Who's Weird?

Some Democrats and their media allies have been mocking Donald Trump for "backing out" of a debate with Kamala Harris, even though there was never an agreement to debate Harris.

The terms of the debate were agreed to with Biden's team, not Harris's. When Biden dropped out of the race the debate was automatically voided. If Harris and Trump are to debate the terms of the contest have to renegotiated. I don't understand why that's so hard for some in the media to grasp.

We're told that there's no reason why they can't just debate according to the agreement with Biden, but that raises a question.

Before she became the presumptive Democratic nominee Harris was supposed to debate J.D. Vance. Will she go through with the debate with Vance? If not, will the media mock her for "backing out" just because Vance is no longer her main opponent? If the media gives her a pass for not debating Vance, why do they criticize Trump for wanting to renegotiate the ground rules before signing on to debate her?

Here's something else about our current politics that apparently a lot of folks in the media don't grasp:

Some of these folks, as well as some in the Democratic party, insist on telling us that Vance is "weird" for one reason or another. It's amusing that many of the people who want us to believe that Vance is "weird" themselves are people who insist that men can get pregnant. Now that's weird.

They also believe that women should have to compete in athletics against men and that no one should think it perverse that men should have access to women's private spaces.

They believe, moreover, that it's normal for men to dress up in garish female outfits and shake their male parts in the faces of little kids. And then they tell us that Vance is weird?

Some of the same people declaiming on Vance's weirdness think there’s nothing wrong with Joe Biden sniffing kids’ hair or hiring people to work in his administration who steal women’s clothes in airports and engage in simulated animal sex.

Some of these folks laugh at Vance for being "strange" but would never admit that people who self-identify as cats, who walk around purring and demanding litter boxes be installed in their public school lavatories, are weird.

Many of those people can’t tell us what a woman is and, worse, think it’s somehow compassionate to mutilate gender-confused children for life.

Nevertheless, they look their audiences straight in the eye and declare that J.D.Vance is weird.

The Far Greater Abuse

Richard Dawkins in his book The God Delusion made a claim that many on the left cheered. He wrote that it's a form of child abuse to raise a child to believe religious doctrine. In this extraordinary claim he was eventually joined by philosopher Daniel Dennett and writer Christopher Hitchens.

Children are too intellectually undeveloped, these men argued, to be inculcated with religious beliefs and should not have beliefs foisted on them which are, in their view, false.

On several occasions Dawkins even made the claim that sexually abusing a child is "arguably less" damaging than "the long term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up a child Catholic in the first place".

These claims are widely accepted on the secular left and considered obviously true by many, yet a child given religious instruction is always free in later years to renounce his or her childhood training. Children are not condemned for the rest of their lives to live with beliefs that have been instilled in them in their early years if their inner convictions change as they mature.

How much different, though, is the case of parents who put their children through sexual transition, who change their children's bodies in ways that last a lifetime even though the gender dysphoria experienced by the child is a state of affairs that may well resolve itself as the child matures?

Which is the worse form of child abuse? Is it a greater crime to instill in children religious beliefs which may be wrong or to rob them of the ability to determine their own personal or sexual identity as an adult? Oddly, the former is condemned by significant portions of the left while the latter is widely applauded.

Chad Felix Greene described his own experience as a gender-confused child in an article at The Federalist. Here's an excerpt:

Transition for children follows a predictable model. A young child is first socially transitioned through clothing, socialization, and identity. They adopt an opposite-sex name, opposite-sex pronouns, and attend school and social events dressed as the opposite sex.

With children, the transgender movement is extremely strict on imposing traditional gender stereotypes.

As the children approach puberty, they are given puberty blockers to “pause” physical development until they are old enough to “decide” which sex to live as. Yet these blockers have lifelong negative health effects, and while most children who do not take them grow out of gender dysphoria, most children who do take them will not.

If teaching religious ideas that may or may not be false to children is a form of child abuse then surely doing to them what Greene describes is moreso. If an adult wishes to transition to another gender that should be his or her prerogative (although I don't know why the rest of society should be required to subsidize the procedure), but it should be illegal to do this to children who are not mature enough to be able to decide for themselves whether they want to be permanently consigned to the opposite sex.

As Greene concludes, "Every gender-dysphoric child deserves the right to grow up free to decide who he wants to be when he is ready to do so."

Meanwhile, read about the tragic case of 7 year-old James Younger whose mother was determined to convert him to a girl.

Where are the voices of those who are outraged that parents would teach their child about God? Is not what James Younger's mother and others like her are doing to their children a far worse thing to do to a child than teaching them that God loves them?

Young Women and Liberalism

Last May 16th I wrote about Jonathan Haidt's book Anxious Generation and the masterful job Haidt does in tying smartphone use to an array of mental and emotional troubles. The troubles especially afflict the young and especially young women.

The information Haidt packs into his book raises a lot of concerns about the mental health of young women, but one alarming graph he derives from Pew survey data shows that at least half of young women who identify as being liberal have a diagnosed mental illness.

As can be seen from the chart mental illness diagnoses are especially common among liberal women and young liberal women in particular.

There certainly appears to be a correlation between age, gender, mental health, and ideology, but of course a correlation by itself doesn't prove causation. It could just be coincidence, but suppose there is a causative relationship here. If so, it raises a chicken and egg question: Does being liberal cause mental illness or does mental illness cause one to lean toward the left? And how do age and gender factor into this relationship? And why is the incidence of mental illness so much higher among young women than older women and so much higher than among young men?

Haidt thinks that social media is one very prominent explanatory factor for the mental illness among young women, but how does social media explain the correlation between mental illness and liberalism?

Whatever the answers to these questions might be they're doubtless complex, but finding those answers should be, for the sake of our daughters, a matter of some urgency.

Poisonous Rhetoric

A couple of weeks ago, July 15th, I posted this:

People have been warning for some time that the rhetoric of violence, particularly on the left, would at some point provide the psychological justification in the mind of some already unstable individual to actually carry out an attempt to vent his hatred in a notorious act of violence.

We can't marinate our politics in constant expressions of hate for our opponents without eventually having that hatred boil over in horrible violence.

The hateful rhetoric on the left, from our president on down, has now issued in the death of at least one man, serious injury to a couple of others, and the near assassination of a political candidate.

