably earn him a trip to the White House woodshed.

Mr. Alter has concluded from his no doubt copious reading of the literature on the subject, and his attendence at the numerous conferences where the matter is on the agenda, that the idea that a debate exists out here in the hinterlands between Darwinians and Intelligent Design theorists is just an illusion. The matter has been settled and we can all just go home. That's a relief.

After proclaiming victory and an end to hostilities, Alter stumbles by irrelevantly citing Mr. Marburger. The question is not so much whether ID is science as it is whether Darwinian naturalism is science. If ID and Darwinian naturalism are philosophical mirror images, which they are, then whatever perquisites one enjoys in science education should also be available to the other. Alter unwittingly confirms this point in his next paragraph:

Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute claims ID uses a scientifically valid "inference to the best explanation" to back up its theories. That might be good enough for a graduate course in the philosophy of science (and the ACLU should not prevent it from being discussed in high-school humanities and philosophy classes), but the idea of its being offered as an alternative to evolution in ninth-grade biology is a cruel joke. Its basic claim-that the human cell is too complex to be explained by natural selection-is unproven and probably unprovable (emphasis added). ID walks like science and talks like science but, so far, performs in the lab worse than medieval alchemy.

What Alter fails to tell us is that the Darwinian claim that specified and irreducible complexity can self-organize and/or result from chance, energy, and physical law alone is also unproven and definitely unprovable. It walks like science and talks like science, but it's a purely metaphysical assumption. So why should it be allowed to be taught in public schools?

Alter presses on:

It's not God who's the problem but ID's assault on Darwin. Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller (who attends mass every week) says the "unspoken message" peddled by the Discovery Institute is that evolution is the single shakiest theory in science. In fact, despite its flaws, it remains among the most durable theories in all of science.

Of course, though perhaps one despairs by this point of Alter's willingness to grasp this, it's not evolution that's under assault by ID theorists. It's the Darwinian version of evolution which denies any role in the process of the differentiation of life to intelligent agency that ID theorists are challenging.

Even as the president helps pit faith against science in the classroom, popes and other clerics have long known that religion and evolution are not truly at odds. Evolution does not, for instance, challenge the idea that the universe began with a spark of divinity. Darwin himself wrote movingly of God. Only the scientific process-not the scientist-must be agnostic. Long before Darwin, enlightened Christians understood that religion and science are best kept in separate realms. In the fifth century, for instance, Saint Augustine criticized other Christians who "talk nonsense" about the laws of nature.

Alter slyly perpetuates in this passage the error that ID is religion. This appears to be a tactic consistently employed by opponents of ID to discredit it among the public by constant repetition of the libel. There is nothing about ID that is religious. It has religious implications, certainly, but then so does Darwinism.

The most clever thing about intelligent design is that it doesn't sound like nonsense. It conjures up Cambridge, not Kansas. The name evokes Apple software, the MoMA gift shop or a Frank Gehry chair. The scholarly articles are often well written and provocative. But the science within these papers has been demolished over and over by other scientists. As Miller explains, science is perhaps the last true marketplace of ideas. After a decade in circulation, intelligent design has failed the market test. So now its backers are seeking the equivalent of a government bailout, by going around their scientific peers to Red State politicians trying to slip religious dogma into the classroom.

This claim is simply false. The science (More correctly, the philosophical conclusions drawn from the facts of empirical science) has not been demolished. It's been challenged, it's been attacked, it's been derided, misrepresented, slandered, and maligned, but very little of what ID theorists have written has ever been refuted. Alter seems to think that if someone responds to an opponent's argument in strong cadences with an overlay of dogmatic certainty that he has thereby "demolished" his opponent's case.

Alter says that the most clever thing about ID is that it doesn't sound like nonsense. It could be, somebody might tell him, that that's because it's not.

While the Discovery Institute calls God the "designer," to appear less creationist, some of its biggest funders are serious fundamentalists. An internal fund-raising memo leaked in 1999 laid out its theological agenda and intention to use ID as a "wedge" to triumph in the culture wars. Last week Fox News lent a hand. Bill O'Reilly says that the National Academy of Science is guilty of "fascism" for arguing that ID should not take up valuable class time in high-school biology. (Not to be outdone, Dr. James Dobson compared embryonic-stem-cell research to "Nazi experiments.") These are the same modest gents who decry relativism and curricular inclusiveness in the humanities, where it is far more justifiable than in the sciences.

Ah. The old guilt by association chestnut. Rather than use his space to consider what the ID theorists themselves are saying and doing, Alter just trots out some of right-wing boogeymen with which to frighten the children. It's ironic that evolutionists get upset when people concerned about the philosophical implications of evolution quote Richard Dawkins' screeds against religion, but Alter thinks it perfectly reasonable to cite the opinions of Bill O'Reilly and James Dobson as if they were somehow relevant to the question of the merits of ID.

Undaunted by his embarrassing lack of understanding of the topic upon which he professes to instruct us, Alter turns oracular:

Bush's policy of politicizing science-retreating from the field of facts and evidence on everything from evolution to global warming to the number of cell lines available to justify his 2001 stem-cell compromise-will eventually wreak havoc with his legacy. Until then, like his masquerade-ball friends, the president will get more clever at harming science while pretending to promote it. Monkey see, monkey do.

"Wreak havoc with his legacy"? Alter adds the office of prophet to his already distinguished roles of in-house scientist and philosopher. That he knows the future with such assurance is breathtaking for those of us limited by the constraints of space and time.

