Things Are Better Than You Think

Everything that you thought was true about the state of the world is apparently false. If you don't believe it, read the Commission on Human Security Report titled War and Peace in the Twenty First Century. The report is filled with fascinating information. Did you know for instance that:

Over the past dozen years, the global security climate has changed in dramatic, positive, but largely unheralded ways. Civil wars, genocides and international crises have all declined sharply. International wars, now only a small minority of all conflicts, have been in steady decline for a much longer period, as have military coups and the average number of people killed per conflict per year.

*Armed conflicts around the world have actually declined by 40% since the early nineties.

*Between 1991 (the high point for the post-World War II period) and 2004, 28 armed struggles for self-determination started or restarted, while 43 were contained or ended.

*There were just 25 armed secessionist conflicts under way in 2004, the lowest number since 1976.

*Notwithstanding the horrors of Rwanda, Srebrenica and elsewhere, the number of genocides and politicides plummeted by 80% between the 1988 high point and 2001.

*International crises, often harbingers of war, declined by more than 70% between 1981 and 2001.

*The dollar value of major international arms transfers fell by 33% between 1990 and 2003.

*Global military expenditure and troop numbers declined sharply in the 1990s as well.

*The number of refugees dropped by some 45% between 1992 and 2003, as more and more wars came to an end.

*The period since the end of World War II is the longest interval of uninterrupted peace between the major powers in hundreds of years.

*The number of actual and attempted military coups has been declining for more than 40 years. In 1963 there were 25 coups and attempted coups around the world, the highest number in the post - World War II period. In 2004 there were only 10 coup attempts - a 60% decline. All of them failed.

According to the Report each of the following examples of conventional wisdom is actually little more than myth:

� The number of armed conflicts is increasing.

� Wars are getting deadlier.

� The number of genocides is increasing.

� The gravest threat to human security is international terrorism.

� 90% of those killed in today's wars are civilians.

� 5 million people were killed in wars in the 1990s.

� 2 million children were killed in wars during the last decade.

� 80% of refugees are women and children.

� Women are the primary victims of war.

� There are 300,000 child soldiers serving around the world today.

The Report states that, "Not one of these claims is based on reliable data. All are suspect; some are demonstrably false. Yet they are widely believed because they reinforce popular assumptions. They flourish in the absence of official figures to contradict them, and conjure a picture of global security trends that is grossly distorted. And they often drive political agendas."

Then there is this astonishing fact:

According to the World Bank, the September 11 attacks on the US in 2001 pushed millions of people in the developing world into poverty, and likely killed tens of thousands of under-five year-olds, a far greater toll than the total number of deaths directly caused by the attack.

The report gives the lion's share of the credit for the decline in violence to the end of both colonialism and the cold war, which is certainly a major factor, and to the efforts of the U.N., which is certainly a singularly ludicrous attribution. Nowhere in the report is there mention of the fact that since the 1980s, evil-doers have been put on notice that if they persist in doing their neighbors ill they may well receive a knock on the door from an American JDAM precision guided munition.

Such a prospect has probably done more to concentrate the minds of the world's villains than all of Kofi Anan's proclamations, programs, and thieveries put together. Yet it receives no mention. Nor have we seen this report in the MSM. Too much good news for the chronically dyspeptic gloom and doomers to assimilate, we suppose.

Thanks to Belmont Club for the tip.

Complexity: A Visual Aid

ID folks frequently mention how complex living systems are, but many non-scientists really have no idea what they're talking about. One example of complexity is the biochemical pathways that are found in every cell of a higher animal's body. To get an idea of just what a scientist means by the word "complexity" check this out. As you look at it, bear in mind that this is what Darwinian evolutionists believe was produced by the action of blind, unguided, random processes, and it's what they don't want students to be told may be the product of an intelligent bio-engineer.

Click anywhere on the chart to magnify that section of it.

Thanks to Bill Dembski for the tip.

Theological Reflections

The highly esteemed theologian J.I. Packer forthrightly addresses in a Christianity Today article the question whether Christian theology allows that others besides Christians might be granted eternal life.

This is a very difficult question for Christians to discuss with devout members of other faiths because the orthodox answer seems heartless and parochial. Packer doesn't shrink from it, however, and states clearly that:

"All are called to turn to Jesus Christ and so become God's adopted children, and eternal life comes only to those who do this."

This is the mainstream evangelical position and is the heritage of two thousand years of orthodox Christian belief on the matter. Even so, I think it fair to say that everyone, including Dr. Packer, might hope that this traditional interpretation is incorrect. It breaks one's heart to think of the implications of its being right. Millions of wonderful people who deeply love God as they understand him are nevertheless lost forever if it is. Either they spend eternity suffering the torments of hell or they are completely annihilated, but in either case, Christians who are called by Christ to love the lost cannot contemplate that fate without hoping that it's not so, without hoping that God has some alternative plan for the millions of children and adults who have lived their lives without ever hearing the gospel or who have, for whatever reason, never been able to perceive its truth.

Yet whatever such a plan might be (C.S. Lewis addresses this very issue, albeit obliquely, in his wonderful short work The Great Divorce), it must be consonant with the Biblical witness on the matter, especially the doctrine that it is only because of the price that God himself paid on the cross that anyone at all can be saved. Salvation is possible for anyone who receives it only because of what Christ did, but whether it also depends upon a person's knowing what Christ did and knowing who Christ was is less clear.

Packer goes on to outline two alternatives to the orthodox view that Christians have put forward throughout the history of the church and finds them both inadequate:

[S]ome pursue two lines of speculation. The first is universalism, the belief that despite the New Testament witness to the contrary, God will somehow bring all who leave this world as nonbelievers to share the inheritance of those who die living in Christ. This requires successful postmortem evangelism for some and heart-changing corrective discipline for others....

The second speculation is inclusivism, positing a possibility of salvation for sincere devotees of faiths in which Jesus Christ is either unknown or is rejected as the divine Savior. On what, biblically speaking, might this possibility be based? Not, clearly, on sincerity or devotion as such, nor on personal merit (no one has any), nor on any intrinsic efficacy of unchristian rituals. On what then?

It has been urged that if non-Christian devotees come to know themselves as guilty, defiled, and unworthy, and to confess and renounce their sins, asking mercy from whatever gods there may be, they will receive the forgiveness they seek because of the Jesus they do not yet know, but will know hereafter. God forbid we should dispute this. But have we reason to think there are such people? The New Testament only speaks of penitents being saved through knowing about, and coming to trust, the crucified and risen Lord....

Both speculations, biblically, must be judged failures.

We discount universalism for reasons we need not go into now, and we agree with Dr. Packer that if any non-Christians are saved it is not on the basis of sincerity, merit, or rituals. However, it may be that these do not exhaust all the possibilities. Most Christians, after all, believe that children and mentally handicapped persons who die without recognizing themselves as "guilty, defiled, and unworthy," and confessing and renouncing their sins, "asking mercy from whatever gods there may be," are nevertheless not condemned by their lack of understanding.

Many Christians also believe that people who lived before the Christian era are also held to a different standard and are not necessarily denied salvation even though they may never have had the faintest glimmer of who Christ would be. So, it seems reasonable to hope that it is at least possible that adults in the present age who've never heard the gospel or who, for reasons transcending the biblical "hardness of heart," find themselves unable to discern its truth, are judged on a quite different basis than those who have heard the gospel and who have no other reason for rejecting it than that they simply don't want it to be true.

The gospel tells us in many places that all those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior will have eternal life, but it rarely suggests that only those who accept Christ will be saved. In those passages (like Jn.8:24, I Jn.2:22,23 and I Jn. 5:10) which do seem to imply this exclusivism it is possible to read the text as referring to those contemporaries who have been given so much evidence that Jesus was the Son of God that their persistent unbelief is without excuse.

Perhaps when each of us stands before God he will ask of us a single question. Perhaps he will ask not whether we have believed this or that point of doctrine, however important these may be, but rather he will ask of each person: "Do you love me?" It could be that this is for God the all-important issue, the overriding question. Our love is what he most earnestly desires. It could be, too, that we will not respond to this question in words, but rather that our whole life will serve as our reply.

On the other hand, it may well be that this is not the case at all and that Packer's interpretation of the Gospel's teaching is correct, but he, and every other Christian, should be fervently hoping that it isn't. We should all hope that there's a "wideness to God's mercy" and grace that judges us accountable for the love of God, or lack of it, that we hold in our heart and not for the knowledge of the scripture, or lack of it, which we hold in our head.

