Blind Faith in Government
At the moment, many are having fun mocking Republican Delaware Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell’s stated belief that evolution is a myth. O’Donnell’s view is shared by plenty of Christians, who seem to have formed their own consensus regardless of any data or logic that might contradict it. Whether one is sympathetic to O’Donnell’s view on evolution or not, it isn’t unfair to assume that it is born first of faith, not fact. Evolution is so contrary to her worldview that it threatens her world and challenges her views–therefore evolution must not, cannot, and shall not be true.
O’Donnell reminds me a lot of Barack Obama. She also reminds me of George W. Bush, his Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and those who continue to subscribe to the orthodoxies of both.
Federal stimulus has not worked, though you can’t tell this to its most faithful adherents. This nearly $800 billion package was intended to create jobs but has not made a dent in unemployment numbers, and a year-and-a-half after its passage a majority of the funds have not made their way to “shovel ready” infrastructure projects, as the president once promised. Writes Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman of federal stimulus, “As a way of expanding the economy, it’s a proven failure. But as a way of expanding government, it’s definitely a keeper.” Given the rest of the Democrats’ agenda, one might assume that expanding government was their goal from the beginning, but regardless Brother Obama still insists on the necessity of stimulus and does not take kindly to heretics. When faced with facts, O’Donnell will not even consider anyone who dares challenge her fundamentalist beliefs. Neither will Obama.
America’s interventionist foreign policy has not worked, though you can’t tell this to its most faithful adherents. The most glaring example of this failure is perhaps the Iraq War, which was launched after 9/11 to stop Saddam Hussein from using WMDs or aiding Islamic terrorists. None of this was true. Not even close. Hussein never had any weapons and al-Qaeda had never stepped foot in Iraq until we invaded it. O’Donnell has more proof that evolution is a myth than Bush now has that Saddam ever posed a threat, and yet Dubya, Cheney, and their neoconservative friends still stand by the absolute necessity of launching that war. Seven years to reflect has produced much regret for most Americans, most of whom have now evolved in their view of what really went down in Iraq. But similar to O’Donnell, the neocons do not believe in evolution, still worship at the altar of the War on Terror, and now enthusiastically break bread with Obama and his equally false Afghan denomination.
The War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure and yet maintaining the status quo on this subject has become an accepted, bipartisan religion. There is little no to evidence that marijuana does any more societal damage than alcohol and efforts to stop its use have been about as successful as Prohibition. When weighing the dollars spent, time wasted and lives damaged due to the War on Drugs against any damage done by actual drugs, it becomes clear that the cure has caused more harm than the supposed disease. The War on Drugs has been worse than just wrong–it’s stupid. Millions of Americans now readily recognize this and yet when a politician like Kentucky Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul dares to suggest that 10 to 20 years of prison for possession of marijuana may be too harsh, his Democrat opponent attacks Paul as somehow being pro-drug. Conservative guru the late William F. Buckley understood the failure of the War on Drugs, yet few Republican politicians will dare touch it. President Bill Clinton and Obama both admit to smoking pot and somehow went on to achieve great success, yet today likely wouldn’t publicly disagree with Paul’s Democratic opponent, who, laughably, calls marijuana a “gateway drug.” This is insanity, making the War on Drugs much like Scientology–it’s only a few decades old, a uniquely American invention and it continues to corrupt the minds of otherwise logical people who still refuse to consider its absurd premise.
Democrats now getting their jollies making fun of O’Donnell’s evolution comments or Republicans embarrassed by them might want to take a look at their own fundamentalism, where blanket support for federal stimulus, perpetual war, modern day prohibition and countless other senseless government programs have become little more than articles of faith. That there exists a party consensus, or sometimes even a bipartisan consensus, concerning these and many other status quo issues, doesn’t make them any more justified or true than a million Southern Baptists’ disbelief in evolution discounts all scientific evidence to the contrary. If anything, O’Donnell’s combined opposition to federal stimulus and her libertarian-leaning, states’ rights position on drug regulation, makes her far more sane than the majority of the political and media elites who now lampoon her religious fundamentalism as some sort of “danger.” The government fundamentalists in Washington, D.C. and their media worshippers pose far more danger-and certainly belong to a much larger church.
If you enjoyed this essay, make a tax-deductible donation to support The American Conservative.
I don’t consider “state’s rights” as being libertarian-leaning; conservative leaning, obviously, but not libertarian leaning.
I agree that Worshiping the State is more dangerous than a religious fundie, however fundies use the state to force people to act in their image.
LibertarianBlue,
Many other groups also avail themselves of state coercion to enforce their orthodoxy.One more argument against Leviathan.
Evidence for evolution is as reliable as that for global warming. The theory seems reasonable, but the evidence is not so empirical, experimental, or reliable.
On all the issues that matter Christine O’Donnell gets an A+ in my book. She is a patriot who supports our greatest ally Isreal and our valiant efforts in the War on Terrorism. She is a strong supporter of the military and our highly successful peace through preemptive war foreign policy. She is a true Reagainite conservative and will make a great congresswoman. You anti-war leftists criticizing her for her positions on irrelevant issues make me sick. If you hate America so much why don’t you just move to Iran?
