Say Anything Blog

TAS Live
Darwinism at AEI
By Tom Bethell
Published 8/20/2007 12:06:23 AM
This article is taken from the July/August 2007 issue of The American Spectator.

EARLY IN MAY, the American Enterprise Institute held a debate about Darwinism, a faith embedded in many debates, whether scientific, religious, or political. The recent irruption of atheism can be traced to the Darwinian creed, for the well-publicized testimonials of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens all have recourse to Darwinism at various points.

It stands to reason that somewhere, some atheist exists which does not hold to darwinism.  Please make youself known if you are out there listening.

...The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more “fit,” or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is “fit” (otherwise it wouldn’t exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. If an organism possesses features that appear on the surface to be inconvenient-such as the peacock’s tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag-the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit.

So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It “explains” everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason. The impact of Darwinism on any and all political groups can be argued any way you want and it’s not very illuminating for that reason. So the AEI discussion frequently veered off into related areas.

Interesting to say the least. 

..In the question period, I asked Derbyshire if he could think of any observation that would count as falsifying Darwinism. He said: “I think miraculous creation would do it. The miraculous appearance of an entirely new species.”

That answer at least points us in a useful direction. Pursue it, and we might be able to clarify the Darwinian conundrum. The point is that in Darwinism a philosophical assumption, rarely explicit, circumscribes the “scientific” conclusions that are permitted. The assumption is this: Only naturalistic explanations can be allowed within biology. Naturalism implies the exclusion of mind, intelligence, or absolutely anything except atoms and molecules in motion. Nothing else exists. Everything must be explained in terms of physics and chemistry and anything beyond that will be derided as “creationism.” Good Darwinians are not allowed by their own rules even to entertain the possibility that intelligence was involved in the origin or development of life. No research is needed to come to that conclusion. It is axiomatic within the theory. [emphasis added]

This argument has been introduced on numerous occasions here at SAB. Given the simplicity and clarity of the argument its amazing that it is so readily dismissed by evolution proponents.  Of course, the evolutionist would answer is that the science based upon a naturalistic assumption works and therefore premise, i.e. naturalism, is correct.  Wow! First assume naturalism is correct then investigate causation in accordance with methodological naturalism (something that must be done or it isn’t modern science) then declare that the investigation proves the naturalism is the correct assumption.  Next obscure the circular reasoning with scientific rhetoric and there you have it. Of course building a scientific consesus around flawed science is easy (e.g. man-made global warming). 

Derbyshire responded: “Scientists embrace naturalism because science is a naturalistic pursuit. A working scientist is by definition naturalistic.”

That is incorrect. From scraps of unearthed rubble, archeologists infer design when no trace of the designer remains. A scientist investigating how automobiles are made goes to a factory and learns that the assembly line originated in plans and blueprints, which in turn originated in the minds of men.

Ah yes, the mind! But that, too, consists of nothing but atoms and molecules in motion, no? Which brings us to the Inner Sanctum of the materialist dogma: Mind itself is nothing but matter. Free will is an illusion, and so on. (Darwin accepted these propositions, noting “the general delusion about free will.")

There is no reason in the world to accept the materialist faith, but once you do, then something very much like Darwinism has to be true. Life exists-we got here somehow, along with billions of other organisms. So how did it happen? Must have been that animals self-assembled a little bit at a time, in a long chain of accidental survivals.

How long before people stop defending such a blatantly biased superstition and start thinking outside of Darwin’s naturlistic box?

Hello sayanythingbloggers… I’ve been following this blog for a while now and I’ve enjoyed reading the posts of the many individualist, capitalist, constitutionalist mindsets contributing. I’d like to hear what you all have to say about Ron Paul.

This video taken at Google provides an incredible introduction to the kind of man and policies of Ron Paul, running for 2008 Republican Presidential nomination.

Thanks,
Dean

This is an amazing woman, she is probably going to be killed soon; but her courage, intellect and honesty about Islam and the Jews is truly worth the time watching this short video.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul

(more...)

