There is a possibility that this entry may offend some people. I hope not and I do apologize up front but nevertheless this is a subject that continues to be a topic of political divisiveness. I ran across an article describing testimony given to the State Senate in Massachusetts, which I deemed to be an example of poor science and personal agenda masquerading as an informed and valid opinion. I didn't think it was either.
Like many Americans I am conflicted on the issue of Homosexuality, Gender Identity, and Marriage. My conflict stems from my innate American sense of fairness and equality versus my Christian cultural sense of morality. These are sharply conflicting and divisive to me but I think I am increasingly in the minority as everyone seems to be choosing up sides. Unfortunately, I am not Christian enough to come down foursquare on the side of morality but I am not sympathetic enough to the homosexual lifestyle to come down firmly on the side of gay rights – whatever those are. To cloud the issue even further I had the opportunity to read the testimony of Dr. Jeffrey Satinover to the State Senate of Massachusetts, which summarizes the arguments of those opposed to “same sex” marriage. Although this testimony by a well credentialed psychologist was intended to clarify the issue, it served to make it even murkier for me. Therefore, I will address some of Dr Satinover’s points in order to illustrate the basis for some of my uncertainty.
In opposing same-sex marriage, Dr. Satinover discussed the following claims of homosexual activists, and offered a rebuttal to each of them. The claims he challenged were--
That homosexuality has been repeatedly demonstrated to be--and is in fact--an innate, genetically-determined condition.
That homosexuality is an immutable state.
That the only disadvantages of homosexuality are those caused by social disapproval and discrimination.
That a society composed of same-sex couples raising children in family-like units will differ in no undesirable ways from a society composed of traditional family units.
The first claim Dr Satinover rejects on the basis that even though Dr. Hamer stated that he was 95.5% sure that he found a “gay gene” he later repudiated that claim on the basis he could find no Mendelian inheritance. This conclusion was later supported by two separate studies. This is now cited as being empirical proof that homosexuality is not genetic. Unfortunately these studies were not actual scientific studies but epidemiological studies, meaning they were statistical and had no basis in science unless you consider statistics a “science”. I will return to this point in a moment. Thus because no Mendelian pattern was found the conclusion is homosexuality is not genetic. However, it is also common knowledge that not all homosexuals are declared and thus any interview might not divulge whether or not a specific individual was homosexual and in fact declared heterosexuals might actually be homosexual and not willing to admit that to the interviewer, thus the Mendelian Pattern may not be observed even though it might actually be present. But there is another dimension to this issue as well.
The same techniques used to conclude there is a “gay gene” were also used to conclude that there is an “alcoholism” or “addiction” gene. The finding of this gene is not disputed and it is now generally accepted that certain people have a predisposition to addictions like alcohol even if they are not nor have ever been addicts. Thus it is POSSIBLE that some people may have a predisposition to homosexuality (and carry the gene) but are in fact not homosexual. Therefore, I submit that in spite of the conclusions by the learned doctors they have not proven their case. I then submit my anecdotal evidence supporting the genetic influence. Through the years I have been friends with several homosexuals and currently have several friends who are openly gay. In every case these people have told me that they were born that way. All of them have stated that they were always that way and never had any doubts about their sexuality even before they declared their sexuality. Furthermore, there are many married men who have had homosexual experiences but still consider themselves to be heterosexual or bi-sexual. The statistical surveys which are interview based would not always capture these people since they would have a personal interest in remaining silent – even if the survey was anonymous. Therefore, it is my personal belief that certain people have a predisposition to homosexuality but may not be actively homosexual. However, there does seem to be some evidence that if this gene is present then environmental factors come into play, just as they do with addiction. This means that if the gene is present and the person is exposed to gender bending situations they might become active homosexuals. Of course this has broad ramifications regarding adoptions, education, and acceptance, but then so does alcoholism or drug addictions. Acceptance and toleration does not mean endorsement and this is a point that seems to be lost in all of the rhetoric. The unasked question is that if environmental factors influence sexual orientation then why is the educational community so determined to expose elementary school children to alternative sexual situations? Is this exposure a recruiting exercise as suspected by those opposed to the same-sex lifestyle or an exercise in understanding as stated by those in favor of equal treatment? Like so many aspects of this issue there appears to be merit on both sides.
The second point made by Dr Satinover is perhaps the most controversial of all and that has to do with homosexuality as a mental disorder rather than a genetic (and unfixable) state. Dr. Satinover cites studies that show that there is a documented “cure” rate of between 30% and 70% of cases. Of course the qualifier to the study is that the cases studied were of “unwanted” sexual attraction, meaning that these people were motivated to change their sexual orientation. However, substitute alcoholism for homosexuality and you might come to a slightly different conclusion regarding “cure”. It is again common knowledge that an alcoholic or a drug addict who is motivated to change can be sobered up and become a functioning member of society. However, it is equally well known that the desire never goes away and any backsliding can return the individual to their former compulsions. The only “cure” is total abstinence. Therefore, I think that these “cure” rates are distorted because the person is not actually cured in the sense that they become heterosexual even if they marry and lead “normal” lives. They simply become non-functioning homosexuals just like alcoholics. The idea that these people are “cured” is – in my opinion at least – specious.
However, Dr Satinover goes further and states that 10% of all men have had a male sexual partner but the majority of these were under the age of 18 and that beyond that age the majority never again have a male sexual partner and that the percentage of adult homosexuals is roughly 2.8%. The 10% number is a rough estimate and the real number is probably unknown and virtually unknowable because the studies rely on surveys and interviews and the individuals may have personal reasons for not being candid. Furthermore this issue is clouded by the definition of “homosexual practice” and who is included in the 2.8%. Does this number include men who lead a heterosexual life but are in fact “secret” homosexuals? Also Dr. Satinover states that the environment can change the brain to the point where homosexuality is an acquired trait rather than a genetic one and therefore, the brain can be re-wired, but he offers no empirical evidence supporting this position in relation to homosexual attraction. In fact virtually all of his scientific support is statistical and no confounding factors are cited so the accuracy is suspect from the outset.
Of course there is another side of this issue and that is the desire to change. The statistics cited by Dr. Satinover are for those individuals who were motivated to change or at least abandon their homosexual lifestyle. However, the percentage of homosexuals with this motivation was not referenced but intuitively I think the percentage is small. Certainly not all homosexuals are overjoyed about being outside of the mainstream of society but that doesn’t mean they are either terribly unhappy or desire to become heterosexual. I think this is analogous to individuals having some other defect or handicap, life goes on and you compensate. So even if a real cure were available I suspect many homosexuals would not take advantage of it because they are quite happy as they are.
In claim four Dr. Satinover states that the typical “young” homosexual is at greater risk of having psychological and physical (i.e. AIDS) problems than a heterosexual man of similar age. But once again no reference is made to those homosexuals who are not public nor is there any indication that the psychological problems in this group might be caused by their prejudicial treatment. Also no comparison is offered regarding the incidence of sexually transmitted AIDS among homosexuals versus AIDS incidence among drug addicted heterosexuals. I suspect these are roughly equivalent and possibly the drug addicts might have a higher incidence. Plus there is no distinction made between promiscuous homosexuals and monogamous homosexuals, which I think accounts for the study being conducted among “young” men. Nevertheless, I think it is widely accepted that homosexuals in general have a higher incidence of alcoholism, drug addiction and psychological problems than the general population. What I think is missing from this study is the actual basis for this. I suspect that much of this can be traced directly to the rejection and societal pressures these individuals face throughout their lives. It is these pressures – beginning in grade school – that cause many homosexuals to adopt a heterosexual life style even though they are homosexual. I don’t see that any of these studies address this issue and it is unlikely that any of these inactive homosexuals were included in any of the studies since it is unlikely they would have acknowledged their homosexual predisposition. Therefore, I do not think Dr Satinover’s conclusions are valid because I think his sample was flawed from the outset.