Squeezing the Pig

The Fourth Rail has a good visual that enables the viewer to track the progress made by coalition forces over the last year in its transition from "search and destroy" to "clear and hold missions." The visual illustrates pretty starkly that the number of towns being held by the coalition is expanding rapidly toward the Syrian border now that Iraqi combat troops are growing increasingly competent and available.

Of course, there may still be terrorist activity in towns that are under Iraqi military control, as there was recently in Ramadi, but these towns are no longer sanctuaries for terrorists. The bad guys know their range of operations is growing more and more restricted. They no doubt feel like a pig in the coils of a python. An apt simile, that.

No New Strategy

Fareed Zakaria includes the following bit of silliness in a column he writes for Newseek:

This shift could be seen in microcosm in a report last week in The Wall Street Journal on the town of Tall Afar. Tall Afar was an insurgent stronghold, where last month American and Iraqi forces launched a major operation, killing and arresting hundreds. But to avoid the mistakes of the past, when cities were won only to be lost again in a few months, the commanding officer of the American squadron, Lt. Col. Chris Hickey, spent a great deal of time, energy and attention constructing a local political order that would hold. That meant empowering both the Sunnis and Shiites. Hickey reached out to the main Sunni tribal sheik, a man who only a few months earlier had been considered an insurgent leader and imprisoned in Abu Ghraib. "Reconciliation is the key to this thing," explained Col. H. R. McMaster, commander of U.S. forces in north-western Iraq. "This insurgency depends on sectarian tension to move and operate." McMaster articulates a strategy that is part military and part political.

Many military experts have weighed in on the need for a better counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq-one that defends towns and regions, thus securing people's lives, rather than simply killing bad guys. In fact, that strategy is being adopted, using Iraqi troops and local leaders as the crucial ingredients to keeping the peace. That's why conditions in several key trouble spots in Iraq-Sadr City, Mosul, Fallujah, Najaf and Tall Afar-are much, much better than they were a year ago. There is a general recognition even among many Shiite leaders that a purely military strategy will not defeat the insurgency.

Iraq is still in rough shape, but the Bush administration's strategy has moved in the right direction.

Zakaria gives the impression that the current "clear and hold" tactics that coalition forces are employing along the Euphrates River and elsewhere in the Sunni triangle are a novel development. He makes it sound as if the administration could have been setting up local forces in cleared towns all along but were too obtuse to see the value of it and are just now getting around to revising their strategy. This is nonsense.

The fact is that it has been administration policy from early on to train Iraqi troops to handle precisely this sort of mission, but it has taken time to prepare the Iraqis for that task. Now, however, there are dozens of battalions ready to fight the Islamists and provide security in Iraqi towns and more troops are coming on line every month. As the troops are becoming available the policy is coming to fruition, but the policy isn't new. It's only that people who are loath to give the present administration any credit for anything wish us to think that somehow they have just come to see what everyone else has been seeing for months, i.e. that we need a new strategy.

We didn't need a new strategy, the Henny-Pennys and Chicken Littles among us notwithstanding. What we needed was patience and resolve to see the strategy we already had through to it's culmination. Bush had it and it's now clearly paying off.

Prom Night

In case you missed this story, Joanne Jacobs provides us with the link:

Kenneth M. Hoagland had heard all the stories about prom-night debauchery at his Long Island high school: Students putting down $10,000 to rent a house in the Hamptons for a weekend bash. Pre-prom cocktail parties followed by a trip to the dance in a limo loaded with liquor. Fathers chartering a boat so their kids could go out on a late-night "booze cruise."

Enough was enough, Hoagland said. So the principal of Kellenberg Memorial High School fired off a 2,000-word missive to parents at the start of the school year informing them that the Catholic school would no longer put on the spring prom.

"It is not primarily the sex/booze/drugs that surround this event, as problematic as they might be; it is rather the flaunting of affluence, assuming exaggerated expenses, a pursuit of vanity for vanity's sake -- in a word, financial decadence," Brother Hoagland said, fed up with what he calls the "bacchanalian aspects" of the prom.

"Each year it gets worse -- becomes more exaggerated, more expensive, more emotionally traumatic," he added. "We are withdrawing from the battle and allowing the parents full responsibility. (Kellenberg) is willing to sponsor a prom, but not an orgy." The move has brought a mixed, albeit passionate, reaction from students and parents.

"I don't think it's fair, obviously, that they canceled prom," said senior Alyssa Johnson of Westbury. "There are problems with the prom, but I don't think their reasons or the actions they took solved anything."

In his letter, Hoagland cited a litany of problems that he says have developed over the years. He began a dialogue on the future of the prom last spring after it was discovered that 46 Kellenberg seniors made a $10,000 down payment on a $20,000 rental in the Hamptons for a post-prom party. When school officials found out, they forced the students to cancel the deal; the kids got their money back and the prom went on as planned. But Hoagland said some parents went ahead and rented a Hamptons house anyway.

Amy Best, an associate professor of sociology and anthropology at George Mason University in Virginia and the author of "Prom Night: Youth, Schools and Popular Culture," said this is the first time she has heard of a school canceling the prom for such reasons.

"A lot of people have lamented the growing consumption that surrounds the prom," she said, noting it is not uncommon to see students pay $1,000 on the prom and the surrounding folderol: dresses that cost hundreds, tuxedo rentals, flowers, limousines, pre- and post-prom parties. Best pinned some of the blame for the burgeoning costs on parents, who are often willing to open their wallets for whatever their child demands. "It is a huge misperception that the kids themselves are totally driving this."

Edward Lawson, the father of a Kellenberg senior, said he and other parents are discussing whether to organize a prom for their children without the sponsorship of the 2,500-student school, which features pristine athletic fields, immaculate hallways and the latest in audio-visual technology. "This is my fourth child to go through Kellenberg and I don't think they have a right to judge what goes on after the prom," he said. "They put everybody in the category of drinkers and drug addicts. I don't believe that's the right thing to do."

Some parents lined up in their cars outside the school to pick up their children on a recent afternoon said they are backing Hoagland. "The school has excellent values," said Margaret Cameron of Plainview. "We send our children here because we support the values and the administration of the school and I totally back everything they do. I trust my child with them and I trust everything, all the decisions they make for them."

Hoagland said in an interview that parents, who pay $6,025 in annual tuition, have expressed appreciation for his stern stand. "For some, it (the letter) was an eye-opener," he said. "Others feel relieved that the pressure is off of them."

Chris Laine, a senior from Rockville Centre, said the cancellation was "unfortunate, but you can't really argue with the facts they present. ... It's just what it's evolved into. It's not what it was 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It's turned into something it wasn't originally intended to be." He insisted, "there's never been a problem at the prom, but everything that happens after it has turned into something ... it's what an average 17 or 18 year old is doing, but it's not necessarily what they should be doing."

Besides, Laine noted, the senior class still has a four-day trip to Disney World scheduled for April. "We go to all the parks with our friends," he said just before hopping into his jet-black Infiniti and driving off to meet friends for an after-school bite to eat. "We fly down together and stay in the same hotel and so it's not like we're totally losing everything."

They may not be losing everything, but Ms Johnson and Mr. Lawson are certainly missing the point. The expense extravagance and licentiousness of these affairs is as ludicrous as it is obscene. For the school to continue sponsoring the event is to assume responsibility for the message it sends, i.e. that such behavior is morally acceptable. We're delighted that a high school principal had the steel to stand up to parents and students and refuse to let his school capitulate to the crass materialism and sensuality that the parents encourage their kids to indulge in.

The article doesn't say it, but we assume from the fact that the students pay tuition that Kellenberg is a private school. It will be interesting to see how many public school administrators this year, and in the years ahead, demonstrate the character and wisdom displayed by Mr. Hoagland.

The Sweating Starts in Syria

Belmont Club's Wretchard and The Fourth Rail's Bill Roggio see the ratification of the Iraqi constitution as the beginning of a new phase in the war. according to these observers, the insurgency has diminished to the point where it's unable to do much more than snipe around the margins of the Iraqi juggernaut, and the administration, who's eyes have been turned toward Damascus for some time, now feels a little more latitude to turn up the threat of military action against the Syrians who have been making mischief in Iraq ever since the end of the invasion phase of the war.

Roggio says that:

The Times Online states the Bush administration has offered Assad the "Gaddafi deal" via a third party, which consists of the following:

1) Co-operate full with investigation into Rafik Hariri's assassination and hand over any suspects for trial.

2) Cease all further interference in Lebanese affairs.

3) Halt funding, planning and training of Iraqi insurgents on Syrian territory.

4) Stop support for militant groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

A 'senior Arab diplomat' is cited in the article as saying "Assad is facing a tough time ahead and he has very few friends left... He is desperately looking for a way out of this predicament." However, a 'source close to the ruling family' stated "The regime has calculated that it has the resources to survive for quite some time even if it is isolated... The strategy could be to manage the conflict until external pressures ease."