A very interesting read . . .

From yesterday’s New York Times Editorial page.

Randall Hoven

Scott Beauchamp was the last straw. I realized that I need a scorecard to keep track of all the fallen journalists, journalistic mistakes and major and minor screw-ups in the media. I couldn’t find one already made, although Wikipedia came close, so I started my own. I apologize if there is a good list already out there, but I looked and could not find.

Offenses include lying and fabricating, doctoring photos, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, falling for hoaxes, and overt bias. Some are hilarious, such as an action figure doll being mistaken for a real soldier. Some are silly, such as reporting on a baseball game watched on TV. Some are more serious.

I leave it to you to judge whether the internet damaged “journalism’s ability to do its job professionally”, as Marvin Kalb accuses, or if the internet has in fact helped expose an already damaged “profession”.

[...]

3. Associated Press (AP) (2005). Fell for hoax and phony photo. The AP ran a story, with a photo, about a soldier held hostage in Iraq. The photo turned out to be that of an action figure doll; there was no such soldier.

4. Mike Barnicle, Boston Globe (1998). Lying/fabricating and plagiarism. Totally made up stories, including one about a black kid and a white kid with cancer. Also used quotes from George Carlin as his own. Fired from the Boston Globe.



[...]

6. Scott Beauchamp, The New Republic (2007). Lying. TNR hired this U.S. Army private and husband of one of its own reporters to write first-hand accounts from Iraq. One of his accounts, supposedly demonstrating the dehumanizing effects of the Iraq war on him and fellow soldiers, occurred in Kuwait before Beauchamp even entered Iraq. Other parts of his writing are likely false, and if not, constitute military crimes on his part. In fact, his anonymous writing from a war zone is likely against military rules. This story is currently unfolding.

[...]

8. Michael Bellesiles, professor of history, author of Arming America and recipient of Columbia University’s Bancroft Prize. Lying/fabricating. He made “myth shattering” claims about the history of guns in America that were based on fabricated historical records. He resigned from Emory University.

9. Joe Biden, U.S. Senator and candidate for President (1988). Plagiarism. He withdrew from the 1988 presidential race after being discovered “delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock… a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator’s boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden’s speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians.” He’s still a Senator, and back in the race for 2008.

10. Jayson Blair, The New York Times (2003). Lying/fabricating. He fabricated parts or all of at least 36 stories. He, along with his bosses Gerald Boyd and Howell Raines, resigned from the NYT.

11. The Boston Globe (2004). Fake photos, fake story. The Boston Globe published pictures alleging U.S. troops raped Iraqi women. The pictures turned out to be commercially available pornography.

12. Paul Bradley Richmond Times-Dispatch (2006). Lying/fabricating. Made up his story on reactions to President Bush’s speech on immigration. He fabricated interviews. He reported on an event in the first person, yet he was not even in the same town. He was fired.

13. Rick Bragg, The New York Times (2003). “Drive-by” reporting. “Bragg’s defense—that it is common for Times correspondents to slip in and out of cities to ‘get the dateline’ while relying on the work of stringers, researchers, interns and clerks—has sparked more passionate disagreement than the clear-cut fraud and plagiarism committed by Blair. The issue, put starkly, is whether readers are being misled about how and where a story was reported.” He resigned.



[...]

* If this is the visible part of the iceberg, just how big is the iceberg?

Read the whole thing; it’s in two parts, with 83 miscreants so far.

The lying, bias and general villany of the MSM cannot be over emphasized. They are literally poisoning the information well.

So anyway, I know some of you are real fired up about all this non-english speaking going on in the USA. Its a charged issue that has insecure males everywhere lauding the glory and legality of the tongue of Mr. Bean and D.H. Lawrence. At any rate, I thought y’all would have something to say about this image, taken on 38th street in West Philly yesterday:



That’s right! “El Shuttle!” ‘SEPTA’ below the windshield stands for Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority or something like that. The photo is legit. Let’s geet on elll shuttle, senors! ... but there’s more… (more...)