The final point raised by Dr Satinover in his testimony dealt with children in same sex family situations. On this point I agree with Dr. Satinover. Certainly a child is better off being raised in a family with a mother and a father, but unfortunately Dr Satinover doesn’t go far enough. A child is infinitely better off being raised in a family composed of his biological parents. When that bond is broken through divorce and the child is raised with a step-parent, it isn’t as healthy for the child but better than being raised in a single parent home. Dr. Satinover would have you believe that a child is better off in an orphanage or a foster home than in a same-sex family environment. I simply don’t think this is true. Dr. Satinover offers no statistics or studies showing these comparisons and I would suspect that a child is better off in a loving same-sex situation than he would be in an orphanage or foster care. I absolutely agree that a child is better off in a home with his biological parents and a situation with a step-parent may be a good alternative – but not necessarily. Evil step-parents abound and it is quite possible that a child would be better served in a same-sex family situation than living with an evil step-parent. – And this brings us to the real point of Dr Satinover’s testimony, which is same-sex marriage.
This subject is where the emotion and conflict enter and where reasoning seems to exit stage right. On the one hand we have the Constitution and the innate American belief in equality. Specifically the state must treat all citizens equally, but we all recognize that the state also has the right to enforce certain restrictions. Consequently, the state is not compelled to issue driver’s licenses to everyone but they are compelled to state the conditions under which the license will be issued and then enforce those conditions equally. However, these conditions cannot be capricious or based on ethnicity, religion, political belief, etc. and the courts have struck down laws denying marriage licenses to mixed race couples. So now the question before us is can the state deny a marriage license between individuals of the same sex?
The people arguing against same sex marriage base their argument on moral grounds that a marriage is sanctioned by God and is the “natural” state for man and woman. Furthermore, sanctioning same-sex marriage would undermine the whole institution of marriage and be detrimental to society as a whole. Marriage in every culture has historically been between heterosexual couples and there is no precedent for same sex marriage in any culture or religion. But it is this last point that really represents the sticking point – religion.
Marriage is a religious rite and is sanctioned by God and thus “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and things that are God’s unto God” is the basis for resistance. Essentially the state cannot impose its laws because God’s laws supercede those of the state. This argument was the crux of the battle between St. Thomas Becket and Henry II of England, over whose laws prevail – God’s or the State’s. This debate has raged for centuries and is the basis for the separation of church and state in the American Constitution. So this raises the question of marriage and marriage licenses.
If marriage is a religious rite then can (or should) it be regulated by the state? Should the state be involved in determining who can participate in what is acknowledged as a religious rite? Those in favor of same sex marriage say no and those opposed say yes. However, it seems to me that the entire argument is actually over one word – marriage – not the legal act of uniting but in the religious rite of marrying. Therefore, I submit that the state has the authority to issue licenses for civil unions that would legally join two individuals of any sex. This license would enable them to conduct a civil (and secular) ceremony presided over by a state authority like a Judge. This license would also enable a religious authority to preside over a religious ceremony. The end result of either of these ceremonies would be a civil union giving the participants equal rights under the law. Obviously rights under Canon Law would vary and an example would be that while the state recognizes divorce the Catholic Church does not. To the state a divorced person can remarry but to the Catholic Church they cannot. So the separation of church and state is preserved. So I am conflicted on this issue and find myself on both sides. I seem to support civil unions but am opposed to gay marriage.
To return to my earlier point, I wish to address the growing use of statistics as an alternative to science. Dr Satinover’s testimony was based almost entirely on statistics rather than empirical science, but Dr. Satinover isn’t alone in this use of statistics, it is widespread and in my opinion it is beginning to discredit science. Several years ago I did a research project for a major auto manufacturer regarding forecasting and statistical analysis. I read numerous research papers written by a gaggle of PhD’s and had personal interviews with two of the leading academics in statistics, one at Penn State Wharton School of Business and the other at Dartmouth – Amos Tuck School of Business. What struck me at the time was that all (100%) of the papers dealt with improving the accuracy but not one (0%) covered any verification of the forecasts they had already made. There was not one follow-up or any evidence that any of the studies had ever been verified in any way, yet all of the effort was devoted to improving the accuracy – over what?
I raised this question in my personal interviews and was astonished to have both Professors tell me to their knowledge there had never been any verification of any statistical study. As a person trained in mathematics and having earned my living throughout most of my professional career by manipulating numbers I know that numbers can be twisted to say anything. The point here is that much of Dr Satinover’s “evidence” opposing homosexuality and same-sex marriage is statistical and thus subject to distortion and manipulation. This can be seen in the omission of facts, confounding factors, or selective reporting. While Dr Satinover’s testimony may have been interesting it is neither compelling nor totally factual. In my opinion he did not make his case.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Evolution -- That Old Time Religion
Charles Darwin was a scientific dilettante, he was relatively well educated for his time and certainly he was a capable observer. But observing something does not mean you understand it. Nevertheless, Darwin attempted to understand and explain what he observed and to this end he turned to the works of Charles Lyell and his Theory of Uniformitarianism. The result was Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as described in his somewhat misnamed The Origin of the Species”, which doesn’t really address the origin of species, a point generally overlooked by the proponents of Darwinism. Both of these Theories have endured unchanged until relatively recently and have been viewed as possible explanations for unexplained geological observations. But increasingly these theories have begun to crumble under the weight of scientific investigation. Uniformitarianism has been reconciled with Catastrophism but Evolution seems unable to bridge the gap between observed fact and fanatical belief that something other than divine intervention is at work.
It is worth noting that the Theory of Evolution was heavily criticized by the scientific community when Darwin first published it. The Paleontologists at the time maintained that it did not fit the fossil record – which admittedly was less robust than it is today. Consequently the fossil record at the time did not allow for Evolution to be repudiated but neither could it be verified so it lingered on into the twentieth century as a Theory where it languished in the scientific community as an interesting idea, but one never fully accepted by the scientific community. It remained a Theory and as a possible explanation for the observed development of life and then in 1925 John Scopes elected to teach Evolution in his class room. The upshot of this decision was the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial”, which was fought over the right of Scopes to teach Evolution. Scopes lost, much to the amusement of the intellectuals of the day. The snide and patronizing tone of the reporters – H. L. Mencken in particular – reflect the air of intellectual superiority that permeates the media even today. However, this trial did serve to put Evolution on the fast track for acceptance as the cornerstone Dogma for the new religion of Darwinism.