Nate, in America we like to pretend that anti-war leftists (and anti-war conservatives) as well as pro-war leftists (Obama) have the right to criticize any politician for any reason at all (subject to being visited by the FBI). However, in Iran, the right to criticize politicians is by no means guaranteed by a Bill of Rights.
Perhaps you, Nate, should move to Iran where there is less criticism of politicians. You might find that more to your liking.
Also, in Iran, they probably hold many of the same social views that O’Donnell has. If asked, most of the Ayatollahs would probably be anti-masturbation like O’Donnell.
Oh please. Nate is such a fraud. What Weinstein cannot spell ‘Israel’ correctly? A deracinated evangelical with no ethnic moorings of his own. Fail, Mary!
Jack Hunter are you taking LSD or do you really view reality with such a distorted mind? Our foreign policy has failed? Tell that to the 50 million IraqiKs we liberated from the clutches of a ruthless Islamofascist terrorist supporting dictator. How can you talk about our foreign policy failing when we have liberated the women of Iraq and Afghanistan and gained two valuable allies in the region. We have drained the swamp in the middle east and no longer can terrorists use Afghanistan and Iraq as a base to plan their evil terrorist attacks against America. How can you speak of failure when we have not suffered a terrorist attack since we began our counterterrorism operations in the region?
The war on drugs has failed? Tell that to the millions of drug dealers that are in prison. If the war on drugs was really failing there would not be any drug dealers in prison and they would be free and selling their heroin and crack to kids.
Jack is your idea of America a place where kids do drugs and where terrorist attacks are a routine occurrence? That is not the nation I want my children to grow up in. Do you have kids Jack? I assume not because no caring parent would subject their children to that kind world.
Nate firstly Reagan wasn’t a great Israel ( in terms of settlements and the like) fan and friends like Christine O Donnell will throw Israel under the bus at the first drop when theres something in it for her. I’m very surprised you support an anti masturbation agenda.
How can she be a strong supporter of the military when shes never held office? Her military credentials exactly match her Oxford record. I agree that Obama is weak on defence but for the opposite reason to you.
He allowed the military to subvert civilian rule with the afghan surge when Biden had the right plan. Staying makes us weak. Continued Empire bleeds us and makes us weak. Shooting unarmed civilians in Palestine and knocking peoples homes over makes Israel weak. JUst look how popular it’s inthe UN and Europe. Israel needs more than just one friend Nate. Currently Nate China is shoving our ally Japan around. Seeing as we owe them so much money they have the arm on us Nate.
Borrowing for these wars Nate has made us weak. It cost us i understand a million dollars a year to keep a soldier in Afghanistan. It costs al Q/ Talb. what to keep a guy there? How long do we keep this up for?
I think Nate’s a troll, nothing in this piece is a hit on O’Donnell.
I’m having trouble seeing how our preemptive wars could be called effective other than if one simply wished to be contrary, was not the kind of thing Reagan went for either.
How a intelligent rational philosophy like conservatism has given birth to such a twerpy hysterical movement never ceases to amaze.
Saying “the Federal stimulus has not worked” in a bold, assertive, forceful way doesn’t make it true. How about citing some comparative work, contrasting countries which have stimulated strongly, to those that have pursued slash and burn?
The opposite of blind faith fundamentalism is testing and scientific rigor, which this Jack Hunter guy seems uninterested in.
I’d rather be a troll (which I most certainly am not) than a Ron Paul supporting anti-Judeochristian neo-pagan “viking” like yourself.
What?
Nate, you are definitely a troll.
Ian,
I am new here but what I’ve read resonates within me. Can I be an anti-Judeochristian, neo-pagan Viking too? It sounds like a complicated term for Nazi but without the baggage. Where do I sign up?
Nate thank you for illustrating my point about hysterical twerpiness.
Not a neo-pagan btw (I’m Orthodox, same as Daniel Larison) but you’re right that I support Ron Paul.
Unless I am mistaken, this is the first response by our great friend Nate Weinstein since he disappeared from view about the time in June we were marking the 33rd anniversary of the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty by “our greatest ally Israel.” Thus, we missed out hearing from Nate about how this attack was actually in the best interests of the U.S. I am also waiting to hear from Nate when our $3+ billion annual subsidy to the standard of living of Israeli Jews will come to an end or whether we have signed on to a support agreement that will last 1000 years. I agree with Viking’s assessment that Nate Wenstein is a troll and most likely an intern on assignment from AIPAC.
Correction: that should have been 43rd anniversary of the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967.
Nate, when you learn to correctly SPELL Israel, move there. Yes, you are a demented troll.
Kyke K, or whatever your real name is, we never “liberated” Iraq, we illegally invaded Iraq and turned Iraq over to Iran.
Not a brilliant move. The drug war is a total failure and there are NOT “millions” of drug dealers, the total US prison population is exactly two million. And no one should be in jail at all for drugs either as a supplier or user. You’d think imbeciles would have learned something from Prohibition.
Drugs ARE a routine occurrence in all of our schools and streets. The US State is the leading terrorist state.
Try to learn some history before making a complete fool of yourself, Kyle.
Marijuana should have been legalized forty years ago. What a total waste of public money and manpower!