Whatever the outcome of these negotiations, it is clear the war in Iraq has moved its center of gravity from central Iraq to the border with Syria, and perhaps all the way to Damascus. The establishment of permanent outposts in Tal Afar, Sa'dah and along the Euphrates in towns astride the ratlines from Syria, along with political progress in Iraq and the development of the Iraqi Security Forces has shown the Syrians the limitations of the insurgency. While the insurgency may be able to conduct attacks on infrastructure and kill Iraqi citizens, it is unable to derail the political process, obtain mass support or take and hold territory.

Syria's hand in the insurgency can no longer be hidden, and this has furthered the isolation of the Syrian government and created the conditions for the Syrian problem to be addressed. The Assad regime is now under diplomatic and military pressure to denounce its state sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas, eliminate the jihadi's use of its territory for attacks on Iraq, and quit its interference with Lebanon's affairs.

Assad calculated that America did not have staying power in the Middle East, and pursued a policy of opposition to the establishment of democracy in Lebanon and Iraq. The effort in Iraq and pressure at the U.N. Security Council over Hariri's assassination are proving him wrong.

Wretchard adds this thought:

I think most rational observers, however anti-American, must have by now come to the grudging conclusion that the insurgency is a lost cause in Iraq. As Athena at Terrorism Unveiled and Dan Darling pointed out in their analysis of the captured letter from Zawahiri to Zarqawi, the insurgency's terror tactics have been a huge mistake from Day One. Athena puts summarizes Zawahiri's message to Zarqawi eloquently. "His cowboy ways aren't winning him any strategic alliances. And on the sectarian strife among Sunni Muslims, Zawahiri is basically saying 'Drop it.' "

If Zawahiri is now looking for a Mr. Nice Guy, however, Zarqawi is probably the wrong place to start. But it doesn't matter. Any realist must guess that we are now moving into the post-OIF era. While there will continue to be fighting in Iraq and many challenges remain, the ultimate outcome is no longer a mystery. One hint this is understood by Washington is a New York Times sourced article ... describing the hitherto hidden border fighting with Syrian soldiers:

A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials. ...

In a meeting at the White House on Oct. 1, senior aides to Mr. Bush considered a variety of options for further actions against Syria, apparently including special operations along with other methods for putting pressure on Mr. Assad in coming weeks.

American officials say Mr. Bush has not yet signed off on a specific strategy and has no current plan to try to oust Mr. Assad, partly for fear of who might take over. The United States is not planning large-scale military operations inside Syria and the president has not authorized any covert action programs to topple the Assad government, several officials said.

The timing of this release suggests that Syria's participation is now an issue which Washington is prepared to publicly discuss. While the situation in Iraq seemed doubtful, the US could not credibly address the Syrian issue because its Iraqi commitments precluded any action against Damascus. Now the Assad regime knows that US forces will not long be occupied in Iraq they are sweating bullets. Ironically the availability of US forces means that they will probably not have to be used in Syria.

Newsweek Magazine claims that the US had considered launching cross-border operations against Iraqi insurgent targets Syria on October 1 -- another publicly released telltale that US policy is ready to come out of the closet -- but were dissuaded by Condoleeza Rice who argued that "diplomatic isolation is working against al-Assad, especially on the eve of a U.N. report that may blame Syria for the murder of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri". Diplomacy would not have been enough while the insurgency tied down America. With the insurgency fading fast, diplomacy may be enough.

Just as the ouster of Saddam by OIF touched off a wave of changes in Libya, Lebanon and the entire region, the impending defeat of the insurgency will paradoxically enhance the ability of diplomacy to address many of the remaining issues. Saddam's defeat confirmed what many military analysts knew from Desert Storm, that it was impossible for any conventional army to stand up against US forces. And that modified the behavior of many rogue states. Yet there remained the hope that the terrorist model of warfare, forged in Algeria and refined against Israel in Lebanon, would bring America to a halt: that rogue regimes acting discreetly could operate within that strategic shadow.

Now, for the first time since Algeria, a terrorist force of the highest quality, supported by contributions from oil-rich countries, in the heart of the Arab world, with sanctuary in a friendly regime across the border and eulogized as "freedom fighters" by dozens of major international publications is on the verge of total and ignominious defeat. There are no more strategic shadows.

Assad's meddling in both Lebanon and Iraq is going to have consequences, none of which will be pleasant for him.

We speculate, though, that the administration's primary target is not Syria and that American policy will be merely to cow the Syrians into submission. The country that should be concerned that our troops are being increasingly freed up in Iraq by the improvements in the Iraqi forces is Iran. The mullahs in Tehran must be wondering what is in store for them if they persist in developing nuclear weapons.

As long as American forces were tied down in Iraq the Iranians knew there was little chance of an American initiative against their nuclear program, but now that troops are becoming available for operations elsewhere, the operational sites at which this program is based suddenly find themselves in much greater jeopardy. The Iranians have American blood on their hands and they should be gravely concerned about that.

Hyping and Hoping

The MSM, ever intent upon displaying its own shallowness, spiralled into paroxysms of glee the other day over the apparently staged meeting that President Bush had with some Iraq war vets. One would think from listening to Andrea Mitchell and others breathlessly describing the nefarious "coaching" of the soldiers as they prepared for their encounter with the President that a scandal of unprecedented proportions was in the offing. As usual, though, there was much less there than the media had hyped and hoped.

One soldier who was at the interview with the President expresses his dismay at the media's hyperventilations here.

The Left is determined to destroy, or at least discredit, this administration by any means necessary, but every time they get their hopes up that the White House has finally stumbled into the pig poop those infernal bumblers emerge from the mire as clean as spring water and smelling like peppermint. Meanwhile, the desperate lefties in the media, like the incredible shrinking man of the 1950's sci-fi movie, keep making themselves smaller and more insignificant. It must be as frustrating for them as it is amusing for the rest of us.

A case in point is MSNBC's Chris Matthews who has Karl Rove all but swinging from the gallows on his Hardball show. Matthews is so convinced that somebody from the administration, either Rove or Lewis Libby, is going to be indicted for the Valerie Plame business and he's so eager to see it happen, that should these men walk free, Matthews' friends will have to place him under a suicide watch.

If perchance the District Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, who's investigating this affair closes out his grand jury investigation without handing down any indictments of top White House officials, I hope I'm able to see Matthews' show that night. It'll be most illuminating to listen to Matthews explain how these people are as guilty as Lucifer, and everybody knows it, dammit, but that there just wasn't enough evidence to indict. It'll be great fun.

For What It's Worth

A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup telephone survey of 1,005 people on Sept. 8-11 produced some interesting results:

How much have you thought about the different explanations for how human beings came to exist on Earth (evolution guided by God, evolution without God's involvement or creation as described in the Bible)?

Great deal: 41%

Moderate amount: 35%

Not much: 17%

Not at all: 6%

How much does it matter to you which of these theories is correct?

Great deal: 40%

Moderate amount: 26%

Not much: 19%

Not at all: 14%

Which comes closer to your view about the relationship between science and religion?

Agree with each other: 24%

Conflict with each other: 35%

Not related: 36%

Which statement comes closest to your views?

God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible.

All: 53%

Men: 45%

Women: 60%

18-29: 54%

30-49: 50%

50-64: 50%

65 and older: 60%

By income level

$75K and up: 37%

$50K-$74.9K: 51%

$30K-$49.9K: 56%

Under 20K: 70%

By religion

Catholic: 38%

Protestant: 66%

Non-Christian: 15%

None: 16%

Human beings have evolved over millions of years from other forms of life, and God guided this process.

All: 31%

Men: 34%

Women: 29%

18-29: 27%

30-49: 38%

50-64: 32%

65 and older: 20%

By income level

$75K and up: 41%

$50K-$74.9K: 31%

$30K-$49.9K: 22%

Under 20K: 19%

By religion

Catholic: 50%

Protestant: 25%

Non-Christian: 31%

None: 29%

Human beings have evolved, but God had no part in the process.

All: 12%

Men: 17%

Women: 8%

18-29: 17%

30-49: 10%

50-64: 15%

65 and older: 11%

By income level

$75K and up: 29%

$50K-$74.9K: 12%

$30K-$49.9K: 11%

Under 20K: 4%

By religion

Catholic: 10%

Protestant: 6%

Non-Christian: 47%

None: 48%

The most interesting thing to us about this poll is the fact that only 12% of the people surveyed accepted some form of materialistic evolution. The vast majority were either creationists or theistic evolutionists. Seventy six percent of those polled have thought about the matter somewhat or a lot, and 66% say that it makes some difference to them which view is correct.