So the Theory of Evolution gradually gained acceptance and became part of the science curriculum in most schools and universities, where it was taught as a “Theory”. Apparently in the interest of brevity, the “Theory of” was dropped although it was generally accepted and understood that it was still a “Theory”. But somewhere along the way it stopped being a theory and became a scientific fact, endorsed by important scientific journals like the New York Times and such eminent scientists as Carl Sagan, of course other eminent scientists like Sir Fred Hoyle (an avowed atheist) and more recently Michael Behe, disputed Evolution as even a rational theory much less a fact. But all objections – even those coming from reputable scientists – were ignored and fortunately for these dissenting scientists heretics are no longer burned at the stake even though the criticisms coming from the true believers in Darwinism indicate that would be a desirable reaction to disbelievers.
Instead of a theory Evolution has developed into Scientific Dogma and is accepted as fact. Challenges are not accepted and challengers are immediately branded as Yahoo’s or “Creationists”. There is no middle ground either you believe in “science” or you are cast into the pit of ignorance, stupidity, and religious zealotry. The similarity of the latter with Darwinism totally escapes the members of this new religion, which has all of the trappings of the Old Time Religion minus the picnics and revival meetings. So what beliefs does this new religion of Darwinism rest on? Actually it is necessary to distinguish between “Adaptation” and “Evolution”. Generally when Evolution is challenged the proofs offered tend to be examples of “adaptation”, which is where a species becomes modified over time becoming larger, smaller, or a different color, but remaining the same, like dogs, which come in many forms but remain canines. That is a dog does not become a fish or a mosquito or a horse. Evolution is where one species changes into another, like a horse becoming a giraffe or an ape becoming a human and this brings us to the very foundation of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution rests on three fundamental factors that must exist for Evolution to become an accepted scientific reality.
Transformation Fossils: The fossil record should contain fossils that clearly demonstrate the “evolution” of one species into another – e;g; an elephant into a whale. The fossil record which grows more robust every year does not contain any evidence of any transitional forms – not one!! Darwin himself recognized this was a weakness in his theory and stated that these transitional forms must be found in order for his postulation of Evolution to be verified. These transitional forms have not been found and paleontologists today (e.g. Stephen Gould) have stated categorically that they have not been found and that they probably won’t be found in the future because they don’t exist.
Natural Selection: The belief here is that nature will weed out those least able to survive in their environment and through time new species would evolve, through mutation or gradual improvements through genetic inheiritance. This would be demonstrated in the fossil record. New and improved forms would exist in the newest strata with the original and more primitive forms being found in the older strata. The horse was cited as an example of this. Unfortunately and in spite of all the Neo-Darwinists could do or contrive, the fossil record has let them down. The evolution of the horse isn’t as neat as postulated and older forms and newer forms seem to co-exist. The famed “Tree of Life” showing the development of Eohippus into the modern horse is not supported by the fossil record. Even if this weren’t true at best all the horse fossil record could provide would be an example of adaptation of a little horse into a bigger horse.
In order to overcome this fatal flaw Gould et al. postulated “punctuated equilibria” For us mere mortals this semantic alchemy is how magic is transformed into science, because it means that the division of one species into another takes place over thousands of years and not millions so no fossils proving evolution would exist. This neatly eliminates the need for the fossil record to answer one of Darwin’s principal tests for proof of Evolution. Gould’s Theory of course is a great improvement over the long held theory that aliens from the planet Krypton used genetic engineering to create new species, so its acceptance has been immediate.
Random Mutation: This is actually the corollary to Natural Selection because it postulates that new species appear through a series of mutations that gradually change into a new species. Of course initially “mutation” was spelled M A G I C, but to improve its credibility in the scientific community the decision was made to call it “mutation”. How this mutation occurs is never completely explained although mutations do occur in nature so these can be observed. What is ignored is that many mutations are not improvements and in the animal world weird offspring like Michael Moore are frequently abandoned at birth. The reality is no new species has ever been demonstrated as being the result of a mutation although it does allow the requirement for transitional forms to be ignored.
Of these fundamental issues clearly the most difficult one is the actual origin of species. This has never been demonstrated by any empirical evidence and the famous “missing link” has never been found. There are hundreds of thousands of fossils in existence today that span thousands of species and millions of years but no transitional form has ever been found. The theory of “punctuated equilibria” has its proponents but then so does the theory of extra-terrestrial intervention by aliens from Krypton. Actually, it was Sir Fred Hoyle who determined that the mathematical probability that the basic enzymes of life arising from random processes was so great as to be miniscule. Based on this Study Sir Fred determined that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was absurd. However, Sir Fred couldn’t abandon “science” so he postulated “Pan Spermia” which holds that life began in space and spread to the Earth through infectious agents delivered to Earth by comets. Science triumphs once again!!
A more bothersome problem is the fossil record between the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian. It has long been believed that the life forms in the Pre-Cambrian were all soft bodied organisms and thus unsuited for fossilization, although some fossils of algae did exist. Then some other and more complex Pre-Cambrian fossils were found. These were simple worms and similar soft bodied life forms so the argument that these soft bodied life forms could not be preserved turned out to be untrue. This has really created a problem for Darwinism because the fossil record of the Cambrian is filled with complex life forms like Star Fish and Trilobites, complete with eyes, shells, and mouths. Worse, these life forms tend to suddenly appear in the fossil record and persist for millions of years unchanged.
“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the (fossil) record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition”.
Professor D. S. Woodruff (UCSD) “Science” Vol 208 1980
)
So not only do life forms suddenly appear and remain unchanged for millions of years, they disappear and are replaced with completely new ones who appear just as suddenly and have no transitional forms in the fossil record. At this point we can conclude that although Darwinism may persist like an Old Time Religion, it doesn’t hold up as fact and has little credibility as a theory because the fundamental requirements for proof – as defined by Darwin – have not been met. So once again Stephen Gould jumps into the fray – determined to save Darwin and thus save Science itself.
“Transitional Life Forms are generally lacking at the species level but they are abundant between larger groups”
Stephen Gould (Harvard
Although it appears that Gould is actually saying something profound what he is actually saying is that within a group there is evidence that a life form has changed from large to small and that reptiles, birds, and mammals are different and appear in different forms at different times but no evidence exists that shows the transitional life forms between a reptile and a bird. So what Gould is actually saying is there are no transitional life forms showing the creation of a new species but evidence that some species do change through time but remain much like the were and certainly remain the same species.
Outside of the true believers who cannot accept the reality that Evolution is unproven and is growing shakier by the minute many legitimate members of the scientific community are quietly moving away from it or certainly being equivocal in their support. And this brings us to the most recent critic and the one under heavy attack from the Religious Left (Darwinians) – Michael Behe.
Michael Behe is a Biochemist at Lehigh University who studies – not surprisingly – cells. Now Darwin stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” This test of course is very close to the “ do you still beat your wife” test, but then we already know that these transitional life forms do not exist in the fossil record and the punctuated equilibria theory is simple semantics for fairy dust. Faced with no evidence of a transitional form and a very robust fossil record Evolution could only be saved by determining that “transitional life forms” were not necessary. Thus by a liberal (no pun) sprinkling of fairy dust the need for transitional forms is dispensed with and the simultaneous existence of the older and newer forms is explained. This is all explained in the book “Fossils” written by Niles Eldredge who happens to be a protégé` of Stephen Gould and the co-author of -- your guessed it “Punctuated Equilibrium”. Alternative titles could be “Fairy Dust – The Key to Darwin” or “Evolution is True Because I Said So”.