Of O’Donnell’s view of evolution, Hunter says, “it isn’t unfair to assume that it is born first of faith…” No it isn’t unfair, because what he says is true. What is unfair though is his implication by silence that naturalism is not based on faith. I’m deeply disappointed in Jack because I believe he knows how grossly he’s distorted the issue and is apparently OK with that. In a larger sense his remark is nothing less than a thinly disguised, broad brush swipe at those holding a theistic worldview—Christian theism in particular. The fundamental—pun intended—question is what the object of O’Donnell’s faith is compared to that of, say, Richard Dawkins. Based on faith in his own wisdom, Dawkins tells us that biology is the study of life systems that appear to be designed but are not. By any scientific standard such an “appearance” should trigger research to either affirm or falsify the concept of life process design. That would invite a divine foot in door though, and…well, we just can’t have that. Rigorous science at it’s best. O’Donnell on the other hand has faith in the writings of an ancient and venerated text, a book that’s continuously being proved to be reliable in every facet of it’s contents subject to historical scrutiny. How bad can that be? The real issue here is that pesky divine foot. I just wonder why Jack has a problem with it.
Robert, you are spouting nonsense here. The Unholy Bible has never been proven to be reliable on anthing. Not only is it one of the most bloodthirsty, pornographic, tribal racist books ever written but its very authenticity is in doubt. It’s obvious that it was written over hundreds of years by people who had no relation to each other.
Dawkins bases evolution on solid biological fact, not six day “miracles.” It is not blind religious faith in any sense of the term.
There has never been a convincing argument for “god” or any form of supernaturalism. Existence exists and the whole purpose of our consciousness is to observe existence and learn how to make sense of the world. If what you observe is not existence, what you possess is not consciousness.
Existence has always existed, it never came out of consciousness, quite the reverse. Read Gould’s massive study of evolution and other scientific writings.
The libertarian conservative movement does not need nutcases like O’Donnell or Palin.
Finally, existence doesn’t give a damn about any of us. There is no wise all seeing, benevolent welfare state Father in the sky. Be a man and face up to reality, Robert.
Hans, ALL drugs are probably harmful and all should be decriminalized. See Thomas Szasz’s Our Right To Drugs.
Not legalized and regulated but totally decriminalized.
Mike (Hardesty)…Thanks for your response. Your observation that the “Bible has never been proven to be reliable on anything,” is so far off the line is off the graph. While this forum is not the place to debate the finer points of theism and naturalism, your remark, in the interest of truth (yes Mike, the absolute kind…), demands an answer. Nineteenth century European scholarship outrightly rejected the historicity of the Gospel of Luke. Sir William Ramsay was schooled in that tradition, and came out of it with a mindset reflecting that teaching. After several years of field study in Asia Minor trying to prove the document false he wrote, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense…in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.” (Sir William M. Ramsey, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1915.) No honest, reasonable person today can argue against the authenticity and historical trustworthiness of Luke. Contrary to what you believe, Ramsay proved it…if language means anything at all. If you subscribe to the postmodern stupidity that language has no correspondence to reality you become self refuting and would be better off spending the rest of your days in the Lotus position.
Mike (Hardesty)…A couple more general points. You would be well advised to avoid the term ‘never,’ as it only takes one established contrary point to bring an entire house of cards down….as in the case of Luke. You say, “There has never been a convincing argument for “god” or any form of supernaturalism.” What you mean, of course, is no such argument satisfies you. That‘s considerably different than saying there’s absolutely no convincing argument for God, because hundreds of millions of people worldwide are convinced there is such a being. Antony Flew comes to mind. That you would even bring up S.J. Gould’s name in the context of a libertarian discussion is astonishing. The man was a self proclaimed, card carrying, certified Marxist—the ultimate statest. Are you out of your mind, speaking well of a guy like this? Of Gould Harvard professor E.O. Wilson said that, “…When Darwin conflicts with Marx, Darwin goes.” You can be certain the issue of liberty would have taken a back seat to Marx as well. It’s all about philosophy, Mike, not science. You also said, “Existence has always existed, it never came out of consciousness…” Being inclined towards science as you are, I’m sure the proposition must be supported by rigorous science for you to argue it. Perhaps you could share with us the peer reviewed papers, Journals etc. that support it. Finally, you said, “Be a man and face up to reality, Robert.” That statement is loaded with numerous ‘value’ implications, the least of which is that it’s better to be a man than not. As the rational, libertarian person you most certainly are, why on earth would you counsel me to believe it good to think just like you? Regarding Palin and O’Donnell, the thought of Sarah dear in some high policy making position scares me more than it frightens you—be sure of it. O’Donnell? It’s none of my business, nor yours unless you live in Delaware. Interestingly, it’s the Washington based neocons who have made it a habit of sticking their very ample noses into state politics. Is this the kind of company you keep?
No, Robert, I have read all the arguments for ‘god” and they are simply wanting. It’s an objective fact, not a subjective psychological state. There are not that many arguments any reasonably intelligent person could not research and find their refutations.
George H. Smith’s Atheism:The Case Against God is the best work on the subject. Smith has always been a strong libertarian.
Gould may have been a Marxist but that no more discredits his views on evolution than Einstein’s being a Communist One
Worlder discredits the theory of relativity. Read Gould’s massive 1400 page work, The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory. Then try to refute it.
Actually it is about philosophy of science. All science has a philosophical foundation, see The Logical Leap by Objectivist scholar David Harriman on physics and philosophy.
