Missing the Point

I was reading a long article in USA today this morning about schools facing the question of ID vs. Evolution as the school year begins. The article attempts to frame the discussion for readers by, among other things, defining the theories as follows:

"Intelligent Design: Some biological structures, such as DNA instructions, are so complex that they could not occur as a result of evolution and must be the work of an intelligent designer. No answer as to who or what that may be."

Is that a sufficient definition of Intelligent Design? It's good, but from what little reading I've done on ID so far, I would say that it is insufficient. Yes, the argument that life is too complex to be accounted for is part of the story - but it's the negative argument. How can you prove that it's too complex?

I would, and ID proponents have, state the definition slightly differently. I would argue that the complexity of life shows evidence of intelligent design by the nature of the information encoded into it. Information implies a design. Design implies a designer. That's the positive argument.

To only argue the negative is to miss the point. Information, not complexity, is the point. The program of your DNA is information.

The article of course goes on to give a standard definition of evolution, as a theory that "..species evolve over billions of years through natural selection, inheriting small variations that improve individual's abilities to survive and reproduce."

Did the article leave it at that and let you make your own conclusions? Of course not. The author had to immediately add this little caveat:

The theory of evolution is backed up by 150 years of research. White House science advisor John Marburger called it a "cornerstone of modern biology".

Oh, as long as we're not taking sides.

My Study Project - Evolution vs. ID

As promised in an earlier post, I've launched into a study project on the topic of Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. I'm immersing myself in a variety of sources, from popular literature to textbooks to internet flame wars on the topic - some of which I've foolishly but gleefully jumped into.

I'll have comments as I go on whatever strikes me in my studies. They will be high level thoughts, observations, and questions. I promise - no long winded dissertations. After all, I'm not getting paid for this.

Here are some things that I bring to the discussion on the front end:

1. A theistic worldview. I am a Christian man. I am not a materialist. I am obviously open to the concepts of an intelligent agent necessary for acceptance of ID. I have spent a lot of time in theological and apologetics study.

2. A deep appreciation of science. I appreciate the wonders of the natural world and the deep body of knowledge that has been advanced by some brilliant scientists and engineers.

3. A critical view of the evidence on each side. And a passion to study it.

4. An awareness of my limitations. The best I can do as an informed layman is to study diligently the arguments of both sides and make my own call.

5. A sense of humor. The origin of life is an interesting, maybe the most interesting, topic that I can study. But it's just that. I'll study it. I'll have opinions. And I'll keep it in balance.

I use words. I appreciate words. I catch when words are used in an unintentionally humorous way. Two examples:

I was reading a techinical science paper online the other day on the topic of "common descent with modification". The author gave a brief explanation of how lifeforms moved toward "higher taxa". Well, which is it? Are we "descending" into "higher taxa". Pick a direction and stick with it.

On another night I was watching a nature channel documentary, put together with some help from biologists I'm assuming, about giant squid in the ocean. Cut to a drawing of a giant squid with a huge eye dominating the drawing. Voice over: "... with a large eye that is designed to gather all of the possible...". What? Wait a minute. Did he say "designed"? Better watch that, Mr. Voice Over Man. You'll get drummed out of the science community for inferring design.

So, stay tuned. More to come on topics like:

Transcendancy
System Definitions
Assumptions
etc.

I Told You So

Yes, I did. I told you so.

I said, as far back as this post in April of 2004, that the 9/11 Commission report would be compromised by politics. Why? Because of conflict of interest. It's simple, really.

As far as I'm concerned, one of the most serious issues that the Commission needed to investigate as to why the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies were not able to stop the attack by sharing information and cooperating with each other was "the wall". The wall was a Justice Department policy disallowing cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement.

So, as it's being revealed this week in the press, when the military task force named Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta as a probable terrorist in 2000 and indeed identified Al Qaida cells in the U.S., they were prohibited from sharing that with the law enforcement groups that could have stopped them. Why? The wall.

This was not dealt with in the 9/11 Commission report, which indicates that the report is faulty.

Sadly, this was entirely predictable - and was, in fact, predicted in this blog and others.

Why?

- because the author of the "wall" policy was a Clinton Justice official named Jamie Gorelick, who worked for Janet Reno
- because Jamie Gorelick should have testified before the Commission, but did not
- because Jamie Gorelick was herself a Commission member - in a position to tamper with and hide this testimony
- because when the Commission chairman and co-chairman were confronted with this conflict of interest, while the Commission was in session, they circled the wagons and protected their sitting member - with the result that the investigation of the "wall" policy was handled with kid gloves and political sensibilities instead of aggressive investigation. Go back and read it in the report. It's entirely inaccurate and dangerous because it's a coverup that prevented real action to address the deficiencies of the Clinton policy.

Someone, or several someones, need to fired retroactively. Let's start with both chairmen of the Commission - who have rendered their report inoperative by shielding one of their own and denying the country the truth for which we paid.

Let's also call Commissioner Gorelick into the dock to testify, finally.