In what sounds like a story from The Onion, Chinese officials have prohibited Tibetan monks from reincarnating without government permission!

In one of history’s more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is “an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation.” But beyond the irony lies China’s true motive: to cut off the influence of the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual and political leader, and to quell the region’s Buddhist religious establishment more than 50 years after China invaded the small Himalayan country. By barring any Buddhist monk living outside China from seeking reincarnation, the law effectively gives Chinese authorities the power to choose the next Dalai Lama, whose soul, by tradition, is reborn as a new human to continue the work of relieving suffering.

Of course, the way they would enforce this is after the fact! Anyone claiming to be the reincarnated Dalai Lama would have, ipso facto, broken the law.

Go directly to jail. Do not pass go. And allow the government to help you on to your next life!
Newsweek

Democrats traditionally court the support of movie stars and celebrities, don’t they? But, in Nevada, before you could say, “Bimbo eruption”, they couldn’t find a place in the big tent for Ms. Fleiss!

In a campaign used to dealing with media whores, I guess they weren’t prepared for the real thing!

Former Hollywood madam and current rural Nevada small businesswoman Heidi Fleiss was turned away from Hillary Clinton’s appearance in Pahrump last week, but she doesn’t hold a grudge.

Fleiss, who is running a laundromat while she continues to dream of opening a brothel for women, is backing Sen. Clinton, D-N.Y., for president with all her might, she said.

By the time Fleiss and two neighbors got to the Skate Zone where Clinton was appearing, it was filled to capacity. “Naturally, I was disappointed, but it’s exciting that so many people came out to see her,” Fleiss said. “I don’t hold it against her at all.”

Fleiss is a registered Democrat who says she voted in every election from when she turned 18 to when she was convicted of felony charges and had her voting privileges revoked. They have been reinstated, she said.

“I’m a big fan of Hillary’s. Any woman who’s smart, how can you not be?” said Fleiss, 41. “Even if you’re a Republican, if you’re a woman and you’re smart, you have to respect her.”

Fleiss described herself as a “tree-hugger” who is generally liberal but favors the death penalty. She said her business, “Dirty Laundry,” is thriving—“I just had to buy another super-size washing machine”—and she also wants to develop wind turbines on some land she owns. The day after the Clinton visit, she attended a forum on energy in Pahrump hosted by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Fleiss is not the first sex-industry veteran to endorse Clinton. The campaign has the official backing of porn star Jenna Jameson.

The Clinton campaign, which opened a Pahrump office over the weekend, didn’t have a response to Fleiss’ endorsement. [Maybe they should have asked Bill! ]

“We weren’t aware she was a supporter,” campaign spokeswoman Hilarie Grey said. “It seemed like the whole town was full of supporters that day. We only wish we’d had room for everyone.”

Everyone who wasn’t a high profile sex-industry figure!

Hypocrisy, thy name is Hillary!

But she does run a laundromat. Maybe Bill can get a volume discount on his stained blue dresses! (Would that be a campaign contribution in kind?)

Former madam is ‘big fan of Hillary’ -Clinton camp has no response

....the constitution of the new, post-Taliban Afghani regime stipulates that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.”

Abdul Rahman’s case showed that Islam’s traditional classification of apostasy as a capital crime would be included in this.

The prophet Muhammad regarded apostasy from Islam as a supreme evil, and one of the main reasons the punishment is so severe is because apostates were once Muslims but “turn renegade.”

Muhammad decreed that no Muslim could be put to death except for murder, unlawful sexual intercourse, and apostasy.

He said flatly: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”

This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence

.

Religion Of Peace by Robert Spencer

Find it here

Leftie stupidity on “display”

Hundreds Bare All on Glacier in Global Warming Protest

Nearly 600 volunteers stripped before the camera on a melting Swiss glacier high in the Alps on Saturday as part of a publicity campaign to expose the impact of climate change.