Existence exists is an axiom and you don’t to prove an axiom, in fact you can’t prove an axiom as you can go back no further. So I don’t have to cite peer-reviewed (!) papers to prove that a) existence exists and b) to prove the function of your consciousness is to perceive SINCE THERE IS NOTHING ELSE TO PERCEIVE. You can do it too, Robert, just open your eyes and look around you.
I think I’m right so thus I think it would be good for you to think like me. What’s the big deal ? Is libertarianism some deuces wild, do your thing philosophy ?
Robert, IF you are a man, it’s best to be a man. Again, what’s your problem here ?
Where in the 1st Amendment does it say that you have to live in a state to comment on it’s politics ? More utter nonsense !
Flew produced no arguments at all for “god.” Years ago he wrote that linguistic analysis was the only philosophy, as foolish a statement as his one on “god.”
I’ll stick my nose in all 50 states’ politics because when they elect those idiots to Congress IT PERSONALLY AFFECTS ME.
You get a straight F, Robert.
Mike…Well, I’ll just have to live with the F. I’m reminded of a friend who received points off on a paper he wrote recently, because he footnoted a reference to Pat Buchanan and the prof went ballistic. So after it’s all said and done, I’m in good company. Thanks for your spirited comments. Really.
Here! Here!
By God’s Graceindeed. Tooo bad the liberal BushClan never gottheword!
I don’t think the analogy fits. I gave reasons and refs in my case, it wasn’t just a PC kneejerk reaction.
Montario Hardesty a liberal athiest? Should it come to any shock to us Reagan moral conservative that Montario is constantly defending terrorism, prostitution, and illegal drug use?
Nate, you are out to lunch. I oppose Israeli-US
State terrorism as well as any other form of terrorism.
I never advocated illegal drugs or prostitution, I wrote
they should be decriminalized. Would one have to be
a boozer to oppose alcohol criminalization ? Or a
smoker to oppose the trend towards tobacco criminalization ?
Montario Hardesty, Illegal drugs are illegal because they are more harmful to individuals and society than legal ones. Decriminalization? You might as well just shove the drugs right down our children’s throats. I suppose in Montario Hardesty’s America it would be perfectly legal to be a left wing liberal crack smoking child porn addict who loves Islamofascism terrorism. You make me sick.
Nate, lots of things are harmful but that doesn’t mean they should be illegal. We have a right to make our own choices
without little wannabe dictators like you deciding what’s harmful. Spare us your recitation of cliches from that stronghold of Racist-Fascism, Israel and its goofy US followers. If people want to watch porn or smoke crack
and they are past puberty that’s their business.
You are quite ill, I agree.
Montario Hardesty. Wow. So now you are defending child pornography? Like most Ron Paul supporters you sir are a troubled soul.
Who is Montario ? It should not be a crime to READ anything,
acting on something is another matter but the distinction escapes a dummy like you.
Your last sentence is what the shrinks call projection.
By the way, I do believe several posters on TAC threads who have claimed that you are anti-semitic agent provocateur deliberately out to give Jews and Israel a bad name.
From now on, I will refer to you as Eichmann Junior.
Amconmag writers and fans are where the Reds and Browns meet.
Yeah, CB, that’s real clever (as in much cleverness and little
wisdom.)
I certainly agree with the comments concerning the faith of
Government leaders in both parties in Government programs. It is true, that folks who accept the Holy Scriptures as the truth, will have no really good reason to accept the unscientific claims of the evolutionary faith as being true. You have overlooked the faith of those who promote the continually ever changing “facts” of evolutiion, and the very statements of some of the most respected proponents that faith is required to accept evolutions basic tenets. I have no objection to evolution being taught in schools as the hypothosis it is. I have every objection to the heavy-handed way evolutionist have used the government to squeeze out everything it views as a competive faith. Evolution is the new US. state religion.
Mr. Hunter, O’Donnell may be motivated by unreasoned faith, but Darwinian Evolulution has serious scientific flaws. The matter of abiogenesis – the spontaneous generation of life – has such low probability that the astronomer Fred Hoyle calculated it at 1X10 to the 800th power. He – and Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, believed in Directed Panspermia, which is to say that ALIENS seeded Earth, because that was the only way they could justify life without resorting to a miracle. Darwinists have been trying to find ways to reduce that improbability ever since.
Now THAT is blind faith.
There are other serious problems in the theory, too; the fossil record should show a gradual change between species, for instance. It does not, leading Stephan Jay Gould to advance his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. One can make no predictions with Darwin. It really is a vague philosophical speculation.
Also, the argument that America’s interventionism has not worked is belied by the fact that we have not experienced any major terrorist attacks since. The whole point of going into Iraq was to encircle Iran, the true terror master. Bush had the argument on his side, since the U.N. had numerous resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with inspections and whatnot, so it made for an easier political case (and an easier invasion than would have been Iran; had we gone there it would have made the current situation look positively passive and could have brought in the Russians). And, bear in mind, everyone thought Saddam had those weapons until we actually went in and looked.
Does that justify invasion? Perhaps not, but there was much more to the Bush policy than your characterization.
A final word on O’Donnell; would you really rather have had Mike Castle? If so, you show yourself to be no conservative in any meaningful way. Like her or not, isn’t it time to get on board with her campaign?