I thought it was a vacation?

George W. Bush was on the news tonight talking about the topics of discussion during the Cabinet meeting that he held at his ranch today.

Huh? I'm confused. Didn't all of the media tell me he was on vacation for 5 weeks?

I'm going on vacation this week. Note to self: don't schedule any cabinet meetings on my vacation.

Abortion Distortion

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) issued an advertisement this week accusing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of taking legal action to support abortion clinic bombers.

This is a blatant and completely dishonest distortion of the facts of the case, and is the new low in the reprehensible behavior of the left in their attempt to defeat the nominee. Have they no shame whatsoever?

The case referenced involved technical arguments over who had jurisdiction to act on issues of legal protests in front of abortion clinics - state or federal. Roberts argued in front of the Supreme Court in favor of it not being a federal issue, and won 6-3. So, simply said, if Roberts was guilty in that action of supporting clinic bombers then so is the Supreme Court. It's ridiculous and completely dishonest.

Don't believe me? See for yourself in this analysis on Factcheck.com

Roberts is adequately on the record deploring violence at clinics and NARAL convieniently leaves that out. Why? Because it's not about the facts, it's about the results. They want to defeat Roberts and will use sleazy tactics to do so.

NARALs dishonest smear campaign against an honorable man is deplorable and outrageous, and we should heap further shame and scorn on an already disreputable organization.

Bush's Working "Vacation"

I saw news articles yesterday featuring George W. Bush in Illinois to sign legislation on a highway bill.

How can that be?

Didn't the mainstream media outlets all spend a large part of last week blasting the President for going on vacation to Texas for 5 weeks? 5 weeks? In Texas? They got a lot of yardage out of mocking him. How can you possibly, Mr. President, go on vacation for 5 weeks when there is so much to be done? When we are at war?

Yet, there he was on TV in Illinois working. How is that a vacation?

The MSM wouldn't have lied to me, would they? I thought they were objective journalists. (sarcasm off).

Evolution vs. Design at the Bookstore

Evolution or Creation? It's one of my favorite study topics dating back almost 30 years to my high school and college days. At different periods of my adult life I've dived back into the topic. Reading books. Attending lectures. Surfing the internet. When I'm in a study phase (or fad?) I digest as much as I can and then move on.

And this week it's back on again.

You might have seen the news stories that set it off. President Bush answered a simple question from a reporter and it blew up. Someone asked him to comment on a recent controversy over whether or not "Intelligent Design" theory should be taught in high school science classes alongside evolution. Bush made a generic, nondescript statements, which immediately got distorted by everyone with an agenda.

"I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

Nothing radical. Nothing earthshaking. He did not propose that evolution be banned from school. He didn't propose equal weight in science classes. He only opined that kids should know what the debate on evolution is all about.

Of course, secularists in academia and in the press immediately became unhinged. The Darwinist community started accusing the President of everything from imposing ignorant fundamentalism on our nation's schools to bringing back the dark ages. I was particularly impressed with the visiousness of the cartoonist who drew the familiar evolutionary progression of apes with George W. in the last position looking particularly chimpy in Texas boots. Very civil.

It didn't suprise me, of course. The most dogmatic fundamentalists I've ever encountered are Darwinian evolution apologists. No one is to challenge the othordoxy while they are around, scientific method nothwithstanding. To do so invites scorn and ridicule from the keepers of the faith.

Okay, back to my own little struggle with the issue.

Back in my college days, at a major Big Ten University, I spent a lot of time thinking about this issue, but not from the position you would expect. At the time I was an agnostic and an engineering student. In addition to my required coursework of chemistry, physics, calculus, etc. I took electives like Anthropology (2 semesters), Astronomy (2 semesters), and Evolutionary Biology. We also had a regular circuit of guest lecturers on the topic in those days and I attended them all.

I specifically remember my course in Evolution. The course material of course. But the professor as well. I remember going up to the podium after class one day and listening as he held court for the undergrads off the record. He was telling us all how depressed he was by life and that he already had his suicide planned out to the degree that he had pills stored up. You may not see a link between his hoplessness with life and the topic he was teaching, but I did that day and I still do.

Frankly, in those days as an undergrad - even coming from a technical and agnostic background - I had questions about natural selection. I was taught all of the standard "evidences", like the moths changing color ratios in industrial England and the like. I just didn't see how all of that added up to creation of new species ended up in humanity. I would eventually, through future study, understand that differences in microevolution (mutations leading to changes within a species) and macroevolution (creation of new species) frames the essential debate. I have no doubt that natural selection accounts for the variety of life within species. I have a lot of doubt that it accounts for the introduction of new species.

I also question the original spark of life. Scientists like to gloss over this question with vague references to chemistry experiments long ago that were able to produce an amino acid or two in a bottle from some chemicals and electricity. It's a point that is core to the debate and can't be glossed over. Can life come from non-life without a creator?

