It’s sad to see so many people so earnestly attacking real science while defending Intelligent Design. I noticed that most of the defenders of ID use the terms “micro” and “macro” evolution. I get it, though I haven’t heard those terms used before or, if so, not so religiously by one side of the Great Divide. mjh

ABQjournal: Letters to the Editor

… Naturalistic, neo-Darwinian “evolution” theory has been utterly unable to explain the appearance of these life forms. So, nothing in macro-biological evolutionary science makes sense.

On the other hand, the genetic code found in all life forms is characterized by complex information sequences similar to our own language. Information is observed to be, uniquely, the product of intelligent agents? no exceptions. Therefore, we reason that an intelligent agent? God? Space aliens? Whoever?? must have designed and created life in all its forms. …
PAUL GAMMILL
Albuquerque

Because we haven’t explained it, we can’t ever? Thank god that perspective didn’t take hold before the Enlightenment (though the same people tried their darndest to hang onto the Dark Ages).

Genetic code is a language? So, is the author crediting god with all language, too? Or, as the creators of language, can we also create life?

NO exceptions or no known exceptions? ID proponents seem very quick to embrace endless ignorance.

Gammill seems to confuse the way he views the world with the way the world is. Common mistake among the arrogant.

The broader application proposes a world ruled by the blind forces of scientific laws, a world without intrinsic purpose or meaning. …

It is rather confusing when Christians maintain that there is no conflict between Darwin’s evolution and the Christian faith. Do these Christians affirm that chance and the blind forces of nature rule their world? Thinking Christians might well affirm the basic principles of evolutionary theory for individual species, but they obviously cannot rest with chance as an explanation for human existence and history. What is God’s role in this world? …
DAVID M. JOHNSON
Albuquerque

You see, these guys are even going to tell other Christians whether they’re good enough or not. Notice also, while evolutionists are called “arrogant” for refusing to allow for design, if a Christian were to allow that maybe the broadly accepted view of the last 100+ years has some truth in it — well, such a Christian can’t be a “thinking Christian”. These are your own kind judging you.

Read ‘n’ Believe
CREATIONISM does not need to be proved or disproved scientifically. Read Psalms 95 starting with verse 4: “In his hand are the deep places of the earth. …” It has been written down for many generations. All we need to do is read and believe.
CHARLENE EICHEL
Albuquerque

Finally, a sincere believer who doesn’t hide his vestments under a labcoat. Bless you, CE.

[W]hat right does a small group of people have to impose their ideology on the rest of society? Another consideration is that the objectivity of science is always compromised when a philosophical preference is imposed on the data. I think these questions would stimulate a lot of healthy discussion in a classroom. …

Since the discovery was made early in the last century that the universe is expanding, are we not all design advocates of a sort? What alternative is there? Moreover, we now know that the universe is remarkably fine-tuned to allow life to exist. Shouldn’t these topics be open for discussion in a classroom?
MIKE KENT
Albuquerque

You might think a guy asking about a small group of people imposing their ideology on the rest of us to be a evolutionist describing IDers. Perhaps MK is just trying to fascilitate the discussion.

EVOLUTION? INTELLIGENT design? What’s the difference? Both sides have more faith than evidence. …

The greatest difference is in their agendas. Evolutionists want to abolish all moral and civil laws based on religious conviction. Religious fundamentalists want to destroy personal freedom for all but the ruling minority. Neither side allows any middle ground between anarchy and feudalism. Ironically, if either side were to succeed in pushing their agenda to its logical conclusion, the end result would be exactly the same.

The big loser is the public school system. By failing to teach moral philosophy based on anything at all, the teachers backed themselves into a corner from which there is no escape. The ruled masses will probably never know the difference.
JERRY BOCK
Albuquerque

Jerry, to see how these “agendas” differ, compare the scientific advances of the last few hundred years with the Dark Ages. The results are NOT exactly the same.

As one of the ruled masses, I have indeed noticed a significant difference in America in the last 10 years. As the Republicans have more power, everything gets uglier.