This does not, of course, have any bearing on which view is correct, but it does suggest how far out of the mainstream naturalistic views of life are in this country.

Let it Rest

Even Richard Cohen, the solidly left columnist at the Washington Post thinks the brouhaha over who outed Valerie Plame is a tempest of Lilliputian proportions. Cohen actually calls for the District Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, to just call the whole thing off:

The best thing Patrick Fitzgerald could do for his country is get out of Washington, return to Chicago and prosecute some real criminals. As it is, all he has done so far is send Judith Miller of the New York Times to jail and repeatedly haul this or that administration high official before a grand jury, investigating a crime that probably wasn't one in the first place but that now, as is often the case, might have metastasized into some sort of coverup -- but, again, of nothing much. Go home, Pat.

The alleged crime involves the outing of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative whose husband, Joseph Wilson IV, had gone to Africa at the behest of the agency and therefore said he knew that the Bush administration -- no, actually, the president himself -- had later misstated (in the State of the Union address, yet) the case that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger.

Wilson made his case in a New York Times op-ed piece. This rocked the administration, which was already fighting to retain its credibility in the face of mounting and irrefutable evidence that the case it had made for war in Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction, above all -- was a fiction. So it set out to impeach Wilson's credibility, purportedly answering the important question of who had sent him to Africa in the first place: his wife. This was a clear case of nepotism, the leakers just as clearly implied.

Not nice, but it was what Washington does day in and day out. (For some historical perspective see George Clooney's "Good Night, and Good Luck'' about Edward R. Murrow and that most odious of leakers-cum-character assassins, Joseph McCarthy.) This is rarely considered a crime. In the Plame case, it might technically be one, but it was not the intent of anyone to out a CIA agent and have her assassinated (which happened once) but to assassinate the character of her husband. This is an entirely different thing. She got hit by a ricochet.

Now we are told by various journalistic sources that Fitzgerald might not indict anyone for the illegal act he was authorized to investigate, but some other one -- maybe one concerning the disclosure of secret material. Here again, though, this is a daily occurrence in Washington, where most secrets have the shelf life of sashimi. Then, too, other journalists say that Fitzgerald might bring conspiracy charges, an attempt (or so it seems) to bring charges of some sort. This is what special prosecutors do and why they should always be avoided. (The one impaneled in 1995 to investigate then-HUD Secretary Henry G. Cisneros for lying about how much he was paying his mistress is still in operation, although the mistress most certainly is not.)

I have no idea what Fitzgerald will do. My own diligent efforts to find out anything have come to naught. Fitzgerald's non-speaking spokesman would not even tell me if his boss is authorized to issue a report, as several members of Congress are now demanding -- although Joseph E. diGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, tells me that only a possibly unprecedented court order would permit it. Whatever the case, I pray Fitzgerald is not going to reach for an indictment or, after so much tumult, merely fold his tent, not telling us, among other things, whether Miller is the martyr to a free press that I and others believe she is or whether, as some lefty critics hiss, she's a double-dealing grandstander, in the manner of some of her accusers.

More is at stake here than bringing down Karl Rove or some other White House apparatchik, or even settling some score with Miller, who is sometimes accused of taking this nation to war in Iraq all by herself. The greater issue is control of information. If anything good comes out of the Iraq war, it has to be a realization that bad things can happen to good people when the administration -- any administration -- is in sole control of knowledge and those who know the truth are afraid to speak up. This -- this creepy silence -- will be the consequence of dusting off rarely used statutes to still the tongues of leakers and intimidate the press in its pursuit of truth, fame and choice restaurant tables. Apres Miller comes moi.

This is why I want Fitzgerald to leave now. Do not bring trivial charges -- nothing about conspiracies, please -- and nothing about official secrets, most of which are known to hairdressers, mistresses and dog walkers all over town. Please, Mr. Fitzgerald, there's so much crime in Washington already. Don't commit another.

Needless to say, the rest of the left is seriously miffed by Cohen's apostacy, but then they're so filled with hatred for Bush they'd crawl a mile over broken glass to get a high ranking Republican indicted. Whether the indictment has merit or not doesn't matter. They're not interested in justice, they're interested in destroying political enemies, and every effort must be made, in their view, to bring about that noble end.

The Miracle of the Cell

Bill Dembski directs us to this 38 minute video which uses computer simulation to illustrate some of the reasons why most people, other than the true believers, are skeptical of the putative powers of blind nature to produce living things.

The resolution is a little fuzzy, but it's worth a look.

Ill-Starred Nomination

John Fund tells us how the Miers nomination came about. The core of his column is these paragraphs:

Regardless of whether or not the vetting process was complete, it presented impossible conflicts of interest. Consider the position that Mr. Bush and Mr. Card put Mr. Kelley in. He would be a leading candidate to become White House counsel if Ms. Miers was promoted. He had an interest in not going against his earlier recommendation of her for the Supreme Court, or in angering President Bush, Ms. Miers's close friend. As journalist Jonathan Larsen has pointed out he also might not have wanted to "bring to light negative information that could torpedo her nomination, keeping her in the very job where she would be best positioned to punish Kelley were she to discover his role in vetting her."

Mr. Lubet, [a Northwestern professor], says "all the built-in incentives" of the vetting process were perverse. "In business you make an effort to have disinterested directors who know all the material facts to resolve conflicts of interest," he told me. "In the Miers pick, the White House was sowing its own minefield."

"It was a disaster waiting to happen," says G. Calvin Mackenzie, a professor at Colby College in Maine who specializes in presidential appointments. "You are evaluating a close friend of the president, under pressure to keep it secret even internally and thus limiting the outside advice you get."

Indeed, even internal advice was shunned. Mr. Card is said to have shouted down objections to Ms. Miers at staff meetings. A senator attending the White House swearing-in of John Roberts four days before the Miers selection was announced was struck by how depressed White House staffers were during discussion of the next nominee. He says their reaction to him could have been characterized as, "Oh brother, you have no idea what's coming."

A last minute effort was made to block the choice of Ms. Miers, including the offices of Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It fell on deaf ears. First Lady Laura Bush, who went to Southern Methodist University at the same time as Ms. Miers, weighed in. On Sunday night, the president dined with Ms. Miers and the first lady to celebrate the nomination of what one presidential aide inartfully praised to me as that of "a female trailblazer who will walk in the footsteps of President Bush."

The conservative displeasure with the Harriet Miers selection shows no signs of abating. No one expects George Bush to pull her nomination, but there's a lot of money being wagered that she'll withdraw of her own volition. It's hard enough to face the judiciary committee when half of the Senators are in your corner, but it'll be an especially difficult ordeal for Harriet Miers because the best she can hope for is that a couple of Senators on an otherwise hostile panel might be lukewarm.

Heads Up

As the above announcement indicates, Viewpoint is going to be down for some server maintenance this weekend. Bill has discovered the reason our blog has been intermittently unavailable over the last month or so, and he's going to be correcting the problem tomorrow. We expect to be down starting Friday afternoon for an indefinite period. We may be back by Friday night or maybe not until Sunday. Check back with us when you get the chance.

I wish to take the opportunity of this post to thank all of our readers for your interest in what we're doing. It's gratifying to know that people are reading us and finding us worth their time. If you come across one of our posts that warrants it, please link us to your friends.

ID Critics Self-Destruct

One of the chief opponents of teaching Intelligent Design in public schools nevertheless encourages teachers to teach religion in science lessons in elementary schools. Steve Peterman at Telic Thoughts reports that:

In one fell swoop Eugenie Scott destroyed so many arguments of ID critics it is hard to believe it. The so called Wedge complaint. The complaint that IDists are trying to smuggle religion into high school science classrooms. The argument that ID=religion under the guise of science. The adamant assertion by ID critics that religion does not belong in science. That science is detached from metaphysical assertions and ideology. All gone in one fell swoop!

Eugenie Scott is the president of the National Council on Science Education and has frequently written against teaching ID in public schools because because ID is religion and religion doesn't belong in science classes, especially in classes of young students. Yet in the article linked above she endorses doing precisely what she wants to prohibit others from doing. Indeed, she recommends that teachers use religion to teach evolution to elementary students.

It's too bad that some newspaper reporter doesn't ask her to explain herself, but it's not likely that any of them will.

Idiots and Ignoramuses

A Stephen Gordon of Utah submits a letter to the 11/2005 Discover magazine:

"I am sick of scientists tiptoeing around the topic of religion. Scientists need to make it clear that if you believe in God you are most likely an idiot or at best uneducated....To treat beliefs as if they mean anything merely elevates them to equal status with science....it is pathetic when an adult thinks demons, angels, Satan, and God are real."