Your central point was terrific, however, and I agree with you more than disagree.
Mr. Birdnow,
A few comments, if I may…
We’ve had two high-profile terrorist attempts in the past year on our shores. Thank God that they did not work. But the intent was there, and they were explicitly driven by our hyper-interventionist foreign policy. And it would come as a surprise to the troops and civilians in Iraq that there haven’t been any terrorist attacks since.
If indeed the whole point of invading Iraq was to ‘encircle Iran,’ then the war was fought on entirely false premises (even more so than is already believed now.) We were told that (among other things) Iraq had WMD’s, that there was a connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda, that Iraq would be a seed of democracy in the ME. None of which was true. The notion of invading Iraq to get to Iran is revisionist history, and if true, drops Bush down even a few more pegs as a President. It has also completely (and predictably) backfired, as the Shiite majority is now on better terms with Iran than Saddam ever was. We effectively removed Iran’s biggest obstacle to being a regional hegemon, meaning that we (not Saddam) are paying in blood and taxes to be that counterweight. You are correct: there was much more to Bush’s policy…more then he ever understood.
The fact that we have surrounded Iran (a country that has never been tied to any attack on US soil, nor have they invaded any of their neighbors in many decades), only makes their supposed interest in nuclear weapons more justified. Indeed, if there were Soviets in Canada, Mexico and we were being constantly told it was time for ‘Regime Change in Washington,’ how would we respond?
Peace be with you.
ps. While it is common to say that ‘everyone’ thought Saddam had WMD, this is not true either. Please check out Scott Ritter’s 2002 interview at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html. At the time, I, like many others, thought this guy was a quack. I now know that he was the real patriot, and I was the idiot.
I’d like to state emphatically that being a “true” conservative doesn’t mean blind adherence to tea parties, or republicans or democrat values
And it should have nothing whatever to do with religious values either.
The Christian dominionists like Palin, Demint, Angle, and the Delaware Witch are attempting to force everyone into a “their way” or the highway mold.
I’d like to hear readers’ feedback on this, and here’s the question:
EXACTLY WHO get to decide what constitute pure conservatism?
I conserve my woodlands and fields and gardens by taking good care of them so my children can have them some day. I am conserving them, so in my book, I am at least a terra firma conservative.
I believe governments of all stripes should have no jurisdiction over my faith, or lack of it, or how I worship anything or anyone.
If I decide that cars are my god, and my 3 bay garage is my bloody church, isn’t that my right in America? Would you force me to worship in your Church, mosque, temple or pagoda?
I also believe that no government should decided if I as a sentient, sane adult should live or die. If I choose to live, so be it. If I want
to kill myself, then it’s my business, and not yours.
If I choose to grow a damn weed like silvia or marijuana, and smoke
or vaporize it after hours, away from my children, and do it responsibly, why is that anyone’s business? I pay cash for my own health insurance, and am self employed, so even if it makes me sick, that IS MY business, and not yours.
I am trying to make a point here, and that is that governments, though they are necessary to all societies, should stay out of
my faith, my garage, my bedroom, and my sex life, provided I don’t
do harm or cause problems for others!!!
And those aren’t the only things government should stay out of.
The author of the article is right:
We should stay out of foreign entanglements, just like President Washington said in the 1700′s. A baseless war in Iraq costing 4400 soldier lives has proven that.
Prohibition was a miserable failure and increased crime for 10 years. The “war on drugs” has failed. Anyone who wants drugs can grow them or find them anywhere, and crime and terror are the results of banning them.
The so called Sharron ANgle “true conservatives” would force my 11 year old to bear a rapist’s baby if they could, in complete disregard for the terrible health risk to the child-mother she would be.
The so called Jim Demint “true conservatives” would like
to force ALL PREGNANT teachers to take tests to prove they are married, because his view of morals is the only one fit for any other American.
Get my point? STAY THE HELL OUT OF my health, my bedroom, my faith (or lack of it) and learn to accept that Americans come in many religions and nationalities, and faiths,
and we all have the right to freedom from tyrants
Timothy, your totally off the wall on evolution. Gould’s massive work, The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory, totally debunks the utter nonsense creationist fundies are spreading.
Almost all scientists regard evolution as fact. I had no brief for Castle but the only thing O’Donnell has done is guarantee a Demo victory next month.
The Bush policy was totally based on lies and nothing to do with Iran, in fact the illegal, immoral invasion has brought Iraq into the Iran camp. The UN has long become a figleaf for US Imperialism, we either bribe or coerce them to do our dirty work.
I was taught in college, a secular state college, that for there to be evolution, the species evolved FROM could not exist with the species if evolved TO. So he comment about the monkeys still being around is pretty much on the mark, is it not?
Mr. Hardesty…your statement that almost all scientist regard evolution as fact totally debunks the untter nonsense that these scientist KNOW anything. There is no proof evolution is fact. However, the Bush policy is a bigger picture than many realize. It’s kind of like chess…to get to the ultimate goal one has to take out the pawns and other players. The UN is totally useless. It is a tool for elitists to gain more power at the expense of the poor blamed on the strong.