The eco-conscious volunteers turned up under blue skies near the foot of the Aletsch glacier, a protected UNESCO World Heritage site.

Environmental group Greenpeace commissioned the photo shoot from world renowned photographer Spencer Tunick.

“Their numbers are close to 600,” Nicolas de Roten of Greenpeace Switzerland told AFP. “It’s relatively chilly but that doesn’t seem to be disturbing them.”

The campaign is aimed at drawing attention to melting Alpine glaciers, one clear sign of global warming and of man-made climate change, according to the group.

Greenpeace says the human body is as fragile as glaciers like the Aletsch in southern Switzerland and the world’s environment. The glacier itself is now shrinking by about 100 metres (110 yards) a year.

“I want my images to go more than skin-deep. I want the viewers to feel the vulnerability of their existence and how it relates closely to the sensitivity of the world’s glaciers,” Tunick said.

The group hopes its billboard and poster campaign showing people exposed to the cold will send a shiver down the spines of public opinion and politicians, and convince them to do more to tackle pollution and climate change.

“They’ll be used at the right moment for our campaign, in Switzerland first and then worldwide,” de Roten said from the location, about an hour’s hike from the village of Bettmeralp.

Tunick split the men and women into two groups of about 300 for separate shots on or around the lower end of the spectacular 23 kilometre long (14 miles) sweeping ice floe, at an altitude of about 2,300 metres (7545 feet).

Dressed in hiking gear, they stripped for minutes at a time, watched at a distance by a clump of media photographers and journalists.

While cooler than the valley below, temperatures were well above freezing—about 10 to 15 degrees Celsius (50 to 60 Fahrenheit).

[...]

I guess this glacier isn’t “protected” from these nuts and their butts.  Oh well.

Let’s do the math:  100 meters a year, 23,000 meters of glacier, summertime.  So, if it stays summertime for 230 years straight, the glacier will be gone.  How likely is that?

Besides, the body warmth of those crazies must be doing some damage, but I guess it’s always about “do as I say, not as I do” with the lefties.

In the UK where it is a crime to actively defend yourself, the citizens have turn to passive defense attempting to make it more difficult for criminals to do one harm; well at least where knives are concerned.  From Stab-proof school uniforms go on sale to protect pupils from knife attacks

Parents are sending children to school in stab-proof uniforms to guard against knife crime, it has emerged.

They are paying a firm which makes body armour to line blazers and jumpers with a stab-resistant material called Kevlar.

The precautions are aimed at protecting pupils from knife attacks as street crime spills over into schools.

A wave of stabbings involving teenagers includes the killing of promising footballer Kiyan Prince, who was knifed just yards from his school gates in north London.

Predictably, the law officials think this precaution is totally unecessary

The reality of course is that crimes involving knives are proportionately very very low” Alf Hitchcock, of the Association of Chief Police Officers told BBC News Online.

Despite this alarming statistic

Seven boys under the age of 16 have died in knife attacks in the space of just two months this year.

It seems that some adults also share the parent concerns

Teachers are also demanding to be equipped with stab-proof vests to protect them from attack as they frisk pupils for knives and guns.

New laws which recently came into effect will allow staff to conduct forcible searches of students suspected of carrying offensive weapons.

But members of the Professional Association of Teachers are saying they should not be made to carry out searches unless they are provided with body armour.

I’m sure that the UK socialists who championed gun confiscation still maintain that the inability of citizens to defend themselves has made for a quieter peaceful country even when the evidence indicates the opposite.  This vision is also one that the Democrats in this country would like to impose on us.

It just appears that the Dems are not going to give it up. Karl Rove is gone from the Bush Administration on August 31st and the Democrats are still trying to smear Karl and take him down, I guess the only result they want to see is Rove in Hand Cuffs being lead out of the front of his house. The reason for this is Rove is a genius at getting republicans elected.

Here is some advice to the mud slingers: Karl is gone give it up, let it go. The Civil Law Suit was THROWN OUT out of court, to me that basically says there was nothing to the petty charges the Wilsons had filed.