Nevertheless Professor Behe – without intending to – disproved Evolution by meeting Darwin’s test mathematically, by determining there are “irreducible” systems. Or at least to anyone with a rational mind, Behe disproved Evolution via gradual modifications over millenia, but the jury of the New York Times and the NEA is still out. They seem unable to accept facts that run counter to their belief system, besides Professor Behe is a Catholic which by definition makes him a NUT and a Neo-Creationist. But Professor Behe felt his model was either correct or not correct and submitted it for review. So far the attacks have focused Behe’s temerity to question Evolution rather than the actual model. So what prompted the Professor’s heresy? How could this well known and highly respected Scientist have strayed so far from the True Faith?
Professor Behe not unexpectedly was studying the flagellum which is a little bacterial motor that propels bacteria. This flagellum requires the coordinated interaction of about 30-40 complex protein parts and the absence of any one of them would render the flagellum useless. With this as a starting point Behe compared this to a mousetrap, which has only a few parts but requires all of them to function properly and the absence of anyone of them renders the mousetrap useless. From this simple model Professor Behe veered off into Darwinian Apostasy by demonstrating it is a mathematical impossibility for all 30 parts of the flagellum or 200 parts of the similar Cilium to have been brought together by the numerous and successive slight modifications required by natural selection, because no transitional form would function – meaning they would die and not be available for march of mutation on their road to becoming a whale or mosquito. All parts must be present all of the time because the “flagellum is an irreducible form”. Then Professor Behe committed the ultimate sin and declared that life at the molecular level “is a loud, clear, piercing, cry of design”. In a feeble attempt at tact, Professor Behe omitted the word “intelligent”, but it didn’t save him. The true believers grabbed their torches and pitchforks and were in full cry before the ink of this heresy had dried.
What Behe actually did was to postulate the irreducibly complex system:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.
Behe illustrated his irreducible system by using a simple mouse trap as a model. A mouse trap has a platform, a lever, a spring, and the staple or killing device. Each one must be present and the removal of any one renders the trap unusable.
H. Allen Orr a Biologist wrote a lengthy and scathing review of Behe’s work but without actually demonstrating that Behe was wrong. Orr presents a critique of the Mouse Trap model showing how useless parts could be added without actually causing the Mouse Trap to malfunction. Of course it might not function as well but Orr skips that part. Orr then concludes that genetic changes could occur over millions of years and ultimately result in a new life form. Of course this is the very basis of Darwin’s view of Evolution. What Professor Orr ignores is that if the number of mutations occurs over millions of years it would result in transitional life forms which other scientists have already accepted don’t exist. Perhaps Professor Orr needs to review the scientific material already available.
Although the scientific community was clearly uncomfortable with having to admit it, they did concede that Behe had a point because they had no real data that could be used to refute him. So they danced all around the point but my very favorite, which really sets the tone for true believers comes from Jerry Coyne at the University of Chicago who stated
“...We may never be unable to envisage the proto-pathways. Or it could take hundreds of billions of years! But by then, maybe we’ll have evolved into a species that doesn’t exhibit anti-religious hysteria whenever anyone questions the theory of evolution.”
Of course the translation of this statement is “Don’t dare attack my religious beliefs by using science.” Coyne knows God is dead and there is no God but Darwin.
Another favorite rebuttal to Behe comes from Keith Robison of Harvard who attacks Behe’s Mouse Trap Analogy. Robison maintains he can simplify the mousetrap and eliminate parts, specifically the platform by nailing the parts to the floor. Remember Robison is a Harvard Professor so he not unexpectedly is light on abstract thinking because he cannot see any similarity between the floor and the platform. But then he is striving to salvage his pride and religious belief in the infallibility of Darwin and Evolution, so he glosses over the flaw in his rebuttal and presumes no one will question him because he is defending the faith..
Coyne asserted that it was possible for irreducibly complex systems to arise from natural selection even though there is no evidence or demonstrable proof of this. The reality is that AT BEST Evolution remains a shaky theory based on the tests postulated by Darwin himself, and at worst it fails the test and is in fact false.
It is worth noting that the Theory of Evolution was heavily criticized by the scientific community when Darwin first published it. The Paleontologists at the time maintained that it did not fit the fossil record – which admittedly was less robust than it is today. Consequently the fossil record at the time did not allow for Evolution to be repudiated but neither could it be verified so it lingered on into the twentieth century as a Theory where it languished in the scientific community as an interesting idea, but one never fully accepted by the scientific community. It remained a Theory and as a possible explanation for the observed development of life and then in 1925 John Scopes elected to teach Evolution in his class room. The upshot of this decision was the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial”, which was fought over the right of Scopes to teach Evolution. Scopes lost, much to the amusement of the intellectuals of the day. The snide and patronizing tone of the reporters – H. L. Mencken in particular – reflect the air of intellectual superiority that permeates the media even today. However, this trial did serve to put Evolution on the fast track for acceptance as the cornerstone Dogma for the new religion of Darwinism.
So the Theory of Evolution gradually gained acceptance and became part of the science curriculum in most schools and universities, where it was taught as a “Theory”. Apparently in the interest of brevity, the “Theory of” was dropped although it was generally accepted and understood that it was still a “Theory”. But somewhere along the way it stopped being a theory and became a scientific fact, endorsed by important scientific journals like the New York Times and such eminent scientists as Carl Sagan, of course other eminent scientists like Sir Fred Hoyle (an avowed atheist) and more recently Michael Behe, disputed Evolution as even a rational theory much less a fact. But all objections – even those coming from reputable scientists – were ignored and fortunately for these dissenting scientists heretics are no longer burned at the stake even though the criticisms coming from the true believers in Darwinism indicate that would be a desirable reaction to disbelievers.
Instead of a theory Evolution has developed into Scientific Dogma and is accepted as fact. Challenges are not accepted and challengers are immediately branded as Yahoo’s or “Creationists”. There is no middle ground either you believe in “science” or you are cast into the pit of ignorance, stupidity, and religious zealotry. The similarity of the latter with Darwinism totally escapes the members of this new religion, which has all of the trappings of the Old Time Religion minus the picnics and revival meetings. So what beliefs does this new religion of Darwinism rest on? Actually it is necessary to distinguish between “Adaptation” and “Evolution”. Generally when Evolution is challenged the proofs offered tend to be examples of “adaptation”, which is where a species becomes modified over time becoming larger, smaller, or a different color, but remaining the same, like dogs, which come in many forms but remain canines. That is a dog does not become a fish or a mosquito or a horse. Evolution is where one species changes into another, like a horse becoming a giraffe or an ape becoming a human and this brings us to the very foundation of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution rests on three fundamental factors that must exist for Evolution to become an accepted scientific reality.
Transformation Fossils: The fossil record should contain fossils that clearly demonstrate the “evolution” of one species into another – e;g; an elephant into a whale. The fossil record which grows more robust every year does not contain any evidence of any transitional forms – not one!! Darwin himself recognized this was a weakness in his theory and stated that these transitional forms must be found in order for his postulation of Evolution to be verified. These transitional forms have not been found and paleontologists today (e.g. Stephen Gould) have stated categorically that they have not been found and that they probably won’t be found in the future because they don’t exist.