I gave some examples of what I was talking about and remarked that I was unaware of anything comparable to the left's hateful rhetoric emanating from the right, and invited readers to send me examples of conservatives engaging in equally violent discourse.

A friend took me up on the invitation and sent me a few links that contained some despicable stuff written, presumably, by people on the right. As I mentioned to my friend, I should've been more clear in my original post that what I had in mind were repugnant statements from conservatives who were more influential in our society than are most internet trolls since most of the objectionable material I was complaining about was generated by culturally prominent lefties.

Even so, my friend was correct that it's not hard to find disgusting stuff on both left and right. And yet, I'm not convinced that I was mistaken in thinking that expressions of political violence are predominately a characteristic of the left, a conclusion supported by this Daily Mail article:

Until now, many assumed that only a few bad apples wanted the Republican candidate to take a round to the head.

Not so, says alarming new research from a UK-based academic.

Eric Kaufmann says a shocking third of Democratic voters wished Trump had left his July 13 campaign event in a body bag.

Among progressives, the figure is much higher, says the University of Buckingham politics scholar.

A staggering 71 percent of hard-line lefties said they supported the attempt on Trump's life.

Then, more anecdotally, I came across this from Chris Queen at PJMedia:

Some items on Amazon shouldn’t be there. Specifically, I’m talking about an array of shirts that call for the death of Donald Trump. I found out about one this week that reads, “THE ONLY GOOD TRUMP IS A DEAD ONE.”

I searched for “Dead Biden T-shirt” and “Dead Kamala T-shirt,” and while I found a few anti-Biden and anti-Harris shirts, I didn’t see any calling for the death of the president or vice president.

Finally, what on earth did Joe Biden mean by saying that House Speaker Mike Johnson was "Dead on arrival" not once, but twice? Imagine the outrage if Trump had said something like that.

Political Ideology and Church Attendance

Sociologist Ryan Burge has a column in his substack in which he deduces from survey data that "There is almost no 'Liberalizing Religion' in the U.S."

Burge points out that the more frequently one attends religious services the more conservative they're likely to be. He observes rather wryly that, "the more Democrats go to church, the more they look like Republicans." He offers this chart to illustrate his point:

Burge writes that,

Just 21% of never attenders are conservative, while 46% identify as liberal.

Among yearly attenders, the conservatives start to take over compared to liberals (36% vs 25%). Among weekly attenders, 52% are conservative, while just 16% are liberal. It’s even more extreme among the most frequent attenders. For folks who are attending religious services multiple times a week, about 60% are conservative and 10% are liberal.

This holds across racial lines and generally holds across denominational lines.

[Even] folks who are members of what are perceived to be left leaning or moderate denominations like the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church USA are showing a similar pattern to Southern Baptists - higher attendance means less liberalism.

There are only two denominations that are clearly pointing upward - the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (and that’s likely because of the weekly+ group being so liberal) and members of the Episcopal Church.

Burge closes with an interesting coda:

Every once in a while a pastor or denominational leader in a mainline church will ask me if it would be wise for them to spend time and resources on publicizing the fact that their church is not conservative. I don’t know if there’s an empirically driven answer to that question. But it doesn’t appear that young people in the United States have any concept of what liberal religious groups accomplished in American history.

The Progressive Era was driven, in no small part, by those folks who believed fervently in the social gospel. Overtime rules, child labor laws, and work safety requirements were pushed by people of faith to make this Earth a bit more like heaven.

The Civil Rights Movement was infused with religiosity from top to bottom from the impassioned sermons of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to the quiet activism of folks like James Reeb, a Unitarian minister who traveled from Boston to Selma, Alabama to march for voting rights for African-Americans. He was killed by a group of local white men, they were never charged with a crime.

For anyone born in the last forty years or so, the only conception that they have of religious activism is likely tied up with the Religious Right. Which, of course, was a conservative movement. Maybe the idea that religion can push people toward left-leaning ideas is over for good. It’s hard to say, or maybe the pendulum will swing back in the other direction at some point in the future.

From this data driven vantage point - there’s plenty of evidence that American religion is now inextricably linked to one political viewpoint. For good or for ill.

Perhaps Burge is correct, but there are reasons to think that liberal religious groups have found a new issue to devote their energies to - unlimited immigration. This article explains how not a few religious groups have been advocating for what amounts to open borders and contains the astonishing statistic that between 2010 and 2015 over 33,000 people have been killed by illegal aliens.

[The] last report the U.S. Government Accountability Office produced on illegal alien crime was in 2018. That report showed that between 2010 and 2015, illegal migrants who were incarcerated were responsible for the deaths of 33,000 people. Simple back-of-the-envelope math suggests that the total over the last 13 years could easily top 85,000.

If this is accurate it's both shocking and sickening. Maybe the folks who have no problem with it just don't go to church often enough.

Double Standard

Here's a puzzle. Commentators are remarking that Kamala Harris's candidacy is bringing African Americans and women back to the Democratic fold. No doubt it is. Blacks will vote for Harris because she's part black and women will vote for her because she's a woman. No one, at least not on the left, seems to think this is unexceptional or regrettable.

If someone were to suggest, however, that he planned to vote for Donald Trump because he's white or because he's a man, the poor soul would be pilloried by all the woke Puritans who would brand him a racist for the first offense and a gender bigot for the second.

Why is this double standard tolerated?

Thankfully, there are signs that it may not be tolerated too much longer as we see in this video. Watch the reaction of the others on this zoom chat when Paige says she's going to vote for Kamala only because she's a black woman.

Warning: Language

Three Things I'd Like to Have Explained

I'd like someone to explain to me why Democrats think it matters whether Donald Trump was struck by a bullet or a piece of shrapnel during what was clearly an assassination attempt in Butler, PA on July 13. The effort put in to arguing that he wasn't really struck by a bullet is incomprehensible to me.

Do the assassination skeptics think that if he was struck by a piece of shattered glass from an errant bullet that that would mean that the assassination attempt didn't really happen, that it was all a sham and that the other victims weren't actually harmed? Do they really believe that the attempt on Trump's life would somehow be negated if they could show that all the shots missed? What exactly do they think they will have proven if they can demonstrate that instead of being within millimeters of losing his life it was actually a matter of inches?