JB pretends to be a middle-of-the-roader, but he believes evolutionists would abolish moral and civil laws. I think we see which side he’s on.

What are they afraid of?… They have no answer for this, nor will they ever have one as long as they deny the existence of the first cause who has always existed. This first cause we call God is the intelligent design, the Creator who caused the universe and all life itself to come into being, and who set and guided the evolutionary process into motion. …
JOHN R. KOLLER
Albuquerque

John, I’m afraid of the narrow-minded bullies that have taken over the Republican Party and America.

Note that the more deceptive IDers say it isn’t about “god” or Christianity. But time and time again we see the truth behind their lies. mjh

Fixing the Gaps

SIR ISAAC NEWTON, one of the foremost names in the history of science, was a proponent of something like intelligent design for reasons similar to those we’re hearing by the Rio Rancho school board. But the subsequent history gives little consolation to those who would bring intelligent design into our classrooms.

Newton understood that his theory of gravitation explained the orbits of the planets around the sun, but he was aware of “gaps” in his theory. The orbits of Saturn and Jupiter were not as predicted. … Newton concluded that God, who had created matter and the laws of nature in the first place, made corrections from time to time as needed.

This is similar to the logic of those who believe that gaps in scientific knowledge may only be filled, in some instances, by accepting the presence of a transcendent designer.

Subsequent scientists and mathematicians were able to fill some of the gaps with improved methods and showed that the solar system was a stable, self-correcting system. The precision we admire in space exploration would not be possible in a culture that stopped with Newton’s answer to the gaps. …
DAN MATTHEWS
Albuquerque

Been Here Before

PERHAPS THE Rio Rancho school board does not realize that currently there is no scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, just as there was no alternative to Newtonian physics in 1900.

Although the Michelson and Morley studies had performed some very disturbing experiments in the 1880s, the problem they discovered was not resolved until Albert Einstein published his special theory of relativity in 1905.

I very much doubt that any of this drama was covered in high school classes at the turn of the 20th century. Nor would it have been very useful to science students of the time except as a philosophical reminder that nothing in science is absolute.

If the Rio Rancho school board actually intends to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution in their science classes, they are doing a profound injustice to their students and wasting valuable time.

In addition, if done honestly, subjecting religious beliefs such as intelligent design to the empirical approaches of science will generate a great deal of angst among the faithful and turn the science class into a philosophical squabble. All this has been done by David Hume and others during the 18th century and it was not considered science then.
W. CURTIS HINES
Albuquerque

Darwins Caveat

NOT ONLY DID Paul Veers’ commentary, “Intelligent Design Evidence Ignored,” fail to present any evidence for intelligent design, it misrepresented biological evolution.

The commentary stated: “They therefore have no need to examine contrary evidence; just keep on the blinders and stick to the religiously held belief in the all-sufficient power of Darwinian natural selection to produce all the complex elements of life we see.”

It’s bad enough the commentary complains of “attacks against intelligent design” while offering no evidence of it [mjh: this is a standard tactic of the Radical Right], but the false claim about natural selection is unacceptable, … is completely bogus? as well as a cheap shot at scientists around the planet.

Please pass along the following quote from Charles Darwin (“The Origin of Species,” 1872, page 421):

“But as my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position? namely, at the close of the introduction? the following words: ‘I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification.’ This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.”

Darwin was right about a lot of things, but it looks like he was wrong about the power of steady misrepresentation not lasting long. It’s still working over 125 years later. …
BOB WARD
Albuquerque

The conclusion that we don’t know how something works and therefore it must be the hand of God represents a fundamental corruption of the scientific method. As Americans, it is our civic duty to keep a minority viewpoint like the concept of intelligent design from destroying our culture and our leading role in the global scientific community.
TIM F. WAWRZYNIEC
Albuquerque

Alan Dershowitz: Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist – Yahoo! News

Rehnquist’s judicial philosophy was result-oriented, activist, and authoritarian. He sometimes moderated his views for prudential or pragmatic reasons, but his vote could almost always be predicted based on who the parties were, not what the legal issues happened to be. He generally opposed the rights of gays, women, blacks, aliens, and religious minorities. He was a friend of corporations, polluters, right wing Republicans, religious fundamentalists, homophobes, and other bigots.