Natural Selection: The belief here is that nature will weed out those least able to survive in their environment and through time new species would evolve, through mutation or gradual improvements through genetic inheiritance. This would be demonstrated in the fossil record. New and improved forms would exist in the newest strata with the original and more primitive forms being found in the older strata. The horse was cited as an example of this. Unfortunately and in spite of all the Neo-Darwinists could do or contrive, the fossil record has let them down. The evolution of the horse isn’t as neat as postulated and older forms and newer forms seem to co-exist. The famed “Tree of Life” showing the development of Eohippus into the modern horse is not supported by the fossil record. Even if this weren’t true at best all the horse fossil record could provide would be an example of adaptation of a little horse into a bigger horse.
In order to overcome this fatal flaw Gould et al. postulated “punctuated equilibria” For us mere mortals this semantic alchemy is how magic is transformed into science, because it means that the division of one species into another takes place over thousands of years and not millions so no fossils proving evolution would exist. This neatly eliminates the need for the fossil record to answer one of Darwin’s principal tests for proof of Evolution. Gould’s Theory of course is a great improvement over the long held theory that aliens from the planet Krypton used genetic engineering to create new species, so its acceptance has been immediate.
Random Mutation: This is actually the corollary to Natural Selection because it postulates that new species appear through a series of mutations that gradually change into a new species. Of course initially “mutation” was spelled M A G I C, but to improve its credibility in the scientific community the decision was made to call it “mutation”. How this mutation occurs is never completely explained although mutations do occur in nature so these can be observed. What is ignored is that many mutations are not improvements and in the animal world weird offspring like Michael Moore are frequently abandoned at birth. The reality is no new species has ever been demonstrated as being the result of a mutation although it does allow the requirement for transitional forms to be ignored.
Of these fundamental issues clearly the most difficult one is the actual origin of species. This has never been demonstrated by any empirical evidence and the famous “missing link” has never been found. There are hundreds of thousands of fossils in existence today that span thousands of species and millions of years but no transitional form has ever been found. The theory of “punctuated equilibria” has its proponents but then so does the theory of extra-terrestrial intervention by aliens from Krypton. Actually, it was Sir Fred Hoyle who determined that the mathematical probability that the basic enzymes of life arising from random processes was so great as to be miniscule. Based on this Study Sir Fred determined that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was absurd. However, Sir Fred couldn’t abandon “science” so he postulated “Pan Spermia” which holds that life began in space and spread to the Earth through infectious agents delivered to Earth by comets. Science triumphs once again!!
A more bothersome problem is the fossil record between the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian. It has long been believed that the life forms in the Pre-Cambrian were all soft bodied organisms and thus unsuited for fossilization, although some fossils of algae did exist. Then some other and more complex Pre-Cambrian fossils were found. These were simple worms and similar soft bodied life forms so the argument that these soft bodied life forms could not be preserved turned out to be untrue. This has really created a problem for Darwinism because the fossil record of the Cambrian is filled with complex life forms like Star Fish and Trilobites, complete with eyes, shells, and mouths. Worse, these life forms tend to suddenly appear in the fossil record and persist for millions of years unchanged.
“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the (fossil) record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition”.
Professor D. S. Woodruff (UCSD) “Science” Vol 208 1980
)
So not only do life forms suddenly appear and remain unchanged for millions of years, they disappear and are replaced with completely new ones who appear just as suddenly and have no transitional forms in the fossil record. At this point we can conclude that although Darwinism may persist like an Old Time Religion, it doesn’t hold up as fact and has little credibility as a theory because the fundamental requirements for proof – as defined by Darwin – have not been met. So once again Stephen Gould jumps into the fray – determined to save Darwin and thus save Science itself.
“Transitional Life Forms are generally lacking at the species level but they are abundant between larger groups”
Stephen Gould (Harvard
Although it appears that Gould is actually saying something profound what he is actually saying is that within a group there is evidence that a life form has changed from large to small and that reptiles, birds, and mammals are different and appear in different forms at different times but no evidence exists that shows the transitional life forms between a reptile and a bird. So what Gould is actually saying is there are no transitional life forms showing the creation of a new species but evidence that some species do change through time but remain much like the were and certainly remain the same species.
Outside of the true believers who cannot accept the reality that Evolution is unproven and is growing shakier by the minute many legitimate members of the scientific community are quietly moving away from it or certainly being equivocal in their support. And this brings us to the most recent critic and the one under heavy attack from the Religious Left (Darwinians) – Michael Behe.
Michael Behe is a Biochemist at Lehigh University who studies – not surprisingly – cells. Now Darwin stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” This test of course is very close to the “ do you still beat your wife” test, but then we already know that these transitional life forms do not exist in the fossil record and the punctuated equilibria theory is simple semantics for fairy dust. Faced with no evidence of a transitional form and a very robust fossil record Evolution could only be saved by determining that “transitional life forms” were not necessary. Thus by a liberal (no pun) sprinkling of fairy dust the need for transitional forms is dispensed with and the simultaneous existence of the older and newer forms is explained. This is all explained in the book “Fossils” written by Niles Eldredge who happens to be a protégé` of Stephen Gould and the co-author of -- your guessed it “Punctuated Equilibrium”. Alternative titles could be “Fairy Dust – The Key to Darwin” or “Evolution is True Because I Said So”.
Nevertheless Professor Behe – without intending to – disproved Evolution by meeting Darwin’s test mathematically, by determining there are “irreducible” systems. Or at least to anyone with a rational mind, Behe disproved Evolution via gradual modifications over millenia, but the jury of the New York Times and the NEA is still out. They seem unable to accept facts that run counter to their belief system, besides Professor Behe is a Catholic which by definition makes him a NUT and a Neo-Creationist. But Professor Behe felt his model was either correct or not correct and submitted it for review. So far the attacks have focused Behe’s temerity to question Evolution rather than the actual model. So what prompted the Professor’s heresy? How could this well known and highly respected Scientist have strayed so far from the True Faith?
Professor Behe not unexpectedly was studying the flagellum which is a little bacterial motor that propels bacteria. This flagellum requires the coordinated interaction of about 30-40 complex protein parts and the absence of any one of them would render the flagellum useless. With this as a starting point Behe compared this to a mousetrap, which has only a few parts but requires all of them to function properly and the absence of anyone of them renders the mousetrap useless. From this simple model Professor Behe veered off into Darwinian Apostasy by demonstrating it is a mathematical impossibility for all 30 parts of the flagellum or 200 parts of the similar Cilium to have been brought together by the numerous and successive slight modifications required by natural selection, because no transitional form would function – meaning they would die and not be available for march of mutation on their road to becoming a whale or mosquito. All parts must be present all of the time because the “flagellum is an irreducible form”. Then Professor Behe committed the ultimate sin and declared that life at the molecular level “is a loud, clear, piercing, cry of design”. In a feeble attempt at tact, Professor Behe omitted the word “intelligent”, but it didn’t save him. The true believers grabbed their torches and pitchforks and were in full cry before the ink of this heresy had dried.
What Behe actually did was to postulate the irreducibly complex system:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.
Behe illustrated his irreducible system by using a simple mouse trap as a model. A mouse trap has a platform, a lever, a spring, and the staple or killing device. Each one must be present and the removal of any one renders the trap unusable.