I mean honestly, everyones knows it was Richard Armitage was the one that leaked Plames Identity:

On August 29, 2006 Neil A. Lewis of The New York Times reported that Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 article, which named Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative" and which triggered the CIA leak investigation. On August 30, 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Ms. Wilson's CIA role in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak. The New York Times, quoting people "familiar with his actions", reported that Armitage was unaware of Ms. Wilson's undercover status when he spoke to Novak.

The Times claims that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was informed that Armitage was involved on October 2, 2003, but asked not to be told details. Patrick Fitzgerald began his grand jury investigation three months later knowing Armitage was a leaker (as did Attorney General John Ashcroft before turning over the investigation).

I am not sure why they don’t go after him. Oh thats right Richard Armitagen he is anti Bush so they don’t care the courts aren’t even prosecuting him.

Greg Richards

What do the Iraqis know that our Dems/MSM won’t tell us?

Amidst the wholly legitimate concerns as to whether Prime Minister Maliki is capable of putting together a truly national government and what the withdrawal from the current government by the Sunni portends , other factors have been pointing in more positive directions in Iraq. Among these is the remarkable run that has been occurring on the Iraq Stock Exchange.

Since July 10, when this run started, the ISX has gone from being up 8% year-to-date to being up 64% year-to-date. That is to say, essentially during the summer, there has been a huge commitment – in local terms – to the future of Iraq and its economy by those with the most to lose if they are wrong and who are likely to be best informed about local conditions.

[...]

Our role as citizens as we come up to the Petraeus report card is to try to assemble a mosaic of what is actually happening in Iraq, including the attitudes of the local citizenry, and if real progress is being made, as appears to be the case, not to be stampeded into defeatism by the challenges that remain.

Read the whole thing, including the graph of the progress this year.

Excerpt from Peter Schweizer’s Do As I say, Not As I do

Ted Kennedy is one of the great liberal lions of the U.S. Senate. For the past forty years, no one in that body has roared louder for liberal causes.

Name the issue and Kennedy has been there: soak the rich with higher taxes; abortion on demand; protect the planet from ecological damage; take on the wealthy and polluting oil companies; universal health care for all Americans; ban guns; amnesty for illegal aliens.

He clearly sees income redistribution as a moral imperative. If there is a battle to be waged, Kennedy is usually in the middle of it. And unlike many of his Senate colleagues, Kennedy is not one to back down.

No doubt much of the liberal love for Kennedy comes from his air of moral certitude. With fine senatorial bombast he skewers his opponents, frequently calling their motives into question.

But do his actions match his words? Does Kennedy actually live by the principles he so loudly and vigorously proclaims?

A closer look at his conduct in private life reveals that this champion of liberal causes is really the king of liberal hypocrites.

All of the Kennedys have been longtime cheerleaders for alternative sources of energy. Senator Kennedy has introduced dozens of pieces of legislation over the years to encourage the development of solar, hydrogen and wind as alternatives to oil and coal.

As far back as 1980, when he ran for president, he was calling for greater use of alternative energy to become a central part of our energy policy.

He was cosponsor of the 2005 Clean Power Act, which would require a reduction in power plat emissions, which he said”caused deaths and contribute to global warming.”

Joe and Patrick have backed the same sort of legislation in the house. Robert Kennedy has crisscrossed the country, decrying our “addiction” to oil and calling for a new era of “clean energy.”

During a recent speech to the National Press Club, Senator Kennedy said that we need to “start demanding immediate action to reduce global warming and prevent catastrophic climate change that may be on our horizon now.”

Part of the answer was to shift to alternative sources” “We should replace our dependence on foreign oil, not by drilling in the priceless Arctic national Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, but by investing in clean energy.”

All of this must have been very encouraging to Jim Gordon when he decided to develop and build a “clean energy” project in Massachusetts.