[Thanks, Jas.]

news > Mondo Washington by James Ridgeway” href=”http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0536,ridgewayweb,67412,2.html”>village voice > news > Mondo Washington by James Ridgeway

In this hurricane, the one government agency on the ball is the Coast Guard, a highly decentralized agency now stuck within the Homeland Security maze. With only 40 aircraft, it pulled off over 1,000 rescues yesterday. …

Diverted from its original function of maritime safety to such tasks as the war on drugs and lately the war on terror, the Coast Guard has shined. Remember, it was the Coast Guard commander in New York who organized one of the most extraordinary operations maritime rescues since Dunkirk on 9-11, pulling together ferries,tugs, yachts, and all sorts of other boats to evacuate half a million people from downtown New York. ?I have long thought the Coast Guard was a good model of how you can have devolution within the federal government,? said Sam Smith, editor of the online daily Progressive Review and himself a former operations officer on a cutter. ?The National Park Service has something of the same quality. Interestingly, they are two of the best regarded federal agencies.?

HoustonChronicle.com – Some say natural catastrophe was ‘divine judgment’

“In my belief, God judged New Orleans for the sin of shedding innocent blood through abortion,” said Steve Lefemine, [of] Columbia Christians for Life. …

“We take no joy in the death of innocent people,” said Michael Marcavage, who was an intern in the Clinton White House in 1999 and now runs Repent America, an evangelistic organization.

“But we believe that God is in control of the weather,” he said. “The day Bourbon Street and the French Quarter was flooded was the day that 125,000 homosexuals were going to be celebrating sin in the streets. We’re calling it an act of God.” …

“It is almost certain that this is a wind of torment and evil that Allah has sent to this American empire,” a Kuwaiti official, Muhammad Yousef Mlaifi, wrote Wednesday in the Arabic daily Al-Siyassa under the headline “The Terrorist Katrina is One of the Soldiers of Allah … “

Perhaps god was after Pat Robertson, the anti-christian. mjh

Media Matters by Jamison Foser
News outlets downplay Bush administration’s failure to prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina

So when Bush told ABC’s Diane Sawyer during an exclusive interview (video here) that nobody could have “anticipated the breach of the levees,” surely she challenged him on his claim? Surely she said, “Wait a minute, Mr. President: the Army Corps of Engineers wanted more money to prevent exactly that. They must have anticipated something. The New Orleans Times-Picayune concluded yesterday that ‘No one can say they didn’t see it coming.’ A former Republican congressman who headed the Corps of Engineers in your own administration lost his job after he publicly criticized your efforts to cut the Corps’ budget. How can you say nobody saw this coming?”

But instead, Sawyer simply moved on to her next question….

—

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Bush team tries to pin blame on local officials

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday September 5, 2005
The Guardian

Bush administration officials yesterday blamed state and local officials for the delays in bringing relief to New Orleans, as the president struggled to fend off the most serious political crisis of his presidency.

His top officials continued to be pilloried on television talk shows by liberals and conservatives alike, but the White House began to show signs of an evolving strategy to prevent the relief fiasco from eclipsing the president’s second term. …

Mr Bush was castigated for saying on Wednesday: “I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees”. It was pointed out that there had been a string of investigations and reports in recent years which had predicted the disaster almost exactly.

Nevertheless, administration officials stuck to the line yesterday. In a string of television interviews, Michael Chertoff, the head of the homeland security department, called the situation an “ultra-catastrophe”, as if the hurricane and flood were unrelated events. “That ‘perfect storm’ of a combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody’s foresight,” he said. …

The depth of America’s polarisation could prove a bulwark preventing Mr Bush’s political support from collapsing altogether. A poll by the Washington Post and ABC News on Friday night, showed that, of those questioned, 46% approved of the way the president had handled the relief efforts while 47% disapproved.