H. Allen Orr a Biologist wrote a lengthy and scathing review of Behe’s work but without actually demonstrating that Behe was wrong. Orr presents a critique of the Mouse Trap model showing how useless parts could be added without actually causing the Mouse Trap to malfunction. Of course it might not function as well but Orr skips that part. Orr then concludes that genetic changes could occur over millions of years and ultimately result in a new life form. Of course this is the very basis of Darwin’s view of Evolution. What Professor Orr ignores is that if the number of mutations occurs over millions of years it would result in transitional life forms which other scientists have already accepted don’t exist. Perhaps Professor Orr needs to review the scientific material already available.
Although the scientific community was clearly uncomfortable with having to admit it, they did concede that Behe had a point because they had no real data that could be used to refute him. So they danced all around the point but my very favorite, which really sets the tone for true believers comes from Jerry Coyne at the University of Chicago who stated
“...We may never be unable to envisage the proto-pathways. Or it could take hundreds of billions of years! But by then, maybe we’ll have evolved into a species that doesn’t exhibit anti-religious hysteria whenever anyone questions the theory of evolution.”
Of course the translation of this statement is “Don’t dare attack my religious beliefs by using science.” Coyne knows God is dead and there is no God but Darwin.
Another favorite rebuttal to Behe comes from Keith Robison of Harvard who attacks Behe’s Mouse Trap Analogy. Robison maintains he can simplify the mousetrap and eliminate parts, specifically the platform by nailing the parts to the floor. Remember Robison is a Harvard Professor so he not unexpectedly is light on abstract thinking because he cannot see any similarity between the floor and the platform. But then he is striving to salvage his pride and religious belief in the infallibility of Darwin and Evolution, so he glosses over the flaw in his rebuttal and presumes no one will question him because he is defending the faith..
Coyne asserted that it was possible for irreducibly complex systems to arise from natural selection even though there is no evidence or demonstrable proof of this. The reality is that AT BEST Evolution remains a shaky theory based on the tests postulated by Darwin himself, and at worst it fails the test and is in fact false.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Just The Facts Please
I have known for a long time that Democrats generally don’t think very clearly and that your typical Liberal is actually incapable of thought and relies, exclusively on feelings. Actually from my observation when a Liberal is confronted with a FACT, they roll their eyes, foam at the mouth, and curl into a fetal position, waiting to be comforted by some completely contrived refutation in that bastion of truth and probity – the New York Times. If I ever had any doubt about these conclusions they have been erased by the recent explanations found in all of the best Liberal outlets, explaining how the current economic growth is completely unrelated to any action(s) taken by the current administration. The greatly increased tax revenues and declining deficit is variously described as a “windfall”, an “anomaly”, or simply and unexplained economic aberration. The fact that historically – from the Roman Empire until today – tax reductions can be tied directly to economic growth and increased employment cannot be accepted by any Liberal because “facts” make them uncomfortable and in excess render them unconscious.
Just consider the many attacks on President Bush, Conservatives, Christians, and anyone else who the Liberal establishment feels is a threat to their feelings of entitlement and self-righteousness. The operative word there is “feels” because we already know that a Liberal can’t think and that all they do is “feel”, so we are treated to one outrageous attack after another none of which are supported by any facts. Of course the most egregious is “Bush lied” – but lied about what? Well WMD’s of course !! Oh – but Saddam gassed 30,000 Kurds and at least that many Iranians – aren’t those WMD’s ? Yes BUT – Saddam got rid of them so Bush lied about them. But they havn't they actually found artillery shells and other evidence of chemical weapons, plus documented evidence of ties to Al Qaeda? All forgeries according to the Liberal mantra that Bush lied and everyone knows it. But these realities are ignored by the Liberal establishment because they never deal in facts and they feel Bush lied, so it must be true. They also feel there is a huge conspiracy between the Administration and Halliburton so it must be true -- feelings don't lie -- at least not like Bush. However, my point here isn’t to defend the Administration but to examine how the Liberal mind works --- assuming of course they are capable of distinguishing something beyond light and dark.
I have observed that Liberals almost always talk in terms of groups, such as; the poor, the rich, the handicapped, the illiterate, the innocent, and the list is virtually endless, but what they don’t talk about are individuals. In fact your typical Liberal is all for higher taxes and demand that the Rich pay “their fair share”. Of course have you EVER heard a Liberal or even a Democrat for that matter – ever define what constitutes “rich” or who is “poor” or what a “fair Share”is? Of course you haven’t because in the eyes of a Liberal anyone who is gainfully employed is rich and the poor are all of their constituents who are sucking off of the rich. At this point it is necessary to distinguish between a Democrat and Liberal. Now both of these groups believe in Robin Hood economics – that is rob the rich and give to the poor but the difference is the Democrat is willing to leave the clothes on your back while the Liberal wants to take everything you have, including your underwear. This is the difference between the Democratic goal of income redistribution and the Liberal goal of total government control. To the Liberal this form of government control by them is is called “Democratic" to the rest of us it is called “Marxism” – which of course is a synonym for stupidity --- or is it Liberal – I forget.
Another favorite topic that gets the Liberals and the ACLU all in a snit are “rights”. In their eyes you have a right to a job – not just any job but a job that pays a “living wage”. But wait – what is a “living wage”? I casually observed earlier that this is a term that the Liberal never actually defines but apparently it is tied to many of your other “rights”. After all you have a right to an education, healthcare, and a place to live in addition to that fine job that pays the living wage. Apparently all of these rights are defined in the Constitution and must be provided by the government, but then unlike most Liberals (who feel rather than read), I have actually READ the Constitution of the United States of America and I couldn’t find any of these rights spelled out – even obliquely. But then I am speaking of “facts” once again and Liberals “feel” the Constitution defines these rights and if it doesn’t it should and that amounts to the same thing.
Thus the Liberal who talks about rights is actually saying that the government (them) is entitled – nay OBLIGATED – to force some entrepreneur (never use the word “capitalist” in the presence of a Liberal because they lose their focus, begin to pant, and finally faint) – to employ you and to pay you handsomely even though you are incapable of constructing an English sentence or even reading one. Relative to Healthcare every Liberal knows -- well feels -- certainly feels -- that doctors are simply greedy. Therefore, it is an obligation of the state to force these doctors to render their services and apply their hard earned knowledge to any Urban Outdoorsman (Homeless person to most Conservatives) free of charge. For a Liberal this “free” Healthcare is a right and the concept is lifted directly from Karl Marx, who in the eyes of a Liberal is the guiding light of economic reason and the future of mankind. The fact ---( oops there’s that four letter word again) – that Socialism is failing in Canada and Marxism has failed everywhere it has been tried is ignored. Liberals “feel” it is the right thing to do so it must be OK and no uncomfortable facts are allowed to intrude on their fantasy economics. Liberals essentially feel the government has the right to do whatever they feel is good for the group, which means that the Liberals believe that the state (them) has the right to take your property and turn it into a refuge for the Spotted Owl, to stamp out Christmas, kill off Santa Claus, convert everyone to atheism, and stamp out the Easter Bunny. Hopefully, the Tooth Fairy will lead a counter insurgency!! For the Liberal group rights ALWAYS trump individual rights, unless of course the group in question is a group they disapprove of -- say for instance the Catholic Church or the Boy Scouts. Liberals never speak in terms of individuals unless of course the individual is black, Hispanic, homeless, a convicted criminal, or gay. A Liberal would rather have their Peace Symbol Tattoo ripped off of their plump little rosy bottoms with burning tongs than to admit an individual (you) has a right to his private property. Supreme Court Justice David Souter has codified this belief in his decision to allow the state to take an individual's property and give it to a developer so the world can be enriched with another Tanning Booth, Wine Bar, and French Restaurant.