Well. Let's trot out a roster of those uneducated idiots: Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Kant, Locke, Dostoyevsky, Galileo, Newton, Brahe, Boyle, Aggassiz, Faraday - we could go on, but you get the point. Perhaps Mr. Gordon would scoff and say that these are all pre-twentieth century thinkers, and that it was easier to believe back in their day than it is in ours. We might ask him, if we dare, why that is so. What do we know today that makes belief in God impossible for any but an idiot or an ignoramus? We should not hold our breath waiting for an answer to that one.

In any event, it doesn't matter whether or not Mr. Gordon has an answer for us since the basic assumption that only the mentally defective or uneducated can believe in God in the modern era is quite at variance with the facts. Let's take a look at just a few of those whose intellects are of the first rank and who also believe that God exists (and may even believe some of those other things Mr. Gordon contemptuously dismisses as well): Pope John Paul, George Marsden, Mark Noll, William Lane Craig, Karl Barth, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, William Dembski, Os Guiness, Richard Swinburne, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, J.R.R. Tolkein, Carl Henry, William Buckley, John Stott, Reinhold Neibhur, Alistair MacIntyre, Antonin Scalia, Richard Neuhaus, John Polkinghorne et multi, multi plus.

Among the scientists so esteemed by Mr. Gordon, as many of them believe today as believed a century ago, and the number of believing scientists is about the same as the number of their skeptical colleagues (see here, for instance).

Mr. Gordon may not be familiar with these names, but then one probably needs a modicum of education to be acquainted with them. Perhaps Mr. Gordon is indeed conversant with many of them but thinks them mere pygmies in comparison with his own intellectual gifts, and they may be. It's hard to say because, although I've heard of these Christian intellectuals and read their work, Mr. Gordon has till now escaped my notice, doubtless to my detriment. Consequently, I'm unaware of his scholarly credentials which must surely be impressive.

He'd Do it Differently

Former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday he had no intention of ever running for president again, but he said the United States would be "a different country" if he had won the 2000 election.

Of the truth of this statement we have no doubt. One difference almost surely would be that under a President Gore we'd still be haggling with the U.N. to bring pressure to bear on Mullah Omar of the Afghan Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden to the International Criminal Court.

Creationism, Evolution, and ID

The Detroit Free Press runs an excellent column by Brian Fahling which persuasively makes the case that Intelligent Design and Creationism are philosophically disparate paradigms and that Darwinian evolution is much more like Creationism than is Intelligent Design. This claim may surprise some, but Fahling provides a cogent explanation as to why it is so.

This article should be required reading for anyone who insists on using the disingenuous construction, "intelligent design creationism." The two frameworks share very little in common. Indeed, the essay should be required reading for anyone who sides with the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case underway in Harrisburg, PA.

The heart of Fahling's argument is this:

Creationism is an a priori argument drawn from a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. In the context of a public classroom, that means the God of the Bible is the starting point and assumed ground of life's origin and the origin of the cosmos. Drawing from a literal reading of Genesis, creationists postulate a "young Earth" and six 24-hour days of creation. All empirical data are subject to and analyzed within this interpretive grid.

Intelligent design, however, is an a posteriori argument; it is the inference drawn from examination of complex structures in living organisms and the universe.

As a matter of science, intelligent design theory is much more disciplined and modest in its claims than either the theory of evolution or creationism. Intelligent design theory merely infers, but does not attempt to identify a designer. Unlike creationism and the theory of evolution, intelligent design theory does not make dogmatic religious or philosophic claims about the origin of life.

Creationism and the theory of evolution, unlike intelligent design theory, are insular in their approach to science. Creationists reason downward from an article of religious faith and conduct their science within that paradigm. Evolutionists, too, reason downward from an article of faith and conduct their science with the same dogmatic zeal and selectiveness of their creationist counterparts.

Like creationism, the theory of evolution is an a priori argument drawn from the evolutionist's article of faith which holds that the origin of life and the cosmos can only be explained by undirected natural processes. This is a metaphysical claim, not scientific fact. Still, it is not in dispute that one may infer an evolutionary process from the data, but that is not what the evolutionist does.

Good science requires an open mind. There is more than a little irony, then, in the evolutionists' attempt to paint intelligent design theory with the creationist brush when it is the evolutionists who have the most in common with the creationists.

The only flaw in Fahling's piece is when he writes this:

Creationism requires a student to first affirm the creed that God created the heavens and the Earth, and the theory of evolution requires that a student affirm the creed that there is no God. Both are exclusive claims, neither is scientific, neither can be empirically verified.

Everything Fahling says here is true except that evolution does not require what Fahling claims that it does. One can be an evolutionist and still believe God exists. Ken Miller of Brown University is a very prolific writer on behalf of evolution and is a practicing Catholic. Michael Behe is also a Catholic, and he believes that God somehow pre-programmed evolution to produce the forms, processes and structures of living things.

It is the case, however, that Darwinian evolution requires an a priori commitment to the principle that whatever God's status may be he was not involved in the development and radiation of living things. This is, in fact, a religious a priori commitment, of course, so Fahling's larger point is still valid that Creationism and Darwinian evolution are more religiously and philosophically like each other than either is like Intelligent Design.

Fahling adds that:

Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, does not require that any creed about the origin of life and the cosmos be affirmed. It merely points to the evidence and suggests that the best explanation (though not the only explanation) for the design found in nature and the cosmos is a designer, whoever or whatever that may be.

In this respect ID is philosophically unlike either of the other two paradigms and, most importantly, is more scientific than either of the other two. We wonder if this fact will be emphasized in the Dover trial.

The Case For Confirming

Paul Mirengoff at the Weekly Standard makes the case for confirming Harriet Miers:

Two questions control the confirmation issue: Is Miers qualified and should she be rejected on ideological grounds? At this juncture, neither question strikes me as very close. Miers has achieved just about everything a lawyer can accomplish--head of a substantial law firm, head of the state bar association, and top legal adviser to the president. She also has a background in local politics. Only by insisting that a Supreme Court nominee possess either judicial experience or a portfolio of scholarly writings can one pronounce Miers unqualified. But this has never been the standard, and it's not clear why (ideological considerations aside) Republicans should invent a new standard with which to deal a blow to a Republican president.

On the merits, moreover, judicial experience or legal scholarship should not be a requirement for the Supreme Court Justice position. This background may well be highly desirable, and not just for purposes of intelligence gathering about a nominee. Yet some knowledgeable commentators think it's highly desirable for some justices to possess a more practical, less rarified background. Reasonable minds can differ, which suggests that the president should have the option of appointing outstanding lawyers with no judicial or scholarly experience.

The argument that conservatives should reject Miers because she doesn't seem to be the right kind of conservative, and may not be a conservative at all, seems problematic as well. For the past four years, conservatives have argued that ideology does not constitute a proper basis for voting against a president's qualified nominees. We have deplored Democrats who voted against qualified mainstream conservatives. We would have become apoplectic had Sen. Arlen Specter not supported a conservative nominated by his party's president. On what principled basis, then, can conservatives now vote down a nominee who is either a moderate or, more likely, some sort of a conservative? Miers plainly is not "outside the mainstream."

In the case of Harriet Miers, ... we are talking about someone who might be another O'Connor but is just as likely to vote with Scalia in the vast majority of big cases. In this situation, it seems imprudent to blow up the confirmation process---and possibly the Bush presidency and the Republican party--to block her nomination. Thus, conservative senators should be prepared, barring new and damning information, to vote in favor of Miers. The rest of us should be prepared to hold our breath until we start seeing what she writes.

We agree. If Miers turns out to align consistently with Scalia and Thomas on the big cases then whether she's the finest constitutional scholar available becomes less important. After all, Republican presidents have given us a lot of highly intellectual justices who waltzed to the left once they were seated on the Court. Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter come to mind. Given a choice between a fine legal scholar and a reliably conservative (i.e. originalist) vote we'll happily take the latter.

Sadly, though, we could have had both.

Putting Earle on Defense

Tom DeLay's lawyer, acting on the adage that the best defense is a good offense, has subpoened Texas District Attorney Ronnie Earle's records. Mr. Earle, like most bullies, is unaccustomed to having his victims fight back. Even so, DeLay's attorney, Dick DeGuerin, believes there has been a serious breach of professional ethics on the part of Mr. Earle and intends to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct. This is shaping up to be a real donneybrook.

The lawyers at PowerLine have some good background on this story.