"Harming science"? How, exactly, have Bush's policies harmed science? Alter needs no justification for these simple-minded asseverations, of course. His readers can be expected to understand that Bush is a dolt so whatever Alter says about the catastrophic nature of anything he does just has to be true.

One is left wondering how many books by any prominent ID thinker Alter has ever read. My guess is that the answer is zero, since he understands so little about the matter. Too bad that doesn't stop him from writing about it. It makes you wonder who the real dolt is.

Wealthier Than You Think

Worried that you just don't have enough to make ends meet? Feeling badly that you can't afford all that you'd like to have? Go here and see how your income stacks up to that of the rest of the world's inhabitants.

More On the ELCA Assembly

The day that Lutherans had been looking toward for two years with a mixture of dread and anticipation has now passed. Three critical recommendations were taken up today by the Churchwide Assembly in Orlando for adoption or rejection.

The day saw much spirited discussion, offered an incredible lesson in parliamentary procedure and, in my opinion, brought out the best in almost everyone present. Even the demonstrators who engaged in civil disobedience by standing in front of the dias facing the Assembly for several hours this afternoon, refusing to honor the Bishop's request that they return to the visitors' gallery, were at least quiet and not disruptive.

The Assembly considered three recommendations amid numerous amendments and parliamentary maneuvers.

The first called upon Lutherans of differing views on the cluster of issues associated with sexuality to find ways to be united. It passed.

The second recommendation would have allowed pastors of local churches to bless same-sex unions. An amendment (which won by just two votes out of almost 1000) got the wording changed so that the reference to same-sex unions was struck. The recommendation then carried by a 67% to 33% vote. This was probably a win for both sides since although the recommendation doesn't endorse same sex blessings in any way, neither does it explicitly prohibit them.

The third recommendation would have permitted the church to ordain non-celibate gay and lesbian ministers. A number of amendments which would have made this very easy to do and some which would have made it more difficult were defeated. The recommendation itself then came to the floor for a vote, and it failed. The tally was close, 51% to 49%, which is no doubt heartening to advocates of gay ordination, but it was actually not close in terms of passage since it needed a 2/3 margin to be adopted.

This result will be national news tomorrow, I'm sure, since a lot of people thought that the Lutheran church would just follow the zeitgeist and elect to ordain gays and lesbians. It didn't happen this time, but the Assembly convenes again in 2007.

One Day in the LIfe of a Soldier

So much coverage of the war in Iraq is merely skeletal. We hear only of the number of casualties and nothing of circumstances, tactics, and details of the engagements. This story of a military unit on patrol in Mosul, however, is Pulitzer prize-caliber reporting. It begins wih a discussion of the nature of the ordnance being employed against our troops and segues into a riveting tale of everyday life for soldiers and Marines in Iraq.

Sowing Confusion

Lots of people are confused about the relationship of religion and science. Michael Shermer adds to the confusion:

Intelligent Design creationism resurfaced in the news last week after President Bush's remarks were (mis)taken by IDers to be a solid endorsement for the teaching of ID in public school science classrooms. (Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, said that "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept.")

One magazine reporter asked for my opinion about whether one can believe in God and the theory of evolution. I replied that, empirically speaking, yes, you can - the proof being that 40% of American scientists profess a belief in God and also accept the theory of evolution, not to mention that most of the world's 1 billion Catholics believe in God and accept the theory of evolution.

But then this reporter wanted to know if it is logically consistent to believe in God and the theory of evolution. That is, does the theory of evolution - if carried out to its logical conclusion - preclude belief in God? This is a different question. Here is my answer.

You can believe in God and evolution as long as you keep the two in separate, logic-tight compartments. Belief in God depends on religious faith. Belief in evolution depends on empirical evidence.

This is the fundamental difference between religion and science. If you attempt to reconcile religion and science on questions about nature and the universe, and if you push the science to its logical conclusion, you will end up naturalizing the deity because for any question about nature - the origins of the universe, life, humans, whatever - if your answer is "God did it," a scientist will ask: "How did God do it? What forces did God use? What forms of matter and energy were employed in the creation process?" and so forth. The end result of this inquiry can only be natural explanations for all natural phenomena. What place, then, for God?

One could argue that God is the laws and forces of nature, which is logically acceptable, but this is pantheism and not the type of personal God to which most people profess belief.

One could also argue that God created the universe and life using the laws and forces of nature as his tools, which is also logically fine, but it leaves us with additional scientific questions: Which laws and forces were used to create specific natural phenomena? How did God create the laws and forces of nature? A scientist would be curious to know God's recipe for, say, gravity or for a universe or a cell. For that matter, it is a legitimate scientific question to ask what made God, and how was God created? How do you make an omniscient being?

Finally, one could argue that God is outside of nature and therefore needs no explanation. This is also logically consistent, but by definition it means that the God question is outside of science, and therefore religion and science are separate and incompatible.

Bottom line: Teach science in science classes and religion in religion classes.

Shermer has just finished arguing that a consistent evolutionism leads to atheism and then turns around and argues that the God question is not answerable by science. That's a most peculiar juxtaposition of arguments.

He closes the article by urging us to teach science in science class and religion in religion classes, but having told us that science logically entails a religious conclusion, i.e. that there is no God, a school would be violating his advice by following it. Very odd and not very helpful.

All's Fair On the Left

Judge Roberts must be stopped by any means necessary. Even if it means twisting logic and inventing slanders to smear him with. Here's the latest:

CNN has reviewed and agreed to run a controversial ad produced by a pro-abortion group that falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers supporting a convicted clinic bomber!