What exactly is it that you don’t like about the “liberal elitists”? That they lampoon much of the political beliefs that you yourself just denigrated? But you still like those fundamentalists better than those scary “liberal elitists”. I know, progressive policies to address real concerns require scary responsibility and bible stories are so much more benign than political action. What is scary to me is people in power who believe our destiny is in the hands of diety while demonizing others as “liberal elitists”.
Todd, you need to read an evolution textbook or better yet the massive Gould volume I recommended above.
You simply are talking stupid nonsense. Evolution is a fact.
Nothing complicated about either Bush’s policies, a total pack of lies in both cases.
Nate, I prefer so see our politicians to support The United States of America, not the State of Israel, which is not our ally but uses our country only as a milking cow
Rereading the Hunter article several times leaves me with the nagging question of what it’s purpose was. First he marginalizes Christine O’Donnell, then tries to link her to Bush and Obama and the failed policies of the Democrats and Republicans. It appears O’Donnell’s belief that evolution is a myth is the imagined connection, and if so, she’s in some good company—if the truth matters. So what’s Hunter’s point in preaching to the choir about all of the very obvious stuff? Did he just figure out the stimulus is not working? Or that our foreign policy and war on drugs sucks? The entire piece rests on his assumption that her belief “is born first of faith, not fact…” So what? He can’t say the same of Antony Flew, so there are likely other people who came to a sense of understanding their world based on fact—maybe even O‘Donnell. Were Isaac Newton alive would Hunter be ignorant enough to say the same about him that he’s said about O’Donnell? Newton wrote more on theology and faith issues than he did science, and while his theology was not strictly orthodox, he did subscribe to an essentially creationist belief in origins. What a looser fundie, right? ( Me thinks I hear Montario sniffing right now that Newton didn’t have the benefit of SJ Gould’s “massive work.“) If the issue matters so much regarding O’Donnell, why didn’t Hunter simply try to arrange an interview with the women to get her side. Apparently it’s OK for Jack to assume without benefit of fact, but not O’Donnell. There are clear shades of O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck here, and Hunter should be ashamed. I don’t know Christine O’Donnell from a hole in my sock, and don’t have a dog in her fight. But in this instance she‘s being treated unfairly and I‘m pleased to say it.
Cfountain, I appreciate your points but think you are incorrect in some assumptions.
first, those attempted attacks happened not on Bush’s watch but on Obama’s. Now, why is that? Obama DOES NOT follow the same approach as Bush, and the Islamic world knows it. Doesn’t this put the lie to the whole notion that it was American aggression that led to attacks on us; Obama is the antithesis of aggression. He has done everything possible to reduce tensions. He is exactly the sort of president who will bring attack on us – weak as water. History shows that weakness invites attack.
There were many good people who disagreed with the war, but the point being made is that there this is not as cut and dried as Mr. Hunter or those on the antiwar side believe. I should like to point out that you make common cause with Not in Our Names, Code Pink, and other radical leftists. Generally when one has such august company on your side you are on the wrong side.
You argue that my assertion that we were trying to encircle Iran is revisionist history. Revisionist history? Maybe, but did you really think any administration would proclaim that we wanted to encircle Iran to choke it, and that the Russians had better stay out of it or we would consider them belligerents? Are we going to give away our ultimate plans to our enemies – and let them use it as propoganda? Nobody would do that. It hardly makes Bush a monster for trying to protect America’s strategic policy. The War of 1812 was fought primarily to conquer Canada, but it was ostensibly fought over impressment of American seamen. Was this some terrible, dark conspiracy by James Madison?
Oh, and Bush never claimed Saddam Hussein was directly involved either with Al Qaeda or with the 911 terror attacks. He said they supported terrorism which indeed they did, and that they were working toward wmds which they indeed had been and there are many dead Kurds to prove it.
Perhaps you missed this
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oG7kl_aKxMDK4AAUZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMTNuNTZzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw–/SIG=1324bo5i5/EXP=1286453759/**http%3a//www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
Keep in mind, too, that Abul Abbas was being sheltered by Saddam in Baghdad.
The reality was that Iraq was never going to stop menacing America. We were going to have to act at some point. Yes, it has removed them from Iran’s enemy #1, but along your line of reasoning we should not have resisted Chinese expansionism during the Cold War because they were a natural check on the U.S.S.R. Sometimes you just have to do things you don’t like. The notion that we can just take our ball and go home is naive in the extreme; they simply aren’t going to let us do that.
If you believe that Iran, a nation that has attacked us directly and indirectly repeatedly and was calling us the Great Satan long before the invasion of Iraq (and before the first Gulf War) is only developing nukes because we are at their doorstep, I have a nice bridge for sale.
Oh, and I’m all for regime change in Washington.
I would recommend against using Scott Ritter as a source, too; his own boss at the U.N. called him a liar, and he was one of those making the most apocalyptic statements prior to the war. The man is an opportunist.
This is an issue that people can reasonably disagree on. Too many on the antiwar side merely demonize those who think it was a good idea poorly executed.