Here's another thing I'd like to have explained. The left has been beside themselves recently insisting that Kamala Harris was never really a "border czar." It's as if they think that if they can prove that she never really had the official title that therefore she was never really given the responsibility of "fixing" the border and thus had never failed in that job.

What does it matter what her title was? What matters is what her responsibilities were (and still are). She had all the responsibilities of a "czar" whether or not she had the actual title, and she did absolutely nothing to get the border under control so I'd like for someone to explain to me why they think it matters what her title was.

Finally, I'd like to have someone explain to me why both LGBTQ+ folks and feminists are protesting on behalf of Hamas Islamists. Don't they realize that they're aligning themselves with people who would kill LGBTQ+ individuals in an instant were they to wave their Pride flags in Gaza and would scoff at any feminist claim to equal rights with men? Indeed, Western feminists would find themselves in a real-life Handmaid's Tale were they to push their feminist agenda in any Islamic state, so what is their rationale for supporting Hamas barbarians against Israel - a state where women and gays do enjoy human rights?

Yet, like sheep campaigning to save wolves from extirpation, LGBTQ+ folks and feminists somehow think that they're impressing radical Islamists and gaining their favor by taking their side in the war against Israel. Maybe the sheep think this makes sense, but I need to have someone explain it to me. .

Post-Death Experiences

A discussion at Mind Matters between Robert Marks and Walter Bradley, both of whom are scientists, focuses on the phenomenon of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and contains some interesting insights into these events.

The term "Near Death" seems to be misleading. Scientists have documented over 3500 cases over the past several decades in which people have been not just near to death but completely, clinically dead - no heartbeat or brain waves - but from which they returned to life.

More astonishing, upon regaining their life they were able to relate to their medical staff what had happened while they were dead.

In the past, these sorts of accounts were dismissed as hallucinations, wishful thinking or even fabrications, but so much evidence in support of their veridicality has accumulated over the last thirty years that they're being taken much more seriously today. The question contemporary researchers are trying to answer is not whether the experience is genuine but rather what exactly is going on when someone has one of these.

So far any natural, physical explanation has proven elusive. NDEs remain a mystery.

To the extent that NDEs are indeed genuine, they constitute a powerful argument for two claims that are incompatible with materialism. First, if someone is having an experience which includes thoughts, sensations and recall while his or her brain is completely shut down - dead - it strongly suggests that more than the brain is involved in thinking, sensing and remembering. NDEs are an emphatic pointer to the existence of an immaterial mind or soul.

Second, NDEs offer a compelling reason to believe that physical death is not the end of our existence, that there's more beyond this life and that death is a bridge to that further existence, much, perhaps, like childbirth is a bridge between two separate existences.

This short video offers a fascinating example of an NDE. A woman born blind lost her life, temporarily, in an accident and recounts what happened in the hospital. If she's telling the truth, and her account seems to be empirically verifiable, then it certainly detracts from the credibility of materialism's claim to be an adequate account of what it is to be a human being:

Kamala Harris' Radicalism

Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee for president after their August convention, so what are her views and positions on the issues? According to a putatively non-partisan political site called GovTrack she was the leftmost senator in 2019, even to the left of Bernie Sanders. She was also the most partisan senator as this chart shows:

Since it's no longer politically acceptable to criticize Ms. Harris, GovTrack has purged this article from their website.

According to various other sources, Harris has gone on record as being in favor of decriminalizing illegal border crossings and abolishing ICE, killing the Senate's legislative filibuster, passing the Green New Deal, banning fracking, imposing racial reparations, siding with Palestinian terrorists instead of our ally Israel, confiscating legally owned firearms through a mandatory buyback program, eliminating private health insurance and implementing Medicare for All.

This ad by Pennsylvania Senate candidate Dave McCormick's campaign targeting his opponent Bob Casey, sums up Harris' political convictions pretty well:

There are other concerns as well.

As Attorney General, Harris ignored an accusation and lawsuit alleging sexual harassment by a top aide in her office. That complaint involved “gender harassment” perpetrated against her aide’s former executive assistant, along with allegations that she was forced into “demeaning behavior.”

The case ultimately led to a $400,000 settlement and the resignation of that aide who had been described as one of Harris’s closest professional confidantes. The then-AG feigned ignorance of the whole accusation and lawsuit despite it being reported years earlier.

Only an inept prosecutor would completely miss a harassment case in her own office.

In 2006, she granted probation to a man who went on to murder two people. At the height of the 2020 race riots, Harris encouraged people to contribute to a bail fund to free violent rioters. One of those freed ended up being charged with murder.

She continues to raise money for that bail fund.... and has been a vocal supporter of defunding the police.

She supported the movement and said we need to "reimagine" public safety, even applauding the Los Angeles Mayor for slashing police funding by $150 million as the riots were ongoing.

Ann Coulter, not at all a Trump fan, has penned a devastating piece on Harris's time as prosecutor and Attorney General, and there's more on Harris' radical ideology to be found here.

No doubt more information on her background will be forthcoming in the weeks ahead, but voters should be aware that Ms. Harris is easily the most radical left-wing politician ever to have such a good chance of becoming our president. Unfortunately, none of the above criticisms of her record will matter to many of her Democratic supporters who care only about two things: Ms. Harris is ardently pro-abortion and she's not Donald Trump. Little else is important to a substantial segment of our voting population.

Systemic Racism

Everywhere we turn, it seems, we're confronted with the allegation that our society is shot through with "systemic racism," and we hear it so often many of us simply assume it must be true that this vague but pernicious evil corrupts every institution of our culture. We might pause amidst our self-deprecation, however, and ask ourselves exactly what it is America is being accused of. What exactly is "systemic racism"?

Harvard Government professor Harvey Mansfield has written an editorial for the Wall Street Journal in which he dissects the idea and finds it to be pretty much vacuous. Here are some excerpts from his column:

Systemic racism, also known as institutional or structural racism, is a new phrase for a new situation. We live in a society where racism is not, and cannot be, openly professed. To do so not only is frowned upon but will get you into serious trouble, if not yet jail, in America.

Yet even though this is impossible to miss and known to all, “systemic racism” supposedly persists. The phrase describes a society that is so little racist that no one can respectably advocate racism, yet so much racist that every part of it is soaked with racism. We live with the paradox of a racist society without racists.