The news network has agreed to a $125,000 ad buy from NARAL, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, for a commercial which depicts a bombed out 1998 Birmingham, AL abortion clinic. The Birmingham clinic was bombed seven years after Roberts signed the legal briefing. The linking of Roberts to "violent fringe groups" is the sharpest attack against the nominee thus far.

However, the non-partisan University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Factcheck.org reviewed the NARAL ad and found it to be "false." Factcheck.org found "in words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false."

The Republican National Committee is preparing to send a letter to television stations asking them to pull the spot, according to sources. The RNC's letter claims: "NARAL's ad is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that has no purpose but to mislead the American people."

No doubt NARAL's response is "So?"

This ad is so unfair that even many of NARAL's allies are uneasy about it, but, hey, you have to do what you have to do. Any organization that defends partial birth abortion can hardly be expected to suddenly scruple over distorting the truth to discredit a foe.

Another One Goes Over the Edge

Another liberal is driven over the brink by Bush's re-election. They're unable to stop themselves, apparently, from indulging in their hate-inspired weirdness, even at this late date.

Speaking of left-wing weirdness inspired by George Bush, Mick Jagger has weighed in with a new song with which to demonstrate to his fans his political astuteness by insulting the president and his secretary of state. The very clever lyrics go:

"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/ You call yourself a patriot. Well, I think your are full of sh*t!... How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con."

Insightful, no?

Mick has sympathy for the devil, but only contempt for George Bush and Condi Rice. Pretty weird.

ELCA Churchwide Assembly Update

The work of the ELCA Assembly continues in Orlando, and a lot of the folks in the pew are going to wish that it wasn't. Today (Wednesday) the Assembly voted 75% to 25% to adopt a new hymnal that its critics decried as theologically inept, musically vapid, and very politically correct. The new hymnal will de-emphasize masculine references to God, de-emphasize trinitarian references, and change lyrics of well-known hymns for reasons that no one seems to be able to figure out. Images of God as Father are downplayed because, in the words of one supporter, fathers are too often abusive and oppressive and that's not the image we wish to connote when we talk of God. The individual didn't mention that this view of fatherhood suggests that the Church views families as essentially dysfunctional units and views fathers as overall negatives in the lives of their families.

For the benefit of my Lutheran readers, most of the opposition to adoption of the new hymnal came from the Lower Susquehanna Synod, several of whose members spoke out strongly against it, including the Bishop.

Meanwhile, Lutherans in Assembly adopt what they call memorials, which are non-binding resolutions or statements which express the sense of the church. Discussion Tuesday and Wednesday centered on a memorial concerning world hunger. To read the memorial and listen to some of the discussion one got the feeling that it is the consensus view of many of the Voting Members (delegates) that if only we in the West would give more money to starving people we could eliminate world hunger. In fact, there was no mention in the memorial about what is perhaps the major cause of hunger in much of the world: tyrannical, corrupt regimes, especially in third world countries.

In Zimbabwe, Sudan, Somalia, and North Korea people are starving because the leaders of those countries are brutal thugs who take whatever we offer and use the money to line their pockets and the food to feed their soldiers. The problem is not an unwillingness in the West to do enough to alleviate the hunger. The problem is psychopathic dictators who have their boot on the necks of their people.

Anyway, your humble scribe entered a motion to amend the memorial to include the statement that the Lutheran Church will oppose tyrannical, oppressive governments whose policies result in chronic hunger among their people, and defended it by stating essentially what is written in the preceding paragraph. It was supported by two different pastors who grew up in Ethiopia and felt very strongly that what was said in the motion needed to be said. The motion carried by a 95% to 5% vote. One critic later sniffed that the amendment was too simplistic and that it blamed the people in Africa for their plight when the real cause of their suffering was greedy Americans.

Thursday, there will be speeches from the floor on whether to bless same-sex unions and ordain gay and lesbian pastors. It should be interesting.

Another Prisoner Escapes the Cave

Another British leftist breaks free. Here are a couple of highlights from Nick Cohen's essay about his ideological apostacy and subsequent excommunication:

I'm sure that any halfway competent political philosopher could rip the assumptions of modern middle-class left-wingery apart. Why is it right to support a free market in sexual relationships but oppose free-market economics, for instance? But his criticisms would have little impact. It's like a religion: the contradictions are obvious to outsiders but don't disturb the faithful. You believe when you're in its warm embrace. Alas, I'm out. Last week, after 44 years of regular church-going, the bell tolled, the book was closed and the candle was extinguished. I was excommunicated.

The officiating bishop was Peter Wilby, a former editor of the New Statesman and a friend of long-standing, who delivered his anathema in the Guardian. The immediate heresy was a piece I'd written about how difficult the courts made it to deport suspected Islamist terrorists.

The least attractive characteristic of the middle-class left - one shared with the Thatcherites - is its refusal to accept that its opponents are sincere. The legacy of Marx and Freud allows it to dismiss criticisms as masks which hide corruption, class interests, racism, sexism - any motive can be implied except fundamental differences of principle. Wilby went through a long list of what could have motivated mine and similar 'betrayals'. Perhaps we became right wing as we got older. Perhaps we wanted to stick our snouts into the deep troughs of the Tory press. Perhaps taking out a mortgage committed us to the capitalist system or having children encouraged petit bourgeois individualism of the most anti-social kind.

The reason why one million people marched through London without one mounting a platform to express solidarity with the victims of fascism was that it never occurred to them that there were people in Iraq who shared their values.

