by Brad Nelson 6/1/15
I ran across this delightful song from 1936 on the radio on a local FM station: Christopher Columbus by Fats Waller & His Rhythm. They’re truly not making them like this anymore. Contrast this with the poison of rap.
Ben Carson is making his play to become the leading Establishment Republican running for president. M. Catherine Evans has a blog post at American Thinker on the subject where she writes:
Instead of letting the local community and federal agencies deal with the millions of poverty-stricken single mothers after they’ve hopped into the sack, why not address the root cause—sleeping around.
As a neurosurgeon would Carson diagnose an operable brain tumor and then proceed to treat the symptoms sans surgery?
For the last 40 years, the term ‘single mother’ is used as if it were akin to sainthood. Okay, some single mothers deserve it. They work and struggle to raise children on their own because of a justifiable divorce or death.
But many low-income single mothers spread their legs for any wandering sperm donor, get pregnant and then hop on Uncle Sam’s gravy train. The government then becomes the primary funding agent of this pornification of American men and women. From kindergarten up, public schools assure kids there’s no downside to having indiscriminate sex. Taxpayers will foot the bill.
It’s unlikely a man would say this…so leave it to a woman — thus we see how far the female-centric viewpoint has progressed in society. Like blacks, we’re making females exempt from normal criticism.
It seems there’s an ethical or behavioral problem in single-motherhood that is not solved by further intrenching government as the parent-by-proxy. But who will say so besides the bold and eloquent M. Catherine Evans? We need more “Mama Grizzlies” like her and fewer of those whose first instinct in regards to a problem is to create yet another government program.
For those who like David Berlinski (or who just like a forthright speaker), it is well worth your time to watch this 38 minute video of Berlinski excoriating Darwinism: David Berlinksi Destroys Darwinism
Berlinksi however isn’t an advocate of intelligent design. That’s probably somewhat by design because it insulates him from the disingenuous and somewhat chorused lunatic accusations by Darwinists that anyone who believes in intelligent design is a “creationist.” (Note that I’m a creationist…it just depends on the definition of the word.)
What is the current state of intelligent design and/or my opinion of it? I’ve been keeping in the loop, particularly by reading articles and posts over at Evolution News & Views. I think the truth is is that both sides deal heavily in rhetoric…and necessarily so, because no one has much of an idea as to how life came to be in the first place and how it changed over time. The disjointed fossil record adds to this mystery, as do things such as homologous traits. No one has put together a thread of an idea that takes the evidence in and makes sense of it all.
The best sense I’ve read is that the progressive stages of life (generally from simple to complex) and the punctuated nature of the fossil recored suggests something like Granville Sewell mentions in his article, Two Reasons Darwinism Survives:
Second, there are many things about the history of life that give the impression of natural causes. The argument is basically, “This doesn’t look like the way God would have created things,” an argument used frequently by Darwin in Origin of Species.
But in fact, as I pointed out in a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer paper, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” although the history of life may not give the appearance of creation by magic wand, it does look very much the way we humans create things, through testing and improvements . . . So if the history of life looks like the way humans, the only other known intelligent beings in the universe, design things — through careful planning, testing and improvements — why is that an argument against design?
We see from the thinking of ID advocate Sewell that being an ID advocate in no way demands a 6000 year young-earth creationism. He, like me, is positing a designer who very much is not quite the perfect, omniscient, idealized God Almighty which is the common image — and against which much of Darwinism and atheism survives by stating, as Sewell notes, “This doesn’t look like the way God would have created things.”
As I’ve noted (and if I haven’t before, I’m doing so now), it’s likely that Intelligent Design ultimately will be as unfriendly to some Judeo-Christian notions of God as it is to Darwinism. The best guess I’ve seen so far posits the Designer as a progressive tinkerer…and indeed, an extreme genius of one. But the earth would seem to be a laboratory of sorts where life is tested, changed, redone, etc. No magic wands of perfection, per se.
In this long view, although it might be true that people are on the top of the pyramid, this designer seems fascinating with playing with all sorts of life. He particularly liked dinosaurs, if only because they existed for so long. And one look at any nature program (such as the one I’ve been viewing lately, “Life,” narrated by David Attenborough), you see an extreme creativeness…even to the point of playful eccentricity.
What we can know with a high degree of assurance is that neo-Darwinism can account only for things at the margins…for micro-evolution. And this still could account for a lot. But even so, this micro-evolution isn’t blind. And it’s not king; it’s a mere subset of higher functions that clearly allow for this kind of adaptation. Micro-evolution is empowered by the higher systems and programs that are specifically created (designed) in order to allow life to evolve in response to environmental cues. As Michael Behe’s notes in The Edge of Evolution, we’re just not sure where that edge is in terms of how high up the cladistic tree (species, genus, family, order) that micro-evolution goes.
In regards to what happened and how this all works, we’re still in the realm of somewhat informed guessing. But the real battle isn’t about facts. It’s about the religion of atheism/naturalism vs. the view that atheism/naturalism isn’t the entire picture. And seeing the reaction of atheists/naturalists to even the mildest critiques of neo-Darwinism, it’s clear that it is ideology and power, not facts and theories, that are their central concern.
Does anyone else think that the redesign of National Review Online is a complete stinker? Besides once in a while reading their token conservative (Andy McCarthy), I do not find myself frequenting the place. It’s just a pain to navigate, especially on a tablet.
People are becoming cruder, less polite, and more vulgar. The lights are going out upstairs. Ever see a photo of a criminal (black or white) who has slightly closed eyes and has the blank stare of a dumb animal? Well, I do believe that our entire society to some extent is being made sociopathic. Despite all the alleged “caring” for this or that (including Gaia), I’m seeing more and more of the blank stare. We are indeed reverting to the animal.
On a happier note, it’s the first day of June and I love how late it stays light out. It’s great growing weather for the garden.
Brad is editor and chief disorganizer of StubbornThings.
About Author Author Archive Email • (1121 views)