Systemic racism is said to be a result of structuring our institutions to privilege whites and consequently to be, perhaps unconsciously, biased against blacks. Mansfield notes that, "It is strange to describe an unconscious effect as racism, for an ism is an opinion, a doctrine, not a mere condition. A doctrine has adherents who articulate it; it cannot be held unconsciously as can a prejudice."

Nor is criticism of blacks ipso facto racist as is often alleged by those on the left:

Racist doctrine says that blacks are a naturally and inherently inferior race. To criticize the character or behavior of blacks, individually or even on average, is not racism. Criticism implies that blacks are not living up to their potential, hence that they are capable of behaving well. Criticism implies an essential equality between critics and whomever they criticize. This is contrary to racism.

He also puts his finger on another paradox:

The idea of systemic racism proclaims that racism is unjust but exists nonetheless despite ourselves. How could this happen? It is the bad result of the behavior we regard as good. The good behavior of conscientiously striving to better oneself is joined to the bad behavior of always preferring oneself.

Thus any privilege one earns and deserves is tied to undeserved privilege: A successful life if you are white comes out as white supremacy. Despite your verbal rejection of that result, the system behind your intentions brings it about.

The notion of systemic racism is designed to make you feel guilty about this if you are white. But why should you? The system did it, not you. You can’t change the system; that’s what “systemic” means....

The movement against systemic racism must fail. How could it succeed where Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. couldn’t? Systemic racism exists despite our intentions; so it can’t be cured by changing our intentions — as by protesting.

In other words, those who accuse white culture of systemic racism tell us there's nothing we can do about it no matter how much we may want to. If that's so, however, and if whites benefit from these unjust structures there's no reason to feel guilty about it since things couldn't have been otherwise.

Moreover, those who declare that society is systemically racist are themselves operating under an assumption that can only be described as itself racist:

Systemic racism ...tells blacks that they are quite OK, and that it is entirely up to whites to change their thinking and their behavior. This means that blacks must allow whites to hold their future for them.

But is not the claim that black well-being depends on white behavior an implicit claim that blacks are helpless unless whites take care of them? It might also be said that if the structures of society are unavoidably and inveterately racially repressive and nothing can be done to change them then the implication is that they must be torn down or else blacks will never be able to thrive in America. The foolishness of the conclusion demonstrates the foolishness of the premise:

Systemic racism ignores the agency of black citizens, leaving them nothing to do except to protest in the streets or cheer from the sidelines. Meanwhile whites are told by the same idea that all their past efforts against white supremacy have been in vain. Nothing they have done has worked or could have worked.

All along our history, the Constitution and the Rights of Man we thought we practiced and defended were nothing but the power of white men. All the heroes of both races and their sacrifices were defeated by systemic racism and went for naught. What we might do now differently from what we have done in the past is left totally unclear. More affirmative action and more subsidies—what can they do that will now help instead of hurt? Call them “reparations”—will that do any good?

What is the evidence that our institutions are arrantly racist? We're often told that the evidence is the unequal representation of races in various fields of endeavor, but this racial inequity, if it exists, can hardly be evidence that racism is afoot. If it is then the most racist institutions in our country are professional sports leagues, which, except for ice hockey, are dominated by blacks.

As one letter writer to the Journal asks, "How is it possible for a country stricken with pervasive racism to have, over the years, elected black mayors and appointed black police chiefs? How can it be that these pervasive racists also elected a black president twice?"

Actually, there is institutional racism in this country, but it's not the sort that the progressive left thinks it is. Indeed, the institutional racism in this country is in institutions dominated by the left. Our universities systematically deny highly qualified Asians admission because of their race, blacks are often given preference in hiring and college admissions because of their race and Democratic politicians, like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, refuse to allow black parents to send their children to the schools of their choice where they'd have a much better chance of getting an education that would help them succeed as adults.

Each of those is an example of racism in this country that progressives are perfectly happy with.

Beauty Requires Meaning

Michael Baruzzini writing at First Things recalls an exchange between Richard Dawkins and Archbishop Rowan Williams in which Dawkins admitted that he was an agnostic about God, and was not, strictly speaking, an atheist. Much was made of the admission in the media despite the fact that it was a trivial distinction as Baruzzini explains:

This admission, though it caught the notice of the media, was not really anything new for Dawkins, who has made similar concessions in the past. Dawkins’ approach to all knowledge is strictly scientific.

And since scientific knowledge is always technically tentative, so too must his ostensibly scientific opinion of the non-existence of God. Dawkins dismisses God because he finds no scientific evidence for God, but he must make allowances for the fact that scientific knowledge is always expanding.

Dawkins is still an atheist, after all, because agnosticism is simply a species of the genus atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a God and agnostics lack a belief in God. They are what might be called soft atheists because, unlike the hard atheist, they don't make the very strong and undemonstrable claim that God doesn't exist. They simply hold that the evidence is insufficient to justify believing that He does.

It was another comment that Dawkins made in the same discussion that I found much more interesting:

Speaking to his believing conversational companion, the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Dawkins said, “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing—that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”

I don't think Dawkins is quite right about this. Beauty ultimately depends upon meaning. Meaningless form and color may please the senses, it may be pretty, but it doesn't rise to the level of beauty unless there's meaning to it. Just as a meaningless sexual experience, though it may afford some degree of pleasure, is hardly beautiful, a world full of things for which we've evolved an aesthetic appreciation may be intriguing, but it's ultimately beautiful because it exudes meaning from every nook, cranny, and pore.

Baruzzini puts the point somewhat differently:

The archbishop, rather than disputing, agreed with Dawkins about the beauty of the scientific description of the development of life. But he then explained that God was not an extra that was “shoehorned” onto the scientific explanation.

Dawkins’ mistake, the archbishop attempted to show, was to suppose that the scientific explanation suffices, and the religious one is an unnecessary complication. The beauty that Dawkins finds in science is not challenged by belief in God; it presupposes it.

The beauty of scientific explanation comes from seeing that the arrangement of things is so ordered to produce the phenomena we observe. The scientist begins with a mess of clues and an unfinished puzzle. He begins with a mystery. He seeks that moment when the pieces fall into place....

But where creation presents a unified theme returning, finally, to reason, atheistic scientism must insist that at bottom [there] is only unreason.