[G]ood motives of tolerance and respect for other cultures have had the unintended consequence of leading a large part of post-modern liberal opinion into the position of 19th-century imperialists. It is presumptuous and oppressive to suggest that other cultures want the liberties we take for granted, their argument runs. So it may be, but believe that and the upshot is that democracy, feminism and human rights become good for whites but not for browns and brown-skinned people who contradict you are the tools of the neo-conservatives.

Who is going to help the victims of religious intolerance in Britain's immigrant communities? Not the Liberal Democrats, who have never once offered support to liberal and democrats in Iraq. Nor an anti-war left which prefers to embrace a Muslim Association of Britain and Yusuf al-Qaradawi who believe that Muslims who freely decide to change their religion or renounce religion should be executed. If the Archbishop of Canterbury were to suggest the same treatment for renegade Christians all hell would break loose. But as the bigotry comes from 'the other' there is silence.

The thing to watch for with fellow travellers is what shocks them into pulling the emergency cord and jumping off the train. I know some will stay on to the terminus, and when the man with the rucksack explodes his bomb their dying words will be: 'It's not your fault. I blame Tony Blair.'

My advice to my former comrades is to struggle out of your straitjackets and get off at the next station. It would be good to see you on this side of the barrier.

Plato tells the story of a a group of men imprisoned since birth in a cave, chained to a rock so that all they can see are flickering shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners pass their time debating the significance and meaning of this or that shadow. Their whole existence is spent speculating upon flickering, insubstantial images. The shadows are all they have to put meaning into their bleak lives.

One day one of the prisoners breaks free and climbs up out of the dark cave. At first he's blinded by the brilliance of the sun, but once his eyes adjust he becomes aware of a world infinitely more beautiful and substantial than the dark realm of the cave. He experiences life as he had never known it before. He hastens back to tell his comrades, but they're unreceptive. The cave is all they know. They're comfortable enough, and they don't care to hear of any sun or colors or anything else. They think their former friend mad, and if he persists in pestering them, Plato warns, they may even kill him.

I think of that parable almost every time I hear an account of another lefty climbing out of the ideological cave in which he had been chained.

Narcissistic Neo-Nazi Darwinian

Biologist P.Z. Myers explains his noted rhetorical felicity in response to a column by John Hawks advising restraint in the Evo/ID controversy:

It is correct that if I were talking to a student or a parent, trying to persuade them to abandon misbegotten notions of creationism that are affecting the student's ability to be a good biologist, I wouldn't call them lunatics. It isn't very effective to try and persuade an individual by calling them idiots, and in most cases I don't think the creationist students I occasionally get are idiots-just sadly misled.

However, I was not attacking such individuals, but the president of the US and the preachers at the Discovery Institute. You know, the responsible people who are lying to the public or working to disseminate destructive delusions.

Oh, but Hawks has that covered; his last sentence suggests that the people they "know and respect" should not be so harshly criticized, lest we alienate them. I strongly disagree. It is the leaders and enablers who must be vigorously attacked, the ones who abuse those positions of authority and respect to poison minds.

[I]t is my responsibility as a scientist to oppose ignorance, especially ignorance that has power and influence. Let them find comfort and forgiveness for stupid mistakes in their religion, because I sure as hell am not going to give it to them.

Don't tell me to be dispassionate or less unreasonable about it all because because 65% of the American population think creationism should be taught alongside evolution, or that Americans are just responding to common notions of "fairness". That just tells me that we scientists have not been expressing our outrage enough. And yes, we should be outraged that the president of our country panders to theocrats, faith-healers, and snake-oil artists; sitting back and quietly explaining that Bush may be a decent man who is mistaken, while the preachers are stridently condemning all us evilutionists to hell, is a damned ineffective tactic that has gotten us to this point.

I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don't care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way.

Goddamn, but don't even suggest that we're being too partisan. I am on the side of reason and human rights, and my only failing is that I'm not partisan enough.

His only failing? Oh, what ineffable joy it must be to be P.Z. Myers.

Anyway, we can be grateful to Myers for nicely summing up for us the Left's preferred modus operandi in debate of any kind: Try to defeat your opponent through the power of your ideas. If that fails then kick him in the groin. And Myers says, after admonishing all and sundry not to expect him to be less unreasonable, that he's on the side of reason? The man sounds more like a narcissistic neo-nazi brown-shirt.

Questioning Roberts About His Religion

The following is an imaginary exchange with John Roberts at his judicial committee hearings:

Sen. Leahy: Judge Roberts, we've read that your Catholic faith is very important to you. Will your religious views affect your decisions as a Supreme Court justice?

Judge Roberts: The answer to that question, senator, is both Yes and No. Permit me to explain. My religious faith imposes upon me moral obligations to be diligent, honest, and fair in fulfilling my role as a justice of the Supreme Court, and I pray that with God's help I will meet those obligations.

However, my role as justice will be to decide what the constitution says about the matters that will be before me. It is not my task to decide what it should or shouldn't say, nor to decide on the basis of what I think is moral or immoral. I have been nominated to be a jurist, not a legislator.

Thus even if I thought that the constitution stated something in direct opposition to my religious convictions my responsibility would be to decide the case on the basis of the constitution and not on the basis of my convictions. It is not the Court's job to make law or to change the constitution. That is the province of the legislative branch of government.

Indeed, it is my religion, senator, that dictates that I be honest in assessing what the constitution says and that I carry out its mandates faithfully. So to that extent, yes, my religion will certainly influence my decisions.

Such an answer would almost certainly bring an end to the questions about Roberts' religion.

Every Day, In Every Way ...