No Booty Shaking Allowed

In a fine article at Evangelical Outpost Joe Carter cites the Texas cheerleader "booty shaking" legislation to make the point that conservatism isn't really so much about small government as it is about healing sick societies. The heart of his post is this passage:

I believe this example provides an opportunity to clarify a misunderstanding about conservatives and our attitude toward legislating issues of morality and "taste." While resolving disputes over the locus of autonomy, responsibility, and sphere sovereignty of institutions is essential, conservatism isn't, as is commonly misperceived, about "small government."

When it comes to government, conservatives are admittedly somewhat clueless. Unlike libertarians, liberals, socialists, Marxists, and other advocates of utopian political philosophies, conservatism has no idea how to build a healthy social and political structure. We do know, however, how to recognize a sick one. Just as physicians define bodily health as the absence of sickness, conservatives view the absence of sickness as the primary gauge of the health of the body politic. Our political objective, therefore, is similar to that of medical doctors -- eliminating sickness.

The late media critic and educator Neil Postman used this same medical analogy in describing the proper role of teachers. In his essay "The Educationist as Painkiller", Postman proposes that educators don't try to make students intelligent, because we don't know how to do that, but instead try to cure stupidity in "some of the more obvious forms, such as either-or thinking; overgeneralization; inability to distinguish between facts and inferences; and reification, a disturbingly prevalent tendency to confuse words with things."

"Stupidity is a form of behavior," adds Postman, "It is not something we have; it is something we do." The presence of stupidity can therefore be reduced by changing behavior. As a guiding political philosophy, conservatism plays a similar role in society as Postman's paradigmatic teacher. Conservatives, in essence, prescribe procedures for avoiding moral stupidity.

His analysis of what it is conservatives seek to accomplish is interesting. It's true that, as a general rule, bloated governments are symptomatic of a sick society. Consider for example the great harm done to the poor in this country by addicting them to the vast welfare state that subsidized and perpetuated all manner of social dysfunction from the sixties to the nineties. It doesn't follow, however, that there should never be instances, e.g. disaster relief, conservation of historical sites or biologically significant lands, or homeland security, when government takes on a larger role in society. Nevertheless, it requires great care and discernment to assess where and in which way government should be granted power to grow and act, and the way is fraught with many perils.

Carter suggests that it may perhaps be counterproductive for conservatives to argue adamantly that government should be kept as small and unintrusive as it can be, consistent with its role in national defense. After all, conservatives want the government to be intrusive when it's a matter of regulating pornography or sleazy television programming. By what principle do we call on government to protect us from the assaults of the concupiscent juveniles who write television scripts but insist that government stay out of other areas of our lives?

So the question, especially in light of President Bush's exercise of "compassionate conservatism" and his indulgence of deficit spending, is whether conservatives should rethink their traditional view of government. Mr. Bush has certainly given us occasion to begin that reassessment.

The fear that people like me have in saying all this, though, is that once we allow our ideological tether to slacken we risk losing the security and consistency afforded by a well-anchored set of guiding principles. Even worse, we risk, heaven forbid, becoming moderates.

"Sexist" Conservatives

Laura Bush is a lovely woman, but she's not helping to soothe the rift between her husband and his staunchest supporters over the last few years by accusing those supporters of being sexist because of their opposition to Harriet Miers' candidacy for the Supreme Court:

First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.

"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer made her a role model to young women.

Mrs. Bush's statement was thoughtless. The critics of the Miers nomination are not opposed to having a woman on the court and indeed would love to see Priscilla Owen, Janice Brown, Edith Jones, or Alice Batchelder nominated. Their objection to Miers is rooted in the fact that she's an unknown at a time when there are at least a dozen exceptional candidates whose judicial philosophy and acumen have been demonstrated for all to see. The president has asked us to trust him, and conservatives want to do so, but they also want the best qualified people appointed to the court that Mr. Bush can find, and the White House has given us no reason to think that Ms Miers belongs on that list.

Unlike his conservative critics, perhaps, the president is not overly impressed by scholarly credentials. That is not to say that these are not important to him, but rather to say that they're not of primary importance. He's a man who places more weight on an individual's personal character and virtues and believes that Ms Miers' possession of such assests more than compensates for any shortage of judicial experience or expertise she might suffer. Unfortunately, assessments of character don't lend themselves to quantification and they strike many as vague and subjective, so the administration is unable to mount a compelling rationale for its selection. That's why Bush has to ask that we simply trust him.

The critics respond by noting that there are plenty of candidates out there from which the president could have chosen who have both character and an impressive paper trail, and they are dismayed that he declined to pick from that group. Nor are they shy about giving voice to their disappointment. Unlike the critics, though, we think it to no good purpose to be too critical of the president's nominee until the hearings.

If she's impressive the criticism will appear foolish, if she's a dud then there will be time to call for her defeat on the Senate floor - although defeating her will surely be an uphill battle. If she ultimately turns out to be David Souter in heels then conservatives may justly join with liberals in decrying George Bush's historical legacy and the magnificent opportunity he squandered despite his campaign assurances to the contrary.

See Captain's Quarters for some thoughtful analysis of Mrs. Bush's comments and the Miers nomination.

Niggardly Americans

According to an article in the Independent Online Pakistanis criticize the U.S. and Britain for a niggardly response to the disaster created by the recent earthquake:

Western governments rushed to step up their pledges for the earthquake relief effort after their initial response to the disaster was condemned as slow-moving and financially inadequate.

The United States, which was under pressure to increase a pledge of $500,000 (�280,000) considered almost derisory by many Pakistanis when it was made over the weekend, announced it intended to give $50m in emergency aid.

The gesture, intended to make up for the resentment caused by an initial pledge which, along with the British offering of �100,000, was labelled as "peanuts" by Qazi Hussain, the leader of the Pakistani opposition party Jamat Islami, was greeted as a major boost to the struggling relief effort.

This just shows what ingrates Americans are. After Pakistan rushed so much aid to our Gulf coast in the wake of Katrina you would think we'd be more forthcoming. Just because Pakistan looks the other way as hatred of America and Americans is offered up as regular fare in madrassas and mosques is no reason why we shouldn't have had relief supplies on the way even before the earthquake hit.

We should do what we can, of course, but it certainly diminshes one's desire to sacrifice for another when the other demands that you do it and then criticizes you for not doing it on his time schedule and not giving right away what he thinks you ought to give. We're tempted to say to such as Mr. Hussain that maybe he should just hit up his fellow Muslims for the relief his countrymen need. They're much more generous than Americans, and we're sure that they'll flood the country with all the help Mr. Hussain could ask for.

Why ID Will Win

Douglas Kern has an article at Tech Central Station titled Why Intelligent Design is Going to Win. He writes:

It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's true or not. Intelligent Design theory is destined to supplant Darwinism as the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life. ID will be taught in public schools as a matter of course. It will happen in our lifetime. It's happening right now, actually.

He then goes on to posit five claims in support of his thesis:

1) ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.

2) ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.

3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.

4) ID will win because it can piggyback on the growth of information theory, which will attract the best minds in the world over the next fifty years.

5) ID will win because ID assumes that man will find design in life -- and, as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.

The text of the article gives supporting arguments for each of the above five assertions. It's pretty interesting.

We'd like to suggest a sixth reason: ID will win because it's obvious to everyone who isn't blinded by a materialist bias that life is such an unlikely phenomenon in any universe even minutely different from our own that the sense that our world is quite probably the product of purposeful intent is overwhelming.

Once it seeps into the public consciousness and discourse that the universe is the result of intentional engineering rather than blind, purposeless forces the correlative idea that the obvious design in the biosphere is also a consequence of intelligent agency will become much more easily accepted.

Indeed, when the public becomes aware that Intelligent Design is a kind of philosophical Grand Unifying Theory, uniting the earth, space, and biological sciences under the teleological umbrella, it will gain a purchase on the public imagination that will could make it virtually irresistable.

The Worldwide Caliphate

The Washington Post describes a recently intercepted letter from Ayman Zawahiri, Bin Laden's deputy, to Abu Musab Zarqawi, the brutal leader of al Qaida in Iraq:

The letter of instructions and requests outlines a four-stage plan, according to officials: First, expel American forces from Iraq. Second, establish a caliphate over as much of Iraq as possible. Third, extend the jihad to neighboring countries, with specific reference to Egypt and the Levant -- a term that describes Syria and Lebanon. And finally, war against Israel.

U.S. officials say they were struck by the letter's emphasis on the centrality of Iraq to al Qaeda's long-term mission. One of the two excerpts provided by officials quotes Zawahiri, a former doctor from Egypt, telling his Jordanian-born ally, "I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era."

But bin Laden's deputy also purportedly makes clear that the war would not end with an American withdrawal and that anything other than religious rule in Iraq would be dangerous.