If it all has no meaning, no purpose, if it's all simply the effluent of a cosmic belch, the beauty drains out of it.

Baruzzini goes on to make a further point about Dawkins' views that should be emphasized. He asserts that:

Dawkins supposes that the doctrine of creation requires a Divine Tinkerer, interfering with or co-opting the natural beauty present in the workings of the natural world. Whether or not God tinkered with creation in the manner envisioned by creationism or some versions of intelligent design, such tinkering is neither necessary to the doctrine of creation nor is it the source of the beauty seen by the believer.

To use an analogy previously developed by Stephen Barr, to ask whether God or evolution created life is like asking whether Shakespeare or Hamlet killed Polonius. If there is no Shakespeare, Hamlet’s act is meaningless. It is merely the accidental arrangement of ink on a page. If there is a Shakespeare, however, his existence as the creator of the literary Denmark does not obviate the drama of the play. It is rather a necessary prerequisite for it.

Shakespeare, as a playwright, is not a competitor with the drama of the play.

There's more at the link, but I want to return for a moment to the matter of beauty: Philosophers going back to Plato have affirmed that the highest ideals are the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, but if the world is nothing more than atoms spinning in the void then there really is no Good, no Truth that matters, and no Beauty.

The awe we feel when we look at mountains or a sunset or a galaxy is just the perturbations of chemicals in our brains triggered by a particular visual pattern.

It's when we somehow see meaning in what we observe that we experience its beauty, but there can only be meaning if behind the experience there is a mind that has intentionally created it. Take away the author, the painter, the composer, the architect and there is no meaning and thus no beauty for us to enjoy.

A novel filled with eloquently turned phrases and well-crafted sentences nevertheless lacks beauty if the story makes no sense. The world and life are beautiful because they're filled by it's composer/author with deep, profound meaning. Just as the beauty of a work of art reflects the style, personality, and genius of the artist, the beauty of the world reflects the style, personality, and genius of the Creator.

The Problem Is the Policies

We're living in very interesting times. We had, for a time, a presidential campaign in which both candidates have served as president and now may have a campaign in which one candidate has never received a vote in his or her party's primaries. We've witnessed an unprecedented use of the law to seek to eliminate one of the candidates, which has only increased that candidate's popularity and cash resources, and we were horrified by an assassination attempt on that candidate.

Then we saw a decision by the other candidate, based upon his obviously failing cognitive abilities, to discontinue his campaign for a second term, but to nevertheless continue serving out the remaining six months of his first term. If his cognitive health precludes a second term why does it not preclude leading the country for the next six months?

Anyway, now there'll be a lot of drama as a successor for that candidate is selected.

The Democrats pressured President Biden to drop out of the race because he appears too unpopular to win, but, contrary to what they'd have us believe, his unpopularity is not due to his debilities, which have been apparent to everyone who has been paying attention almost since the beginning of his presidency, but to his and his party's policies and behavior.

For example, the lies Americans were persistently told by sundry Democrats about Trump's Charlottesville remark, the lies by the media and former government officials about Trump having colluded with Russia in 2016, and the attempt to impeach him over it are repugnant to a lot of Americans. So are the aforementioned attempts to have Trump thrown in jail on charges that no other American citizen would ever prosecuted on.

Many Americans are also repelled by credible reports of corrupt use by Mr. Biden of his office to benefit his family.

Furthermore, a majority of Americans are bewildered by the Democrats' failure to secure the border, opening it up to a flood of immigrants, including among them violent criminals and potential terrorists. The lies the nation has been told by administration officials like Alejandro Mayorkis about the border being secure are offensive and outrageous.

Americans were stunned, too, by the incompetence of the haphazard withdrawal from Afghanistan, the loss of American lives, the betrayal of thousands of Afghanis who had helped us over the years, and the lies we've been told about that debacle. Americans' lack of confidence in the Democrats' ability to navigate foreign policy has been exacerbated by the administration's tepid, on again/off again policies toward Ukraine and Israel, the latter despite Hamas holding five Americans hostage.

They're dismayed by the exorbitant spending and the resulting inflation that prevents them from buying a home, putting food on the table or gas in the car. They're puzzled by the assumption that we have to upend our economy in order to mitigate climate change, as if it's been proven beyond doubt that whatever change that's occurring in the climate can be arrested by anything we do.

They're appalled by the sexualization of our children in schools and the Democrats' support for compelling our daughters to compete athletically against men and to shower with them. They're shocked by the Democrats' support for gender transition surgeries that permanently mutilate a child confused about who he or she really is. They're outraged that Democrats pass laws requiring schools to hide a child's gender confusion from the child's parents, and they mock the Democrat fetish of pronoun usage and laugh about the crime of "misgendering" and other "microaggressions."

Many Americans are disgusted by the emphasis in almost all of our governmental and educational institutions on DEI rather than competence, and disgusted, too, with the failure of Democrat prosecutors to enforce the law, to punish criminals, and to make our cities safe. The disgust extends to judges and SCOTUS justices, appointed by Democrats, who believe that the law should be interpreted according to the jurist's feelings and not according to an objective reading of the relevant statutes or the Constitution.

They're disgusted, moreover, with the Democrat tolerance of antisemitism and anti-white racism in our culture and on our campuses, as well as the religious zeal with which Democrats reverence abortion, cherishing it as sacramental and demanding its legalization up to and even after birth.

These Americans are puzzled as to how January 6th could be plausibly labeled an "insurrection" when it was obviously a riot by a motley mob of confused goofballs, but the riots in the wake of the George Floyd death, riots which took the lives of dozens and caused billions of dollars of property damage, were "mostly peaceful" expressions of discontent.

They're dismayed by the hostility the current administration has displayed toward Christians and Christianity, labeling traditional Catholics as terrorists, using the courts to punish business persons who simply wish to peacefully remain true to their consciences, and seeking to delegitimize religious expression in the public square.

They're disturbed, too, by the authoritarian approach to governing resorted to by the Democrats whose president has frequently imposed policy by executive fiat, regardless of its legality. Last weekend the party that has campaigned on "saving Democracy" has simply overridden the will of millions of voters and executed a coup d'etat to remove their party's presumptive nominee because they believe he can't win.