We reported several weeks ago on a story that credited abortion on demand for the sharp drop in crime in the U.S. since the 1970s.

David Brooks writes to tell us, though, that the decrease in criminality is only one social indicator that suggests that we are becoming a healthier society. He gives four reasons for this happy state of affairs, and none of them is that we've aborted all the problems:

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of family violence in this country has dropped by more than half since 1993. I've been trying to figure out why. A lot of the credit has to go to the people who have been quietly working in this field: to social workers who provide victims with counseling and support; to women's crisis centers, which help women trapped in violent relationships find other places to live; to police forces and prosecutors, who are arresting more spouse-beaters and putting them away. The Violence Against Women Act, which was passed in 1994, must have also played a role, focusing federal money and attention.

But all of these efforts are part of a larger story. The decline in family violence is part of a whole web of positive, mutually reinforcing social trends. To put it in old-fashioned terms, America is becoming more virtuous. Americans today hurt each other less than they did 13 years ago. They are more likely to resist selfish and shortsighted impulses. They are leading more responsible, more organized lives. A result is an improvement in social order across a range of behaviors.

The decline in domestic violence is of a piece with the decline in violent crime over all. Violent crime over all is down by 55 percent since 1993 and violence by teenagers has dropped an astonishing 71 percent, according to the Department of Justice. The number of drunken driving fatalities has declined by 38 percent since 1982, according to the Department of Transportation, even though the number of vehicle miles traveled is up 81 percent. The total consumption of hard liquor by Americans over that time has declined by over 30 percent.

Teenage pregnancy has declined by 28 percent since its peak in 1990. Teenage births are down significantly and, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the number of abortions performed in the country has also been declining since the early 1990's. Fewer children are living in poverty, even allowing for an uptick during the last recession. There's even evidence that divorce rates are declining, albeit at a much more gradual pace. People with college degrees are seeing a sharp decline in divorce, especially if they were born after 1955.

I could go on. Teenage suicide is down. Elementary school test scores are rising (a sign than more kids are living in homes conducive to learning). Teenagers are losing their virginity later in life and having fewer sex partners. In short, many of the indicators of social breakdown, which shot upward in the late 1960's and 1970's, and which plateaued at high levels in the 1980's, have been declining since the early 1990's.

I always thought it would be dramatic to live through a moral revival. Great leaders would emerge. There would be important books, speeches, marches and crusades. We're in the middle of a moral revival now, and there has been very little of that. This revival has been a bottom-up, prosaic, un-self-conscious one, led by normal parents, normal neighbors and normal community activists.

The first thing that has happened is that people have stopped believing in stupid ideas: that the traditional family is obsolete, that drugs are liberating, that it is every adolescent's social duty to be a rebel.

The second thing that has happened is that many Americans have become better parents. Time diary studies reveal that parents now spend more time actively engaged with kids, even though both parents are more likely to work outside the home.

Third, many people in the younger generation, under age 30 or so, are reacting against the culture of divorce. They are trying to lead lives that are more stable than the ones their parents led. Post-boomers behave better than the baby boomers did.

Fourth, over the past few decades, neighborhood and charitable groups have emerged to help people lead more organized lives, even in the absence of cohesive families. Obviously, we're not living in a utopia, where all social problems have been solved. But these improvements across a whole range of behaviors are too significant to be dismissed. We in the media play up the negative, as we always do. The activist groups emphasize the work still to be done, because they want to keep people mobilized and financing their work.

But the good news is out there. You want to know what a society looks like when it is in the middle of moral self-repair? Look around.

Brooks may be a Pollyanna, but there certainly is a difference between what our society is today and what it was in the 1970s when it seemed that it was coming apart at the seams. His article is encouraging news, but we wonder how things can possibly be as good as he says they are after having suffered through five years of George Bush.

An Argument For the Death Penalty

This is a good argument for the death penalty for crimes other than murder:

A gloating rapist called his teenage victim's mother on a stolen mobile phone to tell her about the depraved attack, police revealed today. Armed with a screwdriver, he subjected the 15-year-old girl to two sickening sex assaults in west Belfast. A second thug used a metal bar to batter three boys she was with and stop them rescuing her.

The girl, who is from the north of England but was holidaying in Belfast, has been left severely traumatised by the double rape early today. Police chiefs shocked by the brutality of the attack have launched a hunt for the men, both in their late teens. Chief Superintendent Ken Henning said: "This was horrendous and disgraceful. It has caused untold distress to the victims and their families." The girl and her friends were confronted by the pair as they walked along Blacks Road just before 3 am.

Cash and mobile phones were stolen before the girl was dragged into a BP petrol station forecourt and raped. The boys, two 15-year-olds and one aged 14, were ordered to strip to the waist and beaten repeatedly. "These three men were literally held hostage while this went on," Mr Henning said. "They were helpless to go to her aid as they were being threatened and struck by a metal bar." The terrified youngsters were then taken up a driveway at the nearby Colin Valley Golf Centre where the girl was raped again.

"The individuals who carried out the attack took her mobile phone, rang her mother and told her what they had done," Mr Henning added. SDLP member Patricia Lewsley was outraged at the level of cruelty involved. "It is hard to imagine the kind of ordeal that this young girl endured," she said. "It was cruel in its planning and evil in its execution. It is clear that this attack was not spontaneous.

"It is clear that these sick criminals will strike again. That is why, for the safety of everyone in the area, I am appealing for anyone who may have any information on this evil crime to contact the local police as soon as possible."