Todd Bell, I wouldn’t bother arguing with Michael Hardesty; it would be a waste of time. He provides no counter-arguments, just says “Gould says so so it must be true”. I doubt he even understands the difference between evolution and Darwinism. (Evolution was a theory first conceived by the Greeks and was largely advanced in the 18th century by churchmen; Darwin’s theory is Natural Selection, and is the bone of the argument. It should be pointed out that Lamarckian theory is making a comeback. http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/7408.aspx
Darwin is the religion of many atheists, and they will fight to their last breaths to defend it. When the argument goes against them they launch into accusations of ignorance and all the tricks we see in the Global Warming movement as well; bandwagoning “every scientist agree”, personal assaults etc.
If there was any honesty on that side of the aisle they would agree that, yes, there are dufuses who are ignorant, but that there is an honest disagreement.
Oh, and while we are on the subject, one of the worst pieces of propaganda was Inherit the Wind. Read about what really happened here. http://tbirdblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/scopes-monkey-trialagain.html
Timothy, your a fount of disinformation. The worst terrorist attack in US history HAPPENED ON BUSH’S WATCH BECAUSE HE IGNORED THE OUTGOING CLINTON ADMIN. WARNINGS ON OSAMA BIN LADEN.
AND,YES, BUSH AND CHENEY CLAIMED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT HUSSEIN WAS LINKED TO 9-11.
Better put that crack pipe down now !
The war was based on total lies, the people who promoted were not mistaken, they are deliberate war criminals.
No one can demonize Bush & Co. beyond what they have already demonized themselves.
Scott Ritter told the truth and for that reason is hated by all the lying rightist am talk show morons and their imbecilic, robotic supporters like you. Everything about our failed illegal, immoral invasion that Scott Ritter predicted has come true
and then some. He’s a prophet to be honored.
Iran never attacked the US as such. They held our embassy hostage for 14 months AFTER we held their whole country hostage for 26 YEARS after the US Shah coup.
The reality is that Iraq was NEVER a menace or threat to America. Ever. In fact both Carter and Reagan SUPPORTED Iraq’s illegal invasion of Iran.
By 2003 Iraq wasn’t even a threat to Kuwait, which is a province of Iraq. Much less to Israel’s 400 nukes or Europe
or any Arab countries.
“Weekly Standard” as a source ????!!! You might as well give
PRAVDA, it has the same credibility.
The 1812 war was another immoral, illegal war by US state criminals and I’m glad the Brits kicked their butts but good.
The US never resisted Maoist “expansionism” because the Maoists never expanded anywhere except Tibet and the US did nothing about that. In fact the US Government under Truman put Mao in power, see How The Far East Was Lost
by Anthony Kubek and America’s Retreat From Victory by
Senator Joseph McCarthy. Mao killed over 100-110 million Chinese but he was no threat to the US, only entered Korea in response to MacArthur’s thrust towards his borders and
never entered Vietnam. The US Seventh Fleet under Eisenhower was patrolling the Straits to keep Chiang from invading the mainland.
Timothy, you are as much of an enemy to America as the Communists ever were and people like you aim to set up a police state in the guise of “fighting terrorism” which your Israel First policy relentlessly promotes.
Bush and Cheney and now Obama create more recruits for Al
Queda every day. People who support those policies are traitors to America.
Code Pink and Not In Our Name are hardcore patriots by contrast.
Robert, Christine is a total idiot as are all the fundie opponents of evolution. Read Gould and educate yourself.
Montatio Hardesty, I myself do not believe in evolution either. It is nice to find some common ground with you, even though we respectfully disagree with each other on many other important issues.
“Nate” I am in favor of evolution so we have no common ground there or anyplace else.
I do accept your total apology and your admission that you are Adolph Eichmann, Jr. and that your first lover was Montario and that he cruelly abandoned. Did he leave any
social diseases behind ?
Syllogistically, Hunter’s point seems to be that a) evolution is historically true, b) anyone who rejects that proposition is irrational, c) O‘Donnell rejects such proposition and d) she is therefore irrational. The evolutionary cheerleaders have weighed in true to form with all manner of name calling that should raise questions in any reasonable person’s mind as to whether, notwithstanding the prepackaged clichés, they have anything significant to say. (Reminds me of a recent president needing teleprompters to argue talking points. No substance or thinking required, just read the script.) If reason is on their side, why the acrimony? Is the hostility comforting? If so, the cheerleaders, not Christine, are the irrational lot…on par with six year old children throwing a fit. To argue otherwise is to argue that childish tantrums have a meaningful place in civil discourse. Name calling and endless cliche-like references to SJG’s “massive work” is not the stuff of enlightened dialog—or reasoning for that matter.
Robert, it’s legitimate to give well reasoned, heavily documented references like the Gould tome.
At this point there is no reason to reinvent the wheel as the case for evolution has been definitively made.
Montario Hardesty, That was a typo I mean to say that I do believe in evolution. Sorry, but I am not gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) and have never been your lover.