Of course the very favorite group of the Liberal is the Government. Liberals believe in government – lots of it—but not a representative government like we have today but a government controlled completely by them. The government we have today cannot possibly be a viewed as a representative government because it supports President Bush, has failed to indict Karl Rove, insists on lowering taxes, and has treated acts of war and war criminals with frightening hostility and HORRORS – taken action without UN approval. Because the Liberal is opposed to all of these things it is clear the Government has been infiltrated by NeoCon’s (where is Senator McCarthy when you need him? ) who are dismantling all of the Liberal gains since the Warren Court. Their only recourse is to attack, oppose, and obstruct everything these NeoCon’s undertake. I am reminded of a Bugs Bunny Cartoon with the Tasmanian Devil, where Bugs – as played by George Bush stands in place quietly munching his carrot while the Devil – aptly played by Howard (Mad Dog) Dean dashes about aimlessly attacking and destroying everything he can without actually accomplishing anything other than meaningless destruction. You doubt this picture—have you actually watched Mad Dog? He foams at the mouth and never says anything resembling a coherent thought – think about it --- he might actually be the Tasmanian Devil in disguise.
In the Liberal World (aka Fantasy Land) the Government not only creates jobs and assures the non-productive they can lead the good life at some one else’s expense, they believe they have the right to take property from greedy homeowners and convert it into needed strip malls and sanctuaries for the Furbish Lousewort. For the Liberal the Government is like a never ending money pump – after all the Government owns the Mint and can print all of the money necessary. I know, I know – that isn’t really how it works but no one ever accused a Liberal of having a strong grip on reality. I have actually come to the conclusion that if you want to become a certified liberal like Michael (the Whale) Moore you can’t think or even feel but you must BELIEVE – HALLELUJAH BROTHER!!. You cannot rationalize or reflect but you must believe that anyone who thinks that there is such a thing as individual rights or that George Bush is actually human is an evil NEOCON!! . You must believe that Karl Rove does not have an office with a computer but lives in cave with a cauldron, where he casts spells on unsuspecting voters using the eyes of Newts and sucking out the brains of people who would otherwise be voting for Liberals rather than that idiot in the White House. They sincerely believe that if you need proof of the evil machinations of Karl Rove you need only look at the Fox News Channel – they must have been hexed because they don’t regard Cindy Sheehan as the modern equivalent of Joan of Arc. Indeed the Great Satan IS Karl Rove –although he seems a little pudgy to me to be all that scary, but then your typical Liberal is terrified of being FAT, which is why they are on this Crusade to reduce fat in all food, bankrupt McDonalds, Coca Cola, and take as much taste out of food as they can. Unfortunately in their drive to rid the world of FAT they overlooked FAT HEADEDNESS which they seem to have more than their share. They really need more fiber in their diet.
In their drive to establish their Utopian egalitarian society the Liberal establishment is especially concerned about criminal justice. Of course in the eyes of a true dyed in the wool Liberal like John Kerry or Teddy Kennedy criminal justice means justice for the criminal not his victims. Criminals are entitled to a free college education, free medical treatment, cable TV, and privacy. Prisons should be made as comfortable as possible. Because to a Liberal prisoners should not be punished but should be rehabilitated and released as soon as possible back into society, where the majority will only murder every now and then. And of course these prisoners are entitled to conjugal visits- assuring the enduring existence of the criminal class, and their re-election.
When you or I see a prisoner at the bar, we see a person accused of a crime – some one who may or may not be innocent. The Liberal looks at the prisoner at the bar and sees a Black (Hispanic, Gay, Latvian, Vegetarian, etc.) who has been accused of a crime through the prejudice and misconduct of the police or the white establishment. The fact that the prisoner was caught red handed standing over the body of 90 year old woman who he has raped and stabbed 104 times cannot be admitted in court because the Police didn’t read him his rights in his native Ebonics. Your typical Liberal KNOWS that this prisoner at the bar wouldn’t have assaulted this poor widow if he hadn’t suffered at the hands of the White Establishment who have oppressed him. He is suffering from post-traumatic stress brought on by the cultural damage wrought by slavery, poverty, or lack of education. Liberals are long on beliefs and feelings but very short on facts and commonsense. Did I forget to mention the Liberal’s take on victims of crime? Let me check my notes here --- Hmmm – well yes I think I did – and here it is. Liberals think victims of crime should have taken more precautions and that about sums up their concern for victims.
So there it is – a description of the Liberal establishment -- a group seemingly devoid of honor, intelligence, or rational thought. A group personified by Mad Dog and the Whale. Another election is coming up – hopefully the electorate will have been purged of enough of the illegal aliens to allow the citizens to elect a representative government once again.
Just consider the many attacks on President Bush, Conservatives, Christians, and anyone else who the Liberal establishment feels is a threat to their feelings of entitlement and self-righteousness. The operative word there is “feels” because we already know that a Liberal can’t think and that all they do is “feel”, so we are treated to one outrageous attack after another none of which are supported by any facts. Of course the most egregious is “Bush lied” – but lied about what? Well WMD’s of course !! Oh – but Saddam gassed 30,000 Kurds and at least that many Iranians – aren’t those WMD’s ? Yes BUT – Saddam got rid of them so Bush lied about them. But they havn't they actually found artillery shells and other evidence of chemical weapons, plus documented evidence of ties to Al Qaeda? All forgeries according to the Liberal mantra that Bush lied and everyone knows it. But these realities are ignored by the Liberal establishment because they never deal in facts and they feel Bush lied, so it must be true. They also feel there is a huge conspiracy between the Administration and Halliburton so it must be true -- feelings don't lie -- at least not like Bush. However, my point here isn’t to defend the Administration but to examine how the Liberal mind works --- assuming of course they are capable of distinguishing something beyond light and dark.
I have observed that Liberals almost always talk in terms of groups, such as; the poor, the rich, the handicapped, the illiterate, the innocent, and the list is virtually endless, but what they don’t talk about are individuals. In fact your typical Liberal is all for higher taxes and demand that the Rich pay “their fair share”. Of course have you EVER heard a Liberal or even a Democrat for that matter – ever define what constitutes “rich” or who is “poor” or what a “fair Share”is? Of course you haven’t because in the eyes of a Liberal anyone who is gainfully employed is rich and the poor are all of their constituents who are sucking off of the rich. At this point it is necessary to distinguish between a Democrat and Liberal. Now both of these groups believe in Robin Hood economics – that is rob the rich and give to the poor but the difference is the Democrat is willing to leave the clothes on your back while the Liberal wants to take everything you have, including your underwear. This is the difference between the Democratic goal of income redistribution and the Liberal goal of total government control. To the Liberal this form of government control by them is is called “Democratic" to the rest of us it is called “Marxism” – which of course is a synonym for stupidity --- or is it Liberal – I forget.