Why should these animals, if caught, have their existence subsidized at taxpayer expense, including the taxes that will be paid by their victims and her family. They will live off the state for twenty years or so and then be released back into society while this girls' life and that of her family is doubtless seriously damaged. If a dog behaved this viciously it would be put to sleep. So, too, should people be who would do something as depraved and cruel as this.

ELCA Assembly

Posts on Viewpoint may be a little sporadic this week as I am at the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) Churchwide Assembly in Orlando and the folks here have our time pretty much filled from morning till night.

Yesterday's session may be of interest to those following the changes occuring in churches around the country with respect to ordaining homosexual clergy. There are two resolutions to be voted on this week related to the ELCA's handling of gay and lesbian issues. Resolution two would essentially permit churches to bless commited same sex unions and reolution three would permit the ordination of gay and lesbian pastors.

Last evening the assembly, some 1000 laypeople and clergy from synods across the country, decided on the rules which would govern the assembly's voting procedures. To summarize, the conservatives (or traditionalists) wanted to make it harder to adopt resolutions 2 and 3 (although the resolutions themselves were only obliquely referred to, everyone knows that they're the five hundred pound gorilla in the middle of the living room), by adopting rules that would require changes to traditional practice to achieve a 2/3 majority. The liberals wanted to make it easier to adopt the resolutions on sexuality and worked to have these rules struck out or amended.

It seemed that there was good news and bad news for both sides. The liberals' motions to strike out or amend the rules required a simple majority to pass, and this they rarely achieved. However, the conservatives' motions to accept the rules required a 2/3 vote and this they consistently fell short of by a few tenths of a percent.

On balance, it seemed to go well last night for the liberals who managed largely to get their way even though they were often in a 66% to 34% minority. In the long term, however, conservatives can be encouraged that even if they don't have a 2/3 majority, they do appear at this point to have a large enough majority to block adoption of the controversial resolutions later this week.

This is just my take on the events from one little corner of the assembly hall, of course. Perhaps, it will prove to be wrong. I'll try to post further updates on Viewpoint for those of our readers who might be following the issue.

Teaching ID (Pt. II)

A couple of days ago we did a post on teaching Intelligent Design. Today I'd like to advance the discussion a bit by examining how ID could be presented in public school science classrooms in such a way as to allay the fears, perhaps, of those who see it as a Trojan Horse for sneaking religion into schools.

Science teachers discuss a host of topics in which it would be appropriate to include in the presentation of the scientific content a simple statement that scientists disagree on the philosophical significance of the material being covered. Some believe that the data which they've gleaned from their investigations have a purely natural explanation while others believe that natural processes by themselves are inadequate to explain what they observe and that the phenomena bear the impress of intelligent input.

Consider discussions likely to occur in a high school physics class whenever any of the dozens of forces, constants, and parameters of the universe are explained. These phenomena of physics are so exquisitely fine-tuned that were they different in just the slightest degree life would be impossible. The electromagnetic spectrum, for example, has a vast range of frequencies but only an extremely thin sliver of them is not only not harmful but is also necessary for carbon-based life to exist. Even more astonishing precision appertains to gravity, the strong nuclear force, and other such topics of interest to physics students. A teacher who wishes to enrich his students' understanding might point out that some scientists say this fine-tuning points to intelligence and purpose. Others say it's just a brute, inexplicable fact of nature. But to simply leave the matter hanging, as it were, is to deny students an important piece of information and, worse, to deny them an opportunity to do some good thinking.

An earth sciences teacher discussing cosmology with her classes will present to them the theory of the Big Bang. If she's skillful she might mention that a beginning to the universe implies a cause and a cause implies something which transcends the effect. If the universe had a beginning (like the Bang suggests) then it's reasonable to assume that something caused it. If so, that cause would've been either personal or impersonal, intelligent or not. She could then mention that scientists and arguments can be found on both sides of this controversy.

The earth sciences teacher will also have occasion throughout the year to mention dozens of details concerning the location of the earth in the solar system and in the galaxy as well as its physical structure (size, mass, composition, atmosphere, period of rotation, plate tectonics, amount of water, etc.). All of these properties of the earth seem to be exactly what is necessary for advanced life to be sustained and that the number of geophysical characteristics required by life is so high, the earth, in the minds of some scientists may well be unique in the cosmos.

Some scientists believe, our teacher might explain, that because the earth and universe seem so finely calibrated for the demands of living things, and because it is very difficult to account for how this could have happened just by chance, there must be a nearly infinite number of universes. If there are infinitely many worlds then it becomes more probable that there will be one like our own in which life can exist. Against this view many other scientists argue that talk of other universes is mere speculation and that there's no evidence for any universe but ours, as improbable as it is, and that the precise settings of the forces, constants etc. are better explained in terms of purposeful engineering in the design of the cosmic structure.

A chemistry teacher might well make clear to his students while discussing the properties of water why the chemical and physical characteristics of this substance are absolutely astonishing. Every one of the properties of water make it perfect for the role of sustaining living things. If any one of these properties were even slightly different, life as we know it could not exist. The same is true of a host of elements like oxygen, iron, and especially carbon and carbon compounds, particularly carbon dioxide and the bicarbonate buffer system.

The teacher might note that many chemists are awe-struck by the suitability of these substances for life and consequently conclude that the laws of chemistry are biocentric. Others, however, simply impute this fitness to the "way things are."