—

In Disaster’s Aftermath, the Buck Stops at the President’s Desk – Los Angeles Times

The really scary thing is that few potential threats have been anticipated or studied as extensively as a devastating New Orleans flood. Last week, Bush said, “I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.” But a chorus of experts warned for years that storm surges after a hurricane could overflow the levees, and produce the same result as the actual breach that occurred: disastrous flooding in the city.

In 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency identified a major New Orleans flood as one of the three most likely catastrophic disasters threatening the nation. The New Orleans Times-Picayune detailed the risks in a comprehensive investigative series in 2002. Last summer, Louisiana State University Hurricane Center participated in the “Hurricane Pam Exercise” — a Category 3 simulation — and concluded that more than a million residents would be forced to evacuate, and that as many as 300,000 others would be trapped in the city.

Beyond these prior warnings, Katrina, of course, was tracked for days before it hit the Gulf Coast [mjh: Katrina’s path predicted by science (not religion)]. If the local, state and federal governments were unprepared to fully cope with a disaster that had been so widely discussed and examined, and which announced its arrival so far in advance, it seems not only prudent but urgent to ask how ready we are to cope with another major terrorist strike. Presumably Al Qaeda won’t provide as much advance warning as Katrina.

—

t r u t h o u t – Paul Krugman | A Can’t-Do Government

Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans. “The New Orleans hurricane scenario,” The Houston Chronicle wrote in December 2001, “may be the deadliest of all.” It described a potential catastrophe very much like the one now happening.

So why were New Orleans and the nation so unprepared? After 9/11, hard questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried under a thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability. …

After 2003 the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work, including work on sinking levees. “The corps,” an Editor and Publisher article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, “never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security – coming at the same time as federal tax cuts – was the reason for the strain.”

In 2002 the corps’ chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being fired, after he criticized the administration’s proposed cuts in the corps’ budget, including flood-control spending.

Third question: Did the Bush administration destroy FEMA’s effectiveness? The administration has, by all accounts, treated the emergency management agency like an unwanted stepchild, leading to a mass exodus of experienced professionals.

Last year James Lee Witt, who won bipartisan praise for his leadership of the agency during the Clinton years, said at a Congressional hearing: “I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared.” …

Yesterday Mr. Bush made an utterly fantastic claim: that nobody expected the breach of the levees. In fact, there had been repeated warnings about exactly that risk.

—

t r u t h o u t – Molly Ivins | Why New Orleans Is in Deep Water

This is a column for everyone in the path of Hurricane Katrina who ever said, “I’m sorry, I’m just not interested in politics,” or, “There’s nothing I can do about it,” or, “Eh, they’re all crooks anyway.” …

But in addition to long-range consequences of long-term policies like letting the Corps of Engineers try to build a better river than God, there are real short-term consequences, as well. It is a fact that the Clinton administration set some tough policies on wetlands, and it is a fact that the Bush administration repealed those policies – ordering federal agencies to stop protecting as many as 20 million acres of wetlands.

Last year, four environmental groups cooperated on a joint report showing the Bush administration’s policies had allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands.

Does this mean we should blame President Bush for the fact that New Orleans is underwater? No, but it means we can blame Bush when a Category 3 or Category 2 hurricane puts New Orleans under. At this point, it is a matter of making a bad situation worse, of failing to observe the First Rule of Holes (when you’re in one, stop digging).

Had a storm the size of Katrina just had the grace to hold off for a while, it’s quite likely no one would even remember what the Bush administration did two months ago. The national press corps has the attention span of a gnat, and trying to get anyone in Washington to remember longer than a year ago is like asking them what happened in Iznik, Turkey, in A.D. 325.

Just plain political bad luck that, in June, Bush took his little ax and chopped $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. As was reported in New Orleans CityBusiness at the time, that meant “major hurricane and flood projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.” …

This, friends, is why we need to pay attention to government policies, not political personalities, and to know whereon we vote. It is about our lives.

—

The New Yorker: The Talk of the Town

THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER WATER