I've read a lot over 30 years on the topic. I approach it from both a scientific mind and a Christian heart. Criticize that if you will. I think it's a valid approach for a being that is three in nature: body, soul, and spirit. I think it's the only valid approach.

So now it's back in the news, prompted by a simple comment by the President. I expected the Darwin dogmatists to dig in and entrench. However, I'm always irritated by the politically correct "moderate" public officials who show up on TV to debate this and who want to have it both ways. They speak the standard party line of the elite, which is: I may believe that God created us, but I don't want that taught in a science class. It should properly be taught in a philosophy or religion class.

Well, that's hooey. The topic is the origin of life. There are arguments that support Darwinism. There are arguments critical of it. And there are arguments for Design. They all properly belong in a science class.

For example, I'm particularly struck by the microbiologist argument for Intelligent Design based on the priciple of irreducible complexity. It argues that there are some components of cells, having several components, that cannot be reduced to simpler operation. Therefore, they couldn't have come about through a mutational process of natural selection because without all of the components present it would fail. The understandable analogy is a mousetrap. It is a functional design with 4 pieces: a board, a spring, a clip, and a hook. It has to have all 4 pieces to function. If it "evolved" without a hook for example, then it's a failed mousetrap. The existence of all 4 pieces working perfectly together is evidence of design, not evolution. It's the same with the cellular structure. It has to have all pieces present to function, and that's evidence of design - not millions of years and millions of mutation. (The same holds true of a wing evolving from a leg. Long before it became a functional wing it would just be a bad leg.) Design. Engineering. That argument can be made in a science classroom.

Bottom line: my interest in the topic is rekindled and that means a trip to the bookstore to catch up on the current literature. And therein lies my surprise of the day.

I wanted to buy one book each to start again with a study on the origin of life. A representative book on Intelligent Design. And a best case defense of Darwin and natural selection. Both sides.

It was easy to find the Darwin book ("The Blind Watchmaker"), shoulder to shoulder among several choices on the "Science" shelves of my local Barnes and Noble.

But alas, as hard as I looked I could not find a book on Intelligent Design. A quick trip to the information counter and we located it. In the "Religion" section. Give me a break.

NY Times Adoption Inquiry Reprehensible

So, it's come to this.

It was easy to speculate that the left in this country, including liberal media outlets like the NY Times, would do anything to attempt a takedown of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Easy, because there is a pattern of behavior to base a prediction on including the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence t Thomas.

The problem that the liberals have is two fold:

First, the President is entitled by the Constitution, and by virtue of having won the election, of choosing a nominee of his liking. He clearly prefers a conservative with tendencies to respect the law and the Constituition and, despite liberal carping and clamoring that he choose a "consensus" nominee (read "evolving liberal"), he chose one in John Roberts.

Second, Roberts has an impeccable and bulletproof resume. Bulletproof, that is, if one is laying by respectable rules.

Therein lies the problem. Based on past patterns, the left will not play by civil rules. They will attack and smear and take any low road to take down a respectable and honorable man just because they differ from his view. Despicable, but predictable.

Were we wrong? Have we gone overboard in our predictions of the low behavior of the left? Of course not. A case in point:

Conservative media was aflame yesterday with reports that the NY Times had launched an investigation into the adoption of John Robert's two children. Confirmation is found in this Newsmax story. They had no probable cause to launch an investigation. It's a pure fishing expedition to find dirt to trash someone personally. They cloaked in in terms of a "background check", despite it being an apparent smear hunt.

I'm outraged at this, as I have been by no other story in a long time.

As an adoptive father twice myself, I want to state unequivocably that this attempt by the NY Times to pierce the sealed adoption records in this context is reprehensible and is completely out of bounds. Shame should heaped on the appropriate officials at this newspaper for reaching a new low in journalism.

Despicable.

The President is Never on Vacation

It's the silly season with the Washington Press Corps, again.

Every August, without exception, they run the same exact story: The President is leaving for a 5 week vacation at his home/ranch.

They play this story big and always with all the negative spins:

- why does the President get to go on a 5 week vacation?
- how can he do that when we're at war?
- how will things get done if the President isn't in Washington?

Michael Moore made a huge deal out of this story in the opening of "Farenheit 9/11", where he played up the fact that President Bush was on "vacation" for 40 days in August right before 9/11.

They leave out the facts that would provide balance and context.

- Everyone's gone from Washington. The Supreme Court is out of session. Congress is out of session. Did they run a headline that said "535 Congressman go on 3 month vacation!" ? No, they just smear the President.

- When Congressmen leave Washington to go home and meet with their constituents in their district, do they call it a vacation? They work from their home and go out and meet people. Same with the President. He'll work from Texas and go out and conduct meetings in 10 states while he's on "vacation". Who says he has to work out of Washington all of the time, especially when no one else is there.

- The President is never on "vacation". He has National Security briefings every day. He has a guy following him around with the nuclear codes. He's "on" every day that he's supposedly on "vacation".

Can we give this ridiculous vacation story a rest this year.