A biology teacher discussing the origin of life could rightly point out that there is no plausible theory in the scientific literature which explains how chemicals could have been ordered and arranged by purely mechanistic processes to construct self-replicating, information-filled, living cells. She could also mention that some scientists like Fred Hoyle have argued that the mechanistic origin of life under the conditions believed to have prevailed on the early earth is so difficult to imagine that life must have originated on some other planet and subsequently been imported to earth as spores. Other scientists, she could add, think that the extreme improbability of life emerging as a result of blind, undirected forces suggests that in fact it didn't emerge this way at all, and that it was instead the result, at least in part, of the work of an intelligent mind.

She might go on to instruct her students that a minority of biologists have come to believe that the mechanisms of evolution, natural selection and genetic mutation, are inadequate to explain the rich abundance of both specified and irreducible complexity found ubiquitously in biological structures, biochemical pathways and molecular machines throughout nature. Such complexity, these biologists believe, points at least as emphatically toward intentional design as to blind fortune.

It might also be pointed out that the differences between these scientists are matters of philosophy not science. They don't disagree about the empirical facts so much as they disagree about how best to account for those facts. Darwinians, for example, assume that natural forces and processes are sufficient to account for the vast richness and complexity of life, but this is not a scientific assumption. It does not lend itself to empirical testing or observation. The very act of trying to test it requires the input of an intelligent mind. As such the Darwinian assumption should be no more privileged in science classrooms than its denial.

A science teacher might also have occasion to discuss the wonders of the human brain and wish to note that only brains generate consciousness. How they do it is a mystery but that they do is an amazing fact. Matter and machines are not conscious. Computers are not conscious. Conscious states (feeling, hoping, desiring, hating, guilt, fear, wishing, moral judgment, understanding, believing, doubting, etc.) exist only in brains and possibly only in human brains. Even if a computer could be built that would be capable of "conscious experience" it would never have those experiences unless it were appropriately programmed by an intelligent software designer. The notion that consciousness can arise spontaneously out of the inherent properties of brute matter is a dubious hypothesis for which there is scant evidence.

The teacher could also mention that the marvelous uniqueness of consciousness is nevertheless believed by some scientists to be an inevitable consequence of gathering together the right matrix of biochemical and electrical phenomena. Other scientists are convinced that human consciousness cannot be explained in purely material terms and that it instead suggests the input of an underlying mind.

The preceding is a relatively tiny sample of topics and concepts which could serve as springboards for discussion of the controversy between materialism and Intelligent Design. There is nothing in the above examples which involves anything religious. Indeed, the debate is not a conflict between science and religion. Science is not in dispute nor is religion at issue. It is rather a controversy between philosophical physicalism (or materialism) and a kind of philosophical dualism. The physicalist insists that nothing but physical forces and processes are at play in the universe. The dualist maintains that physical forces by themselves cannot account for the precision, complexity, or high information content of every aspect of the cosmos all the way down to the tiniest sub-atomic particle. Matter, the dualist argues, is only one aspect of reality, mind is another.

Any science teacher would find that discussing these differences in how scientists explain the phenomena they observe in the world with his or her students would spark tremendous interest and learning. Science teachers are always searching for ways to stir a sense of awe in students, but the demand to limit science instruction to empirical facts detached from any philosophical interpretation or explanation of those facts leaves their lessons more sterile than they have to be and deadens enthusiasm.

It's a shame that students are being subtly discouraged from experiencing the exhilarating wonder good science inspires, but the fear that such emotions will lead young minds to questions about transcendence drives secularists into a panic. Better, the tacit thinking seems to be, to dampen the intellectual satisfactions students could experience than to have the physicalist paradigm subject to challenge. So one philosophical position, physicalism, or materialism, enjoys an unjustifiable monopoly in science classes, protected by those who would rather children not think at all than that their thinking lead them to suspect that perhaps materialism is false.

Teachers and others interested in exploring this topic in more depth might want to read one or more of the following: Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen Barr, Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton, Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe, The Design Revolution by William Dembski, and Rare Earth by Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee.

Profiling Sex Offenders

Profiling terrorists or drug runners may not be politically correct, but evidently profiling sex offenders is. Here's an interesting article by Daniel Engber which explains how it's done:

On Wednesday, convicted sex offender Joseph Edward Duncan was charged with kidnapping two small children and murdering their older brother, their mother, and her boyfriend. When he was an inmate in 1999 and 2000, forensic psychologists evaluated Duncan using two different tests; both indicated he was likely to carry out a crime after being released from prison. How do psychologists assess the risk that a sex offender will strike again?

Through a combination of clinical judgment and statistics. A forensic psychologist interviews the convict, speaks with his family, and reviews police reports and prison records. The psychologist combines this research with actuarial assessments designed to predict whether an offender will commit another crime.

These actuarial tools have become common only in the past 10 years; today, most forensic psychologists recognize their value in predicting recidivism. Researchers design the assessments by examining sex offender databases. They look for the variables that best correlate with repeated criminal activity, then whittle these down to the most important factors.

The simplest tool for evaluating sex offenders is the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offense Recidivism. The RRASOR (pronounced "razor") includes just four items. A sex offender gets one point for being under the age of 25 at the time of his release from prison, another if any of his victims were male, and a third if he wasn't related to his victims. He gets up to three more points depending on how many sex crimes he's been charged with.

The most dangerous offenders, then, are young adults who have committed multiple sex crimes against boys they've never met before. According to the RRASOR's table of probabilities, these six-point cases have more than a 73 percent chance of committing another crime within 10 years. (Psychologists did use the RRASOR to assess Duncan, and found he was likely to strike again. He'd have received at least two points: His earlier victim was male and a stranger.)