With their commitment to clean energy, the search for alternatives to coal and oil, and an ethic that says individuals can make a difference; Gordon must have assumed that the Kennedys would support him. But he soon discovered that the Kennedy’s have “clean energy” for other people-not themselves.

In 2003, after several years of research and study, Gordon and his fellow investors launched the Cape Wind Project in an effort to provide clean energy for thousands of homes on Cape Cod.

Their hope was to replace the coal fired plants that were providing much of the area’s power and were believed to be causing health problems.

The Cape Wind Project was expected to provide three-quarters of the electrical power needed by the Cape and other islands without producing pollution or greenhouse gases.

This was not a radical or untried plan. Both Sweden and Denmark (two countries that Kennedy often praises as paragons of enlightened social policy) use similar wind-powered power systems near their coasts.

But from the moment the Kennedy family got wind of these plans (so to speak), they came out in strong opposition. Their complaint: The wind turbines would be built in Nantucket Sound, about six miles off the coast from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis. The problem was not aesthetic; the Kennedys wouldn’t be able to actually see the turbines from their home.

Instead Robert Kennedy Jr., who had been beating the drums for alternative sources of energy for more than a decade, complained that the project would be built in one of the family’s favorite sailing and yachting areas.

The Kennedys were quickly joined by other affluent “environmentalists” with homes in the area.

When the U.S. army Corps of Engineers was assigned to conduct a comprehensive review of the proposal, Cape Wind was optimistic that the results would sway the plan’s opponents.

“I believe when he [Kennedy] sees the results of this comprehensive environmental review, he will see the compelling public interest benefits: lower electrical costs, a cleaner healthier environment, and energy independence and minimal environmental impact” said Jim Gordon.

Kennedy made a judicious pronouncement to the effect that the idea needed further study. “We have an obligation to preserve the Cape for future generations, which requires us to know the impact of our decisions on the landscape, seascape and environment,” he said in publicly. Privately he worked diligently to get the study canceled.

Environmentalist groups lined up behind the project.  Antinuclear activist Helen Caldecott wrote to Kennedy personally in an attempt to persuade him to embrace the project. But Kennedy wouldn’t budge.

Days after the report was issued, Kennedy called for greater federal regulation of wind farms and got his longtime friend Sen. John Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to offer an amendment to the defense budget to stop the project.

Other members of the Senate took notice and the amendment was withdrawn.

As of this writing, Kennedy remains completely opposed to the “clean energy” Cape Wind Project.

Tom Blumer

More lying leftie propaganda exposed:

The powerful “manufacturing is in decline” meme won’t go away soon, but it should.

It apparently isn’t enough that the Institute for Supply Management’s Manufacturing Index has read “expansion” in 48 of the past 50 months. It has become an article of faith among reporters and opportunistic politicians that American manufacturing has been, and continues to be, in a long-term decline.

The fact is that government reports also show the exact opposite. Why apparently no one, including the sector’s supporters, has done, or at least published, the simple math involved to debunk the myth of “deindustrialization” is indeed a mystery.

There has been support by anecdote. For example, on August 6, Joel Kotkin, a presidential fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University, wrote an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal ("The Myth of Deindustrialization”; link requires subscription). His column led as follows:

It’s been a quarter-century since author John Naisbitt blithely described manufacturing as a “declining sport” that Americans could easily offshore to Asia. Since then obituaries for U.S. manufacturing, both mournful and enraged, have been written many times.

The reports of death are premature. Many of the most vibrant economic regions in this country—from the deep South to the Pacific Northwest—are still making and transporting real goods. The success of America’s “material boys” suggests that the old economy and its blue-collar workers—so often patronized and pitied—can still more than hold their own in today’s global economy.

[...]

When’s the last time you read somebody bemoaning the “de-agrification of America”? And who will say that it would be a bad thing if, over the next few decades, we’re able to get ever more value out of manufacturing with fewer people as long as overall unemployment stays low?

Read the whole thing.

Take away the Left’s constant scaremongering, and they have nothing to offer.

BTW, for those of you who need graphs, there’s one at the link.  Enjoy!