Another favorite topic that gets the Liberals and the ACLU all in a snit are “rights”. In their eyes you have a right to a job – not just any job but a job that pays a “living wage”. But wait – what is a “living wage”? I casually observed earlier that this is a term that the Liberal never actually defines but apparently it is tied to many of your other “rights”. After all you have a right to an education, healthcare, and a place to live in addition to that fine job that pays the living wage. Apparently all of these rights are defined in the Constitution and must be provided by the government, but then unlike most Liberals (who feel rather than read), I have actually READ the Constitution of the United States of America and I couldn’t find any of these rights spelled out – even obliquely. But then I am speaking of “facts” once again and Liberals “feel” the Constitution defines these rights and if it doesn’t it should and that amounts to the same thing.
Thus the Liberal who talks about rights is actually saying that the government (them) is entitled – nay OBLIGATED – to force some entrepreneur (never use the word “capitalist” in the presence of a Liberal because they lose their focus, begin to pant, and finally faint) – to employ you and to pay you handsomely even though you are incapable of constructing an English sentence or even reading one. Relative to Healthcare every Liberal knows -- well feels -- certainly feels -- that doctors are simply greedy. Therefore, it is an obligation of the state to force these doctors to render their services and apply their hard earned knowledge to any Urban Outdoorsman (Homeless person to most Conservatives) free of charge. For a Liberal this “free” Healthcare is a right and the concept is lifted directly from Karl Marx, who in the eyes of a Liberal is the guiding light of economic reason and the future of mankind. The fact ---( oops there’s that four letter word again) – that Socialism is failing in Canada and Marxism has failed everywhere it has been tried is ignored. Liberals “feel” it is the right thing to do so it must be OK and no uncomfortable facts are allowed to intrude on their fantasy economics. Liberals essentially feel the government has the right to do whatever they feel is good for the group, which means that the Liberals believe that the state (them) has the right to take your property and turn it into a refuge for the Spotted Owl, to stamp out Christmas, kill off Santa Claus, convert everyone to atheism, and stamp out the Easter Bunny. Hopefully, the Tooth Fairy will lead a counter insurgency!! For the Liberal group rights ALWAYS trump individual rights, unless of course the group in question is a group they disapprove of -- say for instance the Catholic Church or the Boy Scouts. Liberals never speak in terms of individuals unless of course the individual is black, Hispanic, homeless, a convicted criminal, or gay. A Liberal would rather have their Peace Symbol Tattoo ripped off of their plump little rosy bottoms with burning tongs than to admit an individual (you) has a right to his private property. Supreme Court Justice David Souter has codified this belief in his decision to allow the state to take an individual's property and give it to a developer so the world can be enriched with another Tanning Booth, Wine Bar, and French Restaurant.
Of course the very favorite group of the Liberal is the Government. Liberals believe in government – lots of it—but not a representative government like we have today but a government controlled completely by them. The government we have today cannot possibly be a viewed as a representative government because it supports President Bush, has failed to indict Karl Rove, insists on lowering taxes, and has treated acts of war and war criminals with frightening hostility and HORRORS – taken action without UN approval. Because the Liberal is opposed to all of these things it is clear the Government has been infiltrated by NeoCon’s (where is Senator McCarthy when you need him? ) who are dismantling all of the Liberal gains since the Warren Court. Their only recourse is to attack, oppose, and obstruct everything these NeoCon’s undertake. I am reminded of a Bugs Bunny Cartoon with the Tasmanian Devil, where Bugs – as played by George Bush stands in place quietly munching his carrot while the Devil – aptly played by Howard (Mad Dog) Dean dashes about aimlessly attacking and destroying everything he can without actually accomplishing anything other than meaningless destruction. You doubt this picture—have you actually watched Mad Dog? He foams at the mouth and never says anything resembling a coherent thought – think about it --- he might actually be the Tasmanian Devil in disguise.
In the Liberal World (aka Fantasy Land) the Government not only creates jobs and assures the non-productive they can lead the good life at some one else’s expense, they believe they have the right to take property from greedy homeowners and convert it into needed strip malls and sanctuaries for the Furbish Lousewort. For the Liberal the Government is like a never ending money pump – after all the Government owns the Mint and can print all of the money necessary. I know, I know – that isn’t really how it works but no one ever accused a Liberal of having a strong grip on reality. I have actually come to the conclusion that if you want to become a certified liberal like Michael (the Whale) Moore you can’t think or even feel but you must BELIEVE – HALLELUJAH BROTHER!!. You cannot rationalize or reflect but you must believe that anyone who thinks that there is such a thing as individual rights or that George Bush is actually human is an evil NEOCON!! . You must believe that Karl Rove does not have an office with a computer but lives in cave with a cauldron, where he casts spells on unsuspecting voters using the eyes of Newts and sucking out the brains of people who would otherwise be voting for Liberals rather than that idiot in the White House. They sincerely believe that if you need proof of the evil machinations of Karl Rove you need only look at the Fox News Channel – they must have been hexed because they don’t regard Cindy Sheehan as the modern equivalent of Joan of Arc. Indeed the Great Satan IS Karl Rove –although he seems a little pudgy to me to be all that scary, but then your typical Liberal is terrified of being FAT, which is why they are on this Crusade to reduce fat in all food, bankrupt McDonalds, Coca Cola, and take as much taste out of food as they can. Unfortunately in their drive to rid the world of FAT they overlooked FAT HEADEDNESS which they seem to have more than their share. They really need more fiber in their diet.
In their drive to establish their Utopian egalitarian society the Liberal establishment is especially concerned about criminal justice. Of course in the eyes of a true dyed in the wool Liberal like John Kerry or Teddy Kennedy criminal justice means justice for the criminal not his victims. Criminals are entitled to a free college education, free medical treatment, cable TV, and privacy. Prisons should be made as comfortable as possible. Because to a Liberal prisoners should not be punished but should be rehabilitated and released as soon as possible back into society, where the majority will only murder every now and then. And of course these prisoners are entitled to conjugal visits- assuring the enduring existence of the criminal class, and their re-election.
When you or I see a prisoner at the bar, we see a person accused of a crime – some one who may or may not be innocent. The Liberal looks at the prisoner at the bar and sees a Black (Hispanic, Gay, Latvian, Vegetarian, etc.) who has been accused of a crime through the prejudice and misconduct of the police or the white establishment. The fact that the prisoner was caught red handed standing over the body of 90 year old woman who he has raped and stabbed 104 times cannot be admitted in court because the Police didn’t read him his rights in his native Ebonics. Your typical Liberal KNOWS that this prisoner at the bar wouldn’t have assaulted this poor widow if he hadn’t suffered at the hands of the White Establishment who have oppressed him. He is suffering from post-traumatic stress brought on by the cultural damage wrought by slavery, poverty, or lack of education. Liberals are long on beliefs and feelings but very short on facts and commonsense. Did I forget to mention the Liberal’s take on victims of crime? Let me check my notes here --- Hmmm – well yes I think I did – and here it is. Liberals think victims of crime should have taken more precautions and that about sums up their concern for victims.
So there it is – a description of the Liberal establishment -- a group seemingly devoid of honor, intelligence, or rational thought. A group personified by Mad Dog and the Whale. Another election is coming up – hopefully the electorate will have been purged of enough of the illegal aliens to allow the citizens to elect a representative government once again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)