Viewpoint offers this suggestion: Two to three points should be sufficient warrant to place the villain in jail until age 65; Four to five points should land him in prison for life, and six or more points should win him an appointment with his Maker.

Conservative Writers on ID

With President Bush having given his opinion on the matter of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools there's a lot of buzz about the issue in the print media and blogosphere.

Dan Peterson offers an excellent introduction to ID, explaining in layman's terms what exactly ID theorists believe and why they believe it.

George Neumayr has two good articles on the growing intolerance of Darwinians and the increasing appeal of ID. See here and here.

David Klinghoffer avers that the vitriolic response of Darwinists to the inroads made by ID theorists is all about status.

David Limbaugh agrees with President Bush.

Lots of fascinating reading.

Roberts' Views on Religious Freedom

No Left Turns' Joseph Knippenberg has done some digging on John Roberts' likely position on first amendment cases involving freedom of religion. He says this:

I've written a very long piece examining the publicly available evidence regarding John Roberts's position on the First Amendment religion clauses. Did I mention that it is VERY LONG? Here's the relatively short conclusion:

A careful review of the publicly available evidence suggests that John Roberts has put his name to positions solidly within the mainstream of judicial interpretation of the First Amendment religion clauses. As seems to be the case in many other areas of law, he would be careful to stay within the proper bounds of judicial competence and be respectful of the role and judgments of the political branches. Above all, he would apparently continue and perhaps extend somewhat the Court's tendency to look favorably on attempts to accommodate religious expression, not necessarily as a matter of judicially-enforced constitutional right, but rather as a matter of what might be called legislative grace.

This deference and "judicial restraint" would require a rethinking of the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence, continuing the move away from a mechanical application of the Lemon test and perhaps an abandonment of Sandra Day O'Connor's "endorsement" test, in favor of a return to a focus on the traditional elements of establishment ("force and funds").

This would, of course, mark a change in the Court, just as Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement of Byron White marked a change in the Court. Our first opportunity to see what sort of change will come in the next term, when the Court hears Ashcroft et al. v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, a case addressing a Religious Freedom Restoration Act-based challenge to the Controlled Substances Act.

Will Roberts take the opportunity-as Sandra Day O'Connor did in her dissent in City of Boerne v. Flores-to call for a reexamination of the Court's holding in Employment Division v. Smith, stare decisis to the contrary notwithstanding? Or will he likely follow Antonin Scalia in deferring to the legislative judgment of "compelling state interest" embodied in the Controlled Substances Act itself? We will see soon enough how he balances his apparent clear concern with religious liberty with his deference to the political branches.

I saw nothing in the seven briefs I read to dampen my enthusiasm for Roberts; if he believes what he wrote, he'll generally vote with Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. When Kennedy can be brought along for the ride (which is a somewhat more frequent occurrence than was O'Connor's fellow traveling), there is a working majority on Establishment Clause cases.

This is exactly what many Christians voted for George Bush for. Once Roberts is seated, and assuming Rehnquist's health holds out, it appears there may be a return to sanity in the rulings which come down to us from Mt. Olympus on matters of religious expression and many other matters as well.

Chris Matthews Redefines Shamelessness

We stated in a post a couple of days ago titled Sinking in the Mire that the NYT was positively shameless in their obsession to hand Bush a defeat by trying to mine scandal in the adoption records of John Roberts' children.

A day later Chris Matthews decided he would not be outdone by the Times. On his MSNBC show Hardball, which after last night might be called Sleazeball, Matthews interviewed the parents of a young Marine killed in Iraq less than 24 hours before.

The tenor of his questions made it clear that Mr. Matthews sought to exploit the grief of this couple in order to score cheap political points against the administration. The questions he asked follow below. I've omitted the parents' responses, which were pretty much what Matthews was hoping for, because those parents should be given our sympathy, not our criticism. If the reader wishes to see how they answered the questions the complete transcript can be found at the link.

Ms. Palmer, did you sense that this war was very dangerous for your son, even before yesterday?

What made you feel that the danger was growing?

Let me ask you, Mr. Schroeder, why do you think we're in this war? What do you think is the real reason for this war in Iraq?

Rosemary, let me ask you what is your feeling about this war and the goal of trying to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? And do you think that was a smart thing for us to try to do?

Do you think that the war is going to get any better now that your son - I mean, you have paid the ultimate price? And, by the way, thank you. I don't know what it means to say thank you for your service, except I mean it. The courage of these young guys and some women over there is unbelievable. And I guess everybody wonders about the conduct of the war, whether these lives are being wasted or these lives are being put to good purpose. What is your feeling about that now?

The way you describe it [the war], it is like pouring water into a sand hole on the beach and having it drain right through and start over again. It seems like a repetitive process that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere.

What should be the reaction of the American people who pick up their newspapers, watch television, and learn of these horrors? What should they do as a result of seeing that news, Mr. Schroeder?

It's hard to come to any other conclusion than that these questions, aside from being dumb, were designed to elicit criticism of the Bush administration and its conduct of the war. That Matthews used people who had just learned that their son had been killed to achieve this purpose is unconscionable. The only good thing about this sordid affair is that scarcely anyone watches MSNBC.

Marine Losses

Bill Roggio has some details on how the six Marines were lost in fighting several days ago and also some thoughts on the war in Anbar province.

You'll also want to read Wretchard's analysis of a Department of Defense news briefing with General Carter Ham about the ambush. You'll also want to read Wretchard's analysis of a Department of Defense news briefing with General Carter Ham about the ambush.

Roggio and Wretchard are far more informative than anything you'll find on the evening newscast.