"And it is that the Mujaheddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us," the letter reportedly says.

Bin Laden's deputy has spoken before about the broad plans for the al Qaeda movement. In a book smuggled out of Afghanistan in December 2001, Zawahiri said the goal of jihad is to establish a religious state throughout the Islamic world and "reinstate its fallen caliphate and regain its lost glory."

The report elicits a couple of thoughts: First, it vindicates the war, if not the means by which the war has been fought. The Islamists see Iraq as central to their efforts to establish Islamic rule throughout the world.

Second, the Sheehanites who are calling for an immediate pullout are extremely irresponsible, or worse. All withdrawal would accomplish would be to widen the theater of operations for the Islamists and every government in the Middle East which did not bend to their will would quickly fall. Once the U.S. no longer forces the Islamists to concentrate their energies in Iraq, the scourge of Islamo-fascism will spread across the region and eventually across the world.

Their jihad is not about poverty or oppression, it's about religion and it's about hatred for every person or nation which resists the goal of a world-wide caliphate. They are fanatical and will not be appeased by U.N. resolutions or economic bribes. They will not rest until every Israeli is dead and Talibanic governments prevail throughout the ancient Islamic world from Indonesia to Spain and the rest of the globe lives in servile dhimmitude.

We have to win in Iraq. Unless we choose unilaterally to quit the fight, the GWOT is not going to have a quick, clean denouement. The conflict will probably endure throughout much of our children's lifetimes. This is unpleasant to contemplate, but the only realistic alternative is surrender and the knife sawing at our children's and grandchildren's throats.

Dysfunctional Police Force

Michelle Malkin has the necessary links to get up to speed on the travesty that is the New Orleans police force. First, many officers were AWOL in the runup and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, then others were apparently involved in looting businesses and homes, then the police superintendent suddenly up and quit, and now there is a taped beating of a 64 year old inebriate which appears completely unwarranted.

If the mayor of this city were a white Republican the media would be screaming at the top of its lungs for his resignation. As it is, New Orleans' Mayor Nagin seems to own one of those courtesy cards that entitles the bearer to special privileges, including immunity from liberal media criticism.

Eenie, Meenie

In an article alluded to an earlier post (Beneath Even Debating?) the TimesOnline specifies those claims of the Bible which the Catholic bishops of England have decided are untrue and those which are true. It's a very interesting list, raising the question of what criteria the bishops' decisions were based upon.

Here's the list:

UNTRUE:

Genesis ii, 21-22: So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

Genesis iii, 16: God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Matthew xxvii, 25: The words of the crowd: "His blood be on us and on our children."

Revelation xix,20: And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone."

TRUE:

Exodus iii, 14: God reveals himself to Moses as: "I am who I am."

Leviticus xxvi,12: "I will be your God, and you shall be my people."

Exodus xx,1-17: The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7: The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29: Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i: The Virgin Birth

John xx,28: Proof of bodily resurrection

We wonder how the bishops decided that the Genesis passages which were adjudged untrue were, in fact, not true. It would also be worth knowing what the bishops mean when they say that the passage is not true. Do they mean that it is not true in any sense or do they simply mean that it's not literally true? The column seems to suggest the latter, but it's not clear.

The passage from Matthew seems to offend simply because it has been used to rationalize anti-semitism which the bishops apparently think is reason enough to declare it false. If so, they're resorting to emotional rather than scholarly reasons for making their judgment. The Revelation passage is apparently deemed false because it seems too fantastic, but then why do the Virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ pass the test?

Perhaps the sages of the Church had good reasons for their choices, but they seem to have decided on the basis of their own sense of credulity, almost as though they were playing a game of theological eenie, meenie. We hope not.

Beneath Even Debating?

Andrew Sullivan cites this article in the TimesOnLine UK on a statement by Catholic Bishops in England regarding the literal truth of the Bible. The writer, Ruth Gledhill, states that:

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in schools, believing "intelligent design" to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

Gledhill is identified as the religion writer for the Times Online so she should know better. That she would write such a sentence is evidence that either she's incompetent or she's willfully trying to deceive her readers.

Let's deconstruct her claim:

1) It is true that some Christians would like to have a literal reading of Genesis taught in public schools but no one has seriously tried to accomplish this since Louisiana's attempts were defeated by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard in the late 1980s.

2) The belief that Genesis is literally, and thus scientifically, true is creationism. It is not Intelligent Design. ID takes no formal position on any of the questions raised by the Genesis account. Genesis could be shown to be completely wrong in every particular and Intelligent Design would be unaffected.

3) Intelligent Design is not a theory "of how the world began." It says nothing about how the world originated. The theory of Intelligent Design makes only two claims: First, it claims that blind, unguided, impersonal forces and processes are not adequate by themselves to account either for the exquisite fine-tuning of the cosmos in every aspect of its structure, nor the high level of information found in the biosphere. Second, it claims that any adequate explanation of both the pervasive fine-tuning of the cosmos and the high information content of living things must somehow include intelligent agency.

Sullivan shows that he doesn't understand what's going on in the current debate any better than does Glendhill when he offers this comment:

The Catholic bishops of England tell American fundamentalists the bleeding obvious: not everything in the Bible is literally true. Money quote: "We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision." Of course. Anyone who believes that the world was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago is not expressing his or her "religious beliefs". Believing something that is demonstrably and empirically untrue is not religion. It is simply superstition or lunacy. It has nothing to do with faith in things we cannot know. The notion that it should actually be taught in public schools as science is beneath even debating.

This is a classic straw man fallacy. Sullivan wants the reader to believe that what's at stake in efforts like that currently being fought out in the courts in Kitzmiller v. Dover is whether students will be taught that "the world was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago." This, of course, is not at all what is at issue despite the attempts of the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case to create that impression.

What is being contended in the Dover case is whether a school board should have the right to insist that when biology teachers instruct students that life is the product solely of blind, unguided, impersonal processes that they also point out that not all scientists nor philosophers think that to be true. Some of them, perhaps many of them, think that intelligence must somehow have been involved.

It would be interesting to see Mr. Sullivan or the Catholic bishops demonstrate that any of this is "demonstrably and empirically untrue."

From the Mail Bag

Every now and then we get an e-mail like this that makes us feel that we're doing something worthwhile:

I've been following Viewpoint for a little over a year now, since [a teacher] introduced me to it. I believe that this [Real Reform] is one of, if not the best, entry you've written since I've started reading Viewpoint.

Every word of what you've written in this entry is completely accurate and to the point. Your eleven points are, in my opinion, entirely viable, if only the populous, and the various levels of government by extension, "decide to make American public schools truly excellent."

Thank you for taking the time and effort to make Viewpoint such an excellent resource and treasure trove of information.

Thank You,

Micah

Thank you, Micah.

Denying the Obvious

I had occasion the other night to spend the evening with a very bright group of people (my presence in the group was something of an anomaly) discussing issues related to the Intelligent Design controversy. One participant, a Darwinian and geneticist, objected to a question from another participant by replying that she doesn't talk about design in biology because to do so is unscientific.

It would have been rude to have interrupted the conversation, which didn't really involve me, but I was tempted. I wanted to say that there's nothing unscientific about noting design in living things; almost every biologist does it (except her, apparently), and the fact that living things are designed all the way down to the molecular level is not denied by anyone and is not in dispute. What's in dispute is the cause of the design.

Darwinians insist that the design evident to anyone who has ever studied sixth grade life science is the product solely of blind, unguided processes like mutation and natural selection. Intelligent Design theorists, on the other hand, wish to affirm that blind processes alone are inadequate mechanisms for engineering the degree of complexity and information we see in the biosphere. They argue that some degree of intelligent input is required to satisfactorily explain it.

Evolutionists must really be running scared if they're so afraid of handing their opponents a rhetorical advantage that they refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that the natural world is full of designed structures and systems. Materialistic evolutionists seem to be nervous about using the word design because they don't wish to encourage the general public to think along those lines. The concern may be that the public might draw the conclusion that, given a choice between explaining complex design in terms of coincidence and blind luck and explaining it in terms of intention and purpose, the former suffers grievously in the comparison.

Speaking of ID, the reader might be interested in this column by Jeff Jacoby on why Intelligent Design is a legitimate topic for discusion in science classes. He gets it.

The Religion Test

E.J. Dionne writing at Tech Central Station, detects a whiff of hypocrisy among those conservatives who thought it outrageous that senate liberals were hinting that John Roberts' religion might disqualify him from a seat on the Supreme Court but who are encouraging support for Harriet Miers on the basis that she's an evangelical Christian.