Finally, many Americans are fed up with a corrupt media that distorts, lies and covers for all of this, abandoning traditional journalistic principles in order to refashion itself as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

The Democrats may come up with a candidate who'll appear a bit more reasonable and moderate than Joe Bidenand his administration have been, but the appearance will not be the reality. Whoever the Democrats pick - and if it's not Kamala Harris there'll be a civil war in the Democratic party - will be at least as far left as Mr. Biden and do nothing to end the policies that resulted in Mr. Biden's unpopularity.

Only a thorough political housecleaning will do that.

Doubting Darwin

For most of my adult life, any skepticism toward the reigning dogma in biology, Darwinian evolution, was considered a form of either heresy or idiocy or both. Darwinism was beyond doubt and for a biologist to question it was to imperil his or her career. That state of affairs, however, seems to be changing.

Challenges to the Darwinian orthodoxy are arising almost daily in labs across the country as an increasing number of biologists are growing increasingly doubtful that the standard neo-Darwinian model of unguided, naturalistic evolution can explain either the origin or the complexity of living things.

Stephen Meyer is a philosopher of science who has written several books that raise perplexing questions for the standard Darwinian model. His first book, Signature in the Cell (2010), dealt with the difficulties posed to Darwinian evolution by our current understanding of the structure and function of DNA.

The second, Darwin's Doubt (2014), explained how the fossil record, specifically the fossils found in the Canadian Burgess shale deposits, points to an extremely sudden (in evolutionary time) appearance of almost all the major animal body plans with no evolutionary precursors, a finding that confutes all Darwinian expectations.

His most recent book Return of the God Hypothesis (2021), is a compelling case for the existence of God based on discoveries in three areas of scientific research - the origin of the universe, the extreme fine-tuning of the universe, and the origin of life.

Meyer summarizes the arguments presented by the first two of these books in this six minute video for Prager U.:

It's important to note that, as far as I know, none of the science that Meyer adduces in this video is in dispute. Indeed, it's arguments like these that are generating a great deal of the current rethinking among evolutionary biologists and workers in related fields.

Vance's Conversion

Donald Trump has named Senator J.D. Vance as his running mate for the November election. Vance has a great resume, although it's thin on the kind of experience necessary for a chief executive of a huge organization like the American government. Nevertheless, his biography as told in the book and movie Hillbilly Elegy is a remarkable rags to riches story and has been much discussed in the last week.

What's not so well-known about Vance is his account of his gradual conversion from atheism to Roman Catholicism in the period between 2016, when he first announced that he was thinking of adopting the Catholic faith, to his eventual baptism into the Church in 2019.

A piece at TheBlaze.com by Joseph MacKinnon fills in a lot of the details. MacKinnon writes:

President Donald Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), is now a practicing Catholic, but that was not always so.

Years before his baptism and reception into the Catholic Church, Vance told Deseret News he grew up in a "pretty chaotic and hopeless world. Faith gave me the belief that there was somebody looking out for me, that there was a hopeful future on the other side of all the things I was going through."

Vance's Pentecostal father would occasionally take him to church.

"Going to church showed me a lot of really positive traits that I hadn’t seen before. I saw people of different races and classes worshiping together," said Vance. "I saw that there were certain moral expectations from my peers of what I should do."

The future Marine, venture capitalist, and senator indicated that unlike the other children on his block in Middletown, Ohio, the kids his age at the evangelical church he would occasionally attend expected him "not [to] do drugs or have premarital sex or drink alcohol."

Although he found a supportive community through church that could serve as a check against the negative influences he encountered elsewhere, he felt that the particular kind of evangelical Christianity he practiced with his father encouraged "a cultural paranoia where you don't trust and want to withdraw from a lot of parts of the world."

Years later, when he entered Yale Law School, he indicated he "would have called [himself] an atheist." He elsewhere indicated that his reading Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris corresponded with this turn away from faith.

One wonders how many intelligent young people who are searching for answers to the questions they're beginning to have about life and the world, have been influenced by people like Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins. It's really a shame that anyone has been taken in by them since their anti-theistic arguments are usually superficial and unconvincing unless the reader is eager to be convinced of them.

I did a series of VP posts on Dawkins's book The God Delusion which you can find in the archives starting here (2/1/2023) and running through 2/15/23.

MacKinnon continues:

By the time of his graduation, however, he began exploring his faith again.

"Back home, kids who grew up to be relatively successful tended to abandon their faith," Vance told Deseret News. "All of my close friends growing up were all really religious but, with the exception of one of us, we all considered ourselves nonreligious by age 25."

At Yale, I was exposed to faith groups in which that didn't seem to be happening. Mormons and Catholics at Yale Law School, who were really smart and successful, were engaged with their faith. There was a moment when I was like, 'Maybe it is possible to have Christian faith in an upwardly mobile world.' You can be a member of your faith and still be a reasonably successful person. That's not the world I grew up in, but maybe that's true.

Vance hypothesized at the time that the practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Catholicism, contra the variety of Evangelicalism he was exposed to early on, did not apply the same type of "isolating pressures."

Months prior to the 2016 election, he indicated that he was "thinking very seriously about converting to Catholicism."

You'll have to go to the link for the rest of MacKinnon's account. It's a quite interesting look into a side of Vance that hasn't been prominent in stories about him since his selection by Trump as his running mate.

Karl Marx and the American Left

In recent years the Democrats have moved so far to the left that it's increasingly difficult to distinguish them from Marxists. At Townhall.com Mark Lewis provides us with a number of quotes from Karl Marx himself, many of which sound like they've been lifted from a contemporary academic journal or Democratic party memos.

Not all Democrats would subscribe to the sentiments Marx expresses, but many would and certainly almost all leftists would.

I list the quotes here. The amplifications are mine. You'll have to go to the link to see Lewis' explanations:

1. “Keep people from their history, and they are easily controlled.”

2. “Take away a nation’s heritage, and they are more easily persuaded.”

3. “If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded.”
I.e. don't teach kids history or if it's to be taught only stress the disgraceful aspects of Western and U.S. history.

4. “The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother’s care, shall be in state institutions.”
Resist granting parents the right to send their children to private schools, especially Christian schools.

5. “Communism begins where atheism begins.”
Communism is incompatible with belief in a God. For the communist the state is God.

6. “My object is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.”

7. “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.”

8. “As socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part.”
Nothing that carries any religious overtones, and no one who holds ideas that have positive religious implications, should be permitted anywhere near the public square or near children.

