Friday, August 05, 2005

My $.02 On ID 'Theory' In Schools

As near as I can tell, the only difference between the Theory of Evolution and Intelligent Design Theory is that you could, given about 10 million years of observation, have enough data to support or disprove Evolution. ID, as far as I can tell, can't be disproven by anyone but God Himself. And I b'lieve I might just shout myself hoarse before He bothers to answer a 'what's it all mean' question like that.

For a great rundown of why Evolution ain't as much a fact as, say, gravity see this column by Fred Reed. He describes my view of this hyped conspiracy here:
Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC. Astronomers pay not the slightest attention to creationist ideas. Nobody does—except evolutionists. We are dealing with competing religions—overarching explanations of origin and destiny. Thus the fury of their response to skepticism.

I found it pointless to tell them that I wasn’t a Creationist. They refused to believe it. If they had, they would have had to answer questions that they would rather avoid. Like any zealots, they cannot recognize their own zealotry. Thus their constant classification of skeptics as enemies (a word they often use)—of truth, of science, of Darwin, of progress.
So I hope our President will continue to take every opportunity to piss off the self-righteous. As for whether it will 'hurt the children', it can't hurt them any worse than high school math that is incapable of teaching students to manipulate and understand fractions.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Congratulations to Nanodot

Nanodot is the first sight to refer me 5 whole visitors. Just goes to prove how smart and forward thinking your readers really are.

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

What Does Victory in Iraq Look Like?

The always intelligent and thoughtful Wretchard at The Belmont Club has an interesting post on what the end state of Iraq may look like.
But what sort of victory would it be? Perhaps a shadow victory like that achieved in Korea 50 years ago. A Syria belligerent but not really; Islam still the 'religion of peace' -- whenever it is not inciting attacks against America; Bin Laden in Pakistan but only when he is actually spotted; an Iran with nuclear weapons which they will be bribed not to use. A West partially mobilized against enemies it cannot bring itself to name or destroy, a display of aggression from the civilized herd to prevent further attack from the circling pack of predators serving in lieu.

This is totally unacceptable. No more detentes, no more half measures. Let's solve the problems. I do hope that President Bush and Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld will begin to hint heavily that if Syria doesn't clean up it's act, we will be withdrawing those 60,000+ troops from Baghdad to Damascus next year. The way I see it, given the CIA's projections on Iran (and their recent record) we have until 2012 to come up with a solution to an Iranian nuclear state. DMZs are not my preferred solution on two very long borders.

Hope He Doesn't Cry About It

Via K-Lo @ The Corner

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, who opposed Bolton's confirmation, said, "I am truly concerned that a recess appointment will only add to John Bolton's baggage and his lack of credibility with the United Nations
Well who's f**king fault could that be, Georgie? That reminds me, I can't wait until 2010 when I can start sending checks to your primary opponent. Just another reminder that there are a**holes in every party.