Dionne approvingly cites Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters blog:

"The push by more enthusiastic Miers supporters to consider her religious outlook smacks of a bit of hypocrisy," Morrissey wrote. "After all, we argued the exact opposite when it came to John Roberts and William Pryor when they appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.... Conservatives claimed that using religion as a reason for rejection violated the Constitution and any notion of religious freedom. Does that really change if we base our support on the same grounds?"

The answer to this last question is "Why would it not?" That a particular trait should not be allowed to count against someone is no reason to believe that the trait shouldn't count in his or her favor. A candidate for the presidency, for example, should not be disqualified because he holds religious beliefs similar to those held by a large swath of Americans, but he certainly may be seen as a more suitable candidate because he does. Similarly, a woman should not be disqualified on the basis of her gender from serving in public office, but her gender may help make her an attractive candidate for such an office.

This seems like such simple logic that although we're not surprised that it escaped Dionne, we are surprised that Morrissey doesn't see it.

The only question that should be raised by the religious beliefs of a candidate for the Supreme Court is whether those beliefs will prejudice his or her reading of the constitution. That she is a devout Christian suggests to many people that the answer Miers would give to that question is "no." Her faith imposes upon her an obligation to maintain the highest standards of judicial integrity and to live by the oath she will take to uphold the constitution. Knowing that she feels so obligated, both to her conscience and to her God, should be a source of comfort to those who must decide upon her suitability to serve.

Smelly Little Orthodoxies

Academic freedom at the University of Idaho is in serious peril. The totalitarian thought police have ascended all the way to the office of the presidency and anyone who abridges the accepted orthodoxies will be disciplined.

Were this not so serious it would be funny. University professors are free to do and say virtually anything in their classrooms no matter how irrelevant to the curriculum as long as it is either anti-American, anti-Christian, or pro-gay. Whether it's salacious, lubricious, banal, or just plain stupid doesn't matter - it's speech consonant, we are told, with the university's responsibility to challenge students to question the "smelly little orthodoxies" of our time. But if a professor decides to challenge his students to consider the possibility that Darwin had things wrong, he'll be out on his ear. Evidently, some dogmas are more sacred than others.

Real Reform

A former teacher named Aaron Belz lays out his vision for improving schools in the U.S. Having taught in a pretty good public high school myself for thirty five years I found much of what he says to be worthwhile and, on the other hand, much to be completely impractical. Despite the latter, Belz writes an interesting essay though his five concluding suggestions for improving schools seem much too idealistic:

1. Campuses should be carefully designed to create space for thinking, writing, reading, and athletics. Classrooms should be open, comfortable environments that respect students as intellectuals in the making. Seating should be at tables or in a circle;

2. Rules for behaviour on campus should tend toward principle rather than specific code, and they should be enforced in large part by a student honour council. Rules should err on the side of giving students too much liberty;

3. Coursework should center on primary books, poems, plays, and physical objects rather than pre-fabricated textbooks and quizzes. As a general rule, no books should be used that later will be discarded as "only for school." Discussion - equal and open-ended, not Socratic needling - should be the centerpiece of each course. Practice (field work) is essential;

4. Subjects should be studied in much larger blocks of time - weeks, perhaps months. Inter-disciplinary threading is essential, so that students have a sense of holism about their quest; and

5. Assessment should be radically reconsidered, with the likely result of eradicating the alphanumeric grading system. Teachers must be given time to assess their students' progress individually.

I don't like to be put in the role of naysayer, but I'm afraid these suggestions would prove either too expensive, unworkable, or otherwise ineffective. As an alternative, I would like to offer eleven suggestions of my own for improving public schools. If we were really serious about having the best educational system possible here's what we would do:

1. Allow students to graduate after their tenth grade year with the option of staying on through twelfth grade if their grades and behavior qualify them for the extra two years. Most students in the bottom 10% to 15% of their class learn almost nothing between ninth and twelfth grades. These students are often alienated and behaviorally difficult and they frequently create an atmosphere in the classroom that diminishes the chances their classmates will learn and which demoralizes teachers. Give them the opportunity, if they meet certain standards, to get a provisional diploma after tenth grade and let them get out of school and into the work force. Little good comes from having them hang around.

2. Raise the driving age to 18. Nothing diverts a student from the books like a car (unless its a girl/boy friend). Raising the driving age will be an inconvenience for parents who will have to provide more of the transportation, but keeping kids at home rather than having them out wasting gas is worth the trouble.

3. Prohibit students under 18 from holding a job during the school year. Most students who work are trying to pay the insurance on their car and buy gas. The jobs they hold are often not the sort which build skills that can be translated into future benefit. Their work often doesn't even bring them into contact with people outside their peer group. Every hour flipping burgers or bussing tables is an hour away from home and homework.

4. Institute dress codes and enforce them. There is no good argument against them and lots of good arguments in their favor. Conservatives ridiculed Clinton for proposing that school's require student uniforms, but that was one of his best ideas. Quality of dress sets the tone for one's attitude about his/her role. Students wearing ties behave differently than when they're dressed more casually. We insist on buying our athletes the sharpest looking uniforms we can afford because we know that classy dress elevates one's performance and instills pride. That's why most coaches have their athletes dress up to travel to away games. But we let our students dress like exotic dancers or refugees from some natural disaster when in the classroom, and then we wonder why they don't take more pride in their school work. The argument that dress codes rob a student of his "individuality" is silly. Sports superstars like Michael Jordan and others had no trouble establishing their "individuality" while wearing the same uniform their teammates did.

5. Permanently expel students who are disruptive, disrespectful, malicious, violent, or chronically in trouble. Such students are a cancer in the student body and just one such individual in the classroom greatly alters the learning atmosphere in that room. Their presence is corrupting and demoralizing. Yet we refuse to remove them because the law says that taxpayers have to provide for their education if they're not in school. This is a ridiculous law and should be rescinded.

6. Encourage academic/intellectual elitism (as opposed to snobbery) just like we encourage athletic elitism. The idea that elitism is bad is nonsense. What's bad is snobbery based on economic status. Elitism based on achievement or values, the sense of pride in one's accomplishments and convictions because they're right and better than those of people who disdain them is a good thing and needs to be stimulated.

7. Hire teachers who are scholars. Not all teachers can or need be scholars, but no one who is not should be teaching the top 50% of students in an academic discipline.

8. Let teachers determine the curriculum or at least give them a dominant role in the decision-making. Administrators are managers, they're not educators, and few of them have much experience as teachers. Many administrators never read anything other than Sports Illustrated magazine or mass market novels. They're mostly good men and women, but they don't see themselves as particularly interested in developing their own intellects, and it's hard to cultivate and nourish student minds if you have no idea based on your own experience what such a task entails. Administrators should handle discipline, organization, and public relations and stay out of the academic affairs of the school to the extent that that is possible.

9. Don't let anything take precedence over academics in the school day. One of the biggest pet peeves of teachers I've known is that in many schools everything and anything trumps the classroom. Kids in the school in which I taught were forever getting out of class for pointless field trips, theater or band practices, and a myriad of other silly reasons. Yet a teacher could never take a student out of one of these other activities in order to insist he be in class. My school sent the subliminal message to kids that the least important thing they do in their day is attend class. When the culture of the school instills that attitude in students, even if inadvertently, a teacher's job becomes much harder than it needs to be.

10. Put a limit on how many students will occupy a building. When student populations reach a certain size they become too impersonal. Impersonal schools may be able to churn out students who are academically competent, but they cannot easily teach the virtues students need to learn to be whole persons and citizens.

11. Segregate middle and high schools by sex. Having young men in the midst of testosterone hyperdrive share close spaces with young ladies awash in a pheromonic miasma is no way to keep either of them focused on the eight parts of speech. When young men share classrooms with young women their behavior is often distorted, their attentions are diverted, and their focus is disrupted. Education would be easier and more effective if such distractions were minimized.

Of course, none of these suggestions will ever be implemented as long as taxpayers are content with mediocre education. If, however, legislators ever decide to make American public schools truly excellent, if they ever become interested in genuine educational reform, adopting any of these measures would be a big step in the right direction. And most of them would hardly cost a cent.

Hide the Salami?!

Howard Dean is always good for laughs at his own expense. The other night on Chris Matthews' Hardball Dean, in talking about whether the White House would release documents that might contain information that would give insight into Harriet Miers' suitability to serve on the Supreme Court, said:

"Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, Hide the Salami, or whatever it's called."

We doubt that "Hide the Salami" was the precise construction for which Dr. Dean was groping. In our recollection, "Hide the Salami" has very little to do with matters involving the White House, or at least it hasn't since President Clinton left office.

Howard Dean seems intent on confirming the widespread opinion that he's a buffoon. One wonders whether anyone takes seriously anything he says.