9. “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
All morals are subjective to the individual or relative to the culture in which people live. There are no objective moral truths. The closest thing to an objective moral principle is whatever the government declares to be right at any given time.

10. “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.”
For the left compromise means agreeing with them.Those who resist socialism are engaging in some sort of quixotic culture war. They're resisting the inevitable progress of humanity.

11. “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
Once people realize they can vote into office people who will raid the public purse on their behalf it's just a short step to a socialist economy.

12. “A heavy or progressive or graduated income tax is necessary for the proper development of Communism.”
Tax the rich. Who cares whether it makes good economic sense to do so?

13. “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
Well, that's probably true. Our corporations are eager to do business with China and lots of other countries that would happily destroy us as soon as they could.

14. “We have no compassion, and we ask for no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror.”
Sounds just like Antifa and a lot of those who've been lamenting that Trump wasn't felled by the would-be assassin in Butler, PA.

Why They're Leaving

Ryan Burge is a sociologist who specializes in analyzing survey data related to religion. On one of his recent posts he discusses some data gleaned from asking "nones" (those who acknowledge no religious affiliation or belief) who grew up in a religious environment, why they left.

You can read his entire post here, but a couple of items that interested me - because they confirmed what I think most people already suspect - were that most nones who abandon religion do so between the ages of 15 and 25 and most of them had a father who was not religious.

The latter point is crucially important in a culture in which fatherlessness is so common and also because the importance of a father's example in a child's life simply cannot be overstated.

Here's a graph that Burge published showing the distribution of reasons "Nones" gave for leaving religion behind:

Notice how many chose religious hypocrisy, religion doesn't make sense, science, and lack of evidence as among the reasons why they left. This tells me that churches need to do a much better job of teaching their young people the reasons why their faith is far more reasonable than any secular alternative.

It's unfortunate that so many Christian young people, even among those who never walk away from the faith, reach adulthood without having gained a solid understanding of the basis of the Christian faith. It's as if the church expects kids to somehow absorb that understanding osmotically just by sitting in a pew.

With all the resources that are available to churches today on the internet and elsewhere this is really an inexcusable failing.

Building a Bird

As you view the following video ask yourself how each part of the embryo "knows" what body part to develop into and how and when to do it. Then ask yourself how such an astonishing process could've evolved solely through natural processes - blind, purposeless, and unguided.

No fair replying that nature just waved a magic wand, intoned "abracadabra," and poof, we see embryogenesis happening. That rejoinder only works if natural processes are the only possible explanation for the development of an embryo, but, of course, they're not.

Another much more adequate possibility is intelligent agency - an intentional design by an intelligent engineer.

Watch:

It's Been Worse. Will it Get Better?

The events of the last few days have caused some people, especially younger people, to think that things have never been worse, but they have as Jim Geraghty reminds us:

It may feel like our political rhetoric has never been so heated — that’s debatable — but within living memory, we’ve had periods of much more widespread political violence. Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence is the most complete history of the political violence perpetrated by groups such as the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army, FALN, and the Black Liberation Army.

Early on, Burrough quotes retired FBI agent Max Noel:

People have completely forgotten that in 1972, we had over 1900 domestic bombings in the United States. People don’t want to listen to that. They can’t believe it. One bombing now and everyone gets excited. In 1972? It was every day. Buildings getting bombed, policemen getting killed. It was commonplace.

All true, and the above doesn't even mention the multiple riots in our cities every summer with hundreds of dead and millions in property loss.

Extremists have, throughout the last century or so, constantly probed for weaknesses in our polity. When they've found them they exploit their advantage by launching spasms of vitriol and violence in an attempt to destabilize and wear down resistance until citizens tire of the struggle and finally yield to those who would make themselves our masters.

Every presidential candidate, Republican and Democrat, runs on the promise of bringing us together, uniting us, but unity today between progressives and conservatives seems out of reach. In any case, as Jonah Goldberg has said recently, it's not what we need anyway. He wrote:

We don't need this country to be more unified - we need this country to be better at disagreeing with each other.

I think he's right, but we'll only get better at disagreeing with each other if we share some common core values. Right now, I don't know that we do.

Meanwhile, Megyn Kelly explains why few conservatives are inclined to be lectured to by Democrats about turning down the rhetoric. She delivers a real stemwinder after her guest, Dennis Prager, is done speaking.

A Moral Sickness

People have been warning for some time that the rhetoric of violence, particularly on the left, would at some point provide the psychological justification in the mind of some already unstable individual to actually carry out an attempt to vent his hatred in a notorious act of violence.

We can't marinate our politics in constant expressions of hate for our opponents without eventually having that hatred boil over in horrible violence.

The hateful rhetoric on the left, from our president on down, has now issued in the death of at least one man, serious injury to a couple of others, and the near assassination of a political candidate.

RedState's Mike Miller quotes Georgetown Law Professor Jonathan Turley who wrote that:

The assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump left a nation stunned. But the most shocking aspect was that it was not nearly as surprising as it should have been. For months, politicians, the press and pundits have escalated reckless rhetoric in this campaign on both sides. That includes claims that Trump was set to kill democracy, unleash “death squads” and make homosexuals and reporters "disappear."

Turley continued:

President Biden has stoked this rage rhetoric. In 2022, Biden held his controversial speech before Independence Hall where he denounced Trump supporters as enemies of the people. Biden recently referenced the speech and has embraced the claims that this could be our last democratic election.

Some of us have been objecting for years that this rage rhetoric is a dangerous political pitch for the nation. While most people reject the hyperbolic claims, others take it as true. They believe that homosexuals are going to be “disappeared” as claimed on ABC’s “The View” or that the Trump "death squads" are now green lighted by a conservative Supreme Court as claimed by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

Here are a few more examples from Turley:

As soon as Trump was elected, unhinged rage became the norm as with Kathy Griffin featuring herself holding the bloody severed head of Trump.

Just recently, another celebrity, actress Lea DeLaria, begged Biden to “blow [Trump] up” after the recent presidential immunity decision. DeLaria explained that “this is a f*****g war. This is a war now, and we are fighting for our f*****g country. And these a**holes are going to take it away. They’re going to take it away.”