Mike…You’ve obviously fallen deep into the trap of hero worship, the object of which is SJ Gould. The man was and remains a charlatan and fraud. As pointed out previously, the guy was first a Marxist, and boasted that he learned Marxism on his father’s knee. That he was first a materialist determined by default—not reason—his scientific perspective. As his Harvard associate made clear, for Gould everything took a back seat to Marxism. Granted, such an arrangement doesn’t necessarily negate the veracity of Gould’s work, but it should raise questions about his competency to discern. More to the point though is Gould’s standing as a popular scientist, an icon of sorts that could say and write about clearly stupid and unscientific stuff like “punctuated equilibrium,” without fear of meaningful challenge within his own community. PE was an ad hoc response to the growing understanding (most likely fueled by creationists) that the fossil record was at odds with gradualism, a key element of Darwinian philosophy. I’ll say this for Gould, he had balls. To stand up in front of several thousand adults and say—with straight face—that the fossil record was barren of transitional critters not because they evolved so slowly as long thought, but because they evolved so fast. By virtue of Gould’s standing, not science, PE became the new paradigm, and any scholar with the temerity to brand it an absurdity sealed his/her own academic self destruction. The literature is full of stuff like that and you know it. Out of your sense of duty to Gould and own worldview—not rigorous science—you must subscribe to PE, notwithstanding the fact there’s not a scintilla of evidence supporting it. PE reminds me of the dino to bird “ground up” or “tree down” dispute. Adults really talk and write about this stuff. And you respect them? “Science” is full of numerous other ad hoc explanations that are nothing more than face saving devices covering up inconsistencies between observed fact and sacred dogma. The alleged Oort cloud comes to mind, as does big bang inflationary theory. Kind of like a “sky up” or “sky down” situation. But the grant money keeps flowing, and that’s all that really matters. Tell me Mike, as an alleged libertarian, is it OK with you for the government to take money from me and turn it over to these academic fakers?
Robert, like all bad writers you take up a great deal of space to prove nothing. Read Gould’s massive The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory and read it in its 1400 page entirety.
Taking some item out of context proves nothing. Every
scientist agrees with the principle of evolution. No scientist believes in the asinine creationist theory.
Gould’s Marxism is as irrelevant to evolution as Einstein’s
Communism is to physics. No one states that because Einstein was a Communist advocate of world government that the theory of relativity is invalid. In the real world relativity builds upon Newton and adds certain insights about speed & light that weren’t there before. In the real world the Unholy Bible fairy tales add nothing to our knowledge of existence and how our particular human animal species developed.
Your whole Marxian nonargument on Gould is a big red herring. While there are divergencies of views among evolutionists whose number includes all scientists, no
one ever claimed in that community that Gould was a fraud or charlatan. That’s strictly your ad hominem because you either don’t know evolutionary theory or you can’t argue against it.
I never hero-worshipped Gould. I’m sure I’d disagree with him on race and other issues. I respect him as a towering intellect.
To answer your last sentence I’m opposed to government subsidies for any educational institution or anything else
except for abortion, where I strongly favor subsidizing low
income to have abortions.
Montario Hardesty, I can agree with you somewhat. I do not favor abortion in America, but the Supreme Court has the final say and I respect that because I am pro-American and support our government unlike Ron Paul and his supporters. I also want to spread democracy to the Middle East through preemptive war and liberate the people from their fascist theocratic governments so that they too can be like America and can decide for themselves if they want pornography, abortions, and homosexual rights.
OK this is off topic, but go Robert K.
Science cannot “prove” evolution or creation.
Both evolutionists and creationists appeal to faith – of different kinds – for their fundamental axioms. Fair enough, but nobody has empirically proved anything on either side, Gould’s literary filibuster to the contrary.
Evolution is a hypothesis Darwin proposed to attempt to explain what he observed. Even he admits, that he did not prove it and if he claims to have proven it, he is a liar. It took hold, because it is just to convenient to the historic doctrine that man is made in the image of God out of the way. If we are made in the image of an edicated (sic) animal, than guess what, we can live and breed like one too.
IOW there’s a reason why there is such a thing as the Missing Link. IOW, just like Greenland – why do they call it that? It must have been that before the carbon footprint of the Viking snowmobiles messed everything up – common sense can see through the pretentious fraud of evolutionary “fact”. Likewise global warming etc.
Microevolution within the specie, yes; macroevolution from specie to specie, no. There is absolutely no fossil record at all unless you want to count a jawbone or two and the total speculative reconstruction of hominid ape by what – a forensic anthropologist? Give me a break.
Scientists are like politicians, good in their place, just as long as they are not running the whole show.
Bsuden is not off topic. Evolution was noted in the first paragraph of this article and all Americans are entitled to their opinion when it comes to the subject of origins.
Where we came from is something very difficult to trace so far back as millions of years.
However, there is plenty of evidence from direct C-14 dating of dinosaur bones and other fossils and even “hard Rock” diamonds that those millions and billions of years do NOT even exist. But the media totally ignore such data? Is evolutionism a Sacred Cow that dare not be challenged???
Dinosaurs dated from 1990 to the present, even their bone collagen range from 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for a Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for a Hadrosaur to mention just two of several dinosaurs C-14 dated from Texas to Alaska. Reference: “Evolutionism: The Decline of an Hypothesis,” editor, Dr. Robert de Mattei VP of the National Research Council of Italy and “Evolution and other Fairy Tales” Professor Larry Azar of Iona University, NY, USA
So where does that leave the hypothesis that we have evolved over billions of years from MUD by some unknown process? Evolution from mud etc. seems to me to be more of a fairy tale for tenured professors like Professor Kenneth Miller of Brown Univeresity and his gullible students.
Senatorial candidate O’Donnell’s female intuition is far superior to anyone in academia who tries to call evolutionism from a mud a valid theory of our origins.