For months, people have heard politicians and the press call Trump “Hitler” and the GOP a Nazi movement. Some compared stopping Trump to stopping Hitler in 1933. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) declared Trump “is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy and he has to be eliminated.” He later apologized.

Others say that Trump “will destroy the world” unless he is stopped.

Matt Margolis at PJ Media reminds us that President Biden's violent rhetoric has been over the top as well.

“Donald Trump is a genuine threat to this nation,” Joe Biden said a couple of weeks ago. “He's a threat to our freedom. He’s a threat to our democracy. He's literally a threat to everything America stands for.”

Just last week, he said, “It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye.”

When Sarah Palin used bullseyes on a map the left used that as an excuse to blame her rhetoric for the attempted murder of congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Why do they not hold Joe Biden to the same standard?

Margolis adds this:

Madonna threatened to blow up the White House during the Women's March on Washington after Trump took office. Mere months into Trump's presidency, Kathy Griffin staged a photo with a severed, bloodied head of Trump, and actor Johnny Depp asked the crowd at the annual Glastonbury Festival, "When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?"

Essentially, they normalized and trivialized political violence. Heck, they even consider it justifiable.

Consider the countless instances where Trump was compared to Hitler or labeled as a tyrant. Such comparisons are not merely hyperbolic; they are dangerous. They suggest that Trump is not just a political opponent but an enemy who must be stopped at any cost.

One Biden megadonor "joked" about making Trump an actual martyr.

A Democrat politician compared the outpouring of prayers for Trump to "sympathy for the devil."

Jaqueline Marsaw, a staff person for January 6th Committee Chair Bennie Thompson urged would-be Trump assassins to get some shooting lessons.

Libs of Tik Tok has a two and a half minute montage of lefties condoning political violence.

The leftwing hoi polloi, as one might expect, have been no better, celebrating the attempt on Trump's life, calling the would-be assassin a "hero," lamenting that he missed, etc.

There's a sickness in our politics, and the worst cases afflict many of those on the political left. If there's anything comparable to this on the right I'd appreciate readers sending me the links, because I'm sincerely unaware of it.

Metaphors and Faith

The Krebs citric acid cycle is a complex process that occurs in the mitochondria of most of the cells in our bodies resulting in the production of molecules like ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) which are the fuel that sustains life. Without this tiny ATP molecule our bodies would shut down just like an engine that had run out of gasoline.

Amazingly, the extremely complex series of reactions leading to the production of ATP occurs in even primitive bacteria so it must have evolved very early on in the history of life and therefore very rapidly, which is astonishing to think about, given the enormous complexity of the cycle:

The Krebs Citric Acid Cycle

The naturalistic view is that the evolution of this complex sequence of chemical reactions occurred without any direction, without any guidance, without any goal in sight, that all the pieces were assembled from pre-existing chemicals, arranged by random trial and error through the mechanism of genetic mutation and natural selection. It's an almost miraculous defiance of probability.

This is not to say it didn't happen that way. It's at least logically possible that it did, and lots of very intelligent people assure us that it did even though when they write about it they can't help but use telic language (i.e. language that implies a goal or purpose).

Consider this excerpt from a well-known paper from 1996:

During the origin and evolution of metabolism, in the first cells, when a need arises for a new pathway, there are two different possible strategies available to achieve this purpose: (1) create new pathways utilizing new compounds not previously available or (2) adapt and make good use of the enzymes catalyzing reactions already existing in the cell. Clearly, the opportunism of the second strategy, when it is possible, has a number of selective advantages, because it allows a quick and economic solution of new problems.

Thus, in the evolution of a new metabolic pathway, new mechanisms must be created only if ‘‘pieces’’ to the complete puzzle are missing. Creation of the full pathway by a de novo method is expensive in material, time-consuming, and cannot compete with the opportunistic strategy, if it can achieve the new specific purpose.

We demonstrate here the opportunistic evolution of the Krebs cycle reorganizing and assembling preexisting organic chemical reactions....

Once the design of a new metabolic sequence is achieved, a refinement of the pathway may be necessary, and then, a further optimization process will move the design toward maximum efficiency by reaching optimal values of rate and affinity constants of enzymes. Such an optimization process as a result of natural selection is also a well-documented feature of biological evolution.... the design of the pentose phosphate and Calvin cycles can be mathematically derivedby applying optimization principles under a well-established physiological function.... By considering the first stages in the history of life, we may attempt to determine logically under what conditions the Krebs cycle was organized and what its first purpose was.

This language is of course intended to be metaphorical, but the point is that it's exceedingly difficult to describe the origin of pathways such as the Krebs cycle without comparing it to an engineering problem solvable by intelligent agents.

In fact, the metaphorical, telic language often employed by scientists, perhaps unintentionally, serves the purpose of obscuring how improbable it is that this pathway and others like it would have somehow arisen by chance genetic mutations and natural selection.

Here's another metaphor:

Suppose a card dealer shuffles a deck and lays the cards out on the table one at a time. We're assuming that the cards already exist and don't have to be manufactured (some of the chemicals in the Krebs cycle did not already exist before the Krebs cycle evolved).

Let's also assume that the dealer has a goal in mind (nature had no goals in mind). The dealer's goal is to obtain a sequence in which each suit from ace to king appears in the order hearts, spades, diamonds, clubs.

Let's further assume that whenever he fails to get the ace of hearts as the first card he reshuffles the deck and starts over. When he does get an ace of hearts he then lets it lay and tries for a two of hearts. If he doesn't get a two of hearts on the first attempt he reshuffles the entire deck and starts over. And so on.

How long would it take to get the sequence he has in mind? This is a bit like the difficulty confronting the chance evolution of a complex system like the Krebs cycle, but with the evolution of the Krebs cycle, at least the naturalistic version of it, there's no goal in mind, and indeed no mind. Just random trial and error, chemicals bumping about, until something useful is hit upon and somehow retained and eventually added to.

Of course, an intelligent card dealer, even a child, can order the cards in the desired pattern, but desired patterns, goals, and certainly intelligent dealers, are prohibited in naturalistic explanations.

The naturalist declares that he relies on science and not on faith in non-natural intelligent agents, but it seems to me that it takes a lot more faith to believe that the Krebs cycle could have arisen with no intelligent input than to believe that it arose through the agency of a biochemical genius.