Evolution, Bangs, and Astrology

"Experts" test the knowledge of Americans.

The ''Telegraph,'' a London newspaper, reports on the results of a 'test' given by the,

American Association for the Advancement of Science, [which] asked 2,200 people nine factual questions about physical and biological science.”

Fewer than half of the respondents - 48 per cent - are aware that humans evolved from earlier species of animals and just 39 percent answered correctly that "the universe began with a huge explosion".

Well, now, The "Theory of Evolution" is just that--a theory. That is to say, it is not a scientific law, which means it has not been proven. Therefore, "belief" in the theory is not scientific--it is faith. There is evidence of evolution; however, it is scant, with so many holes in its data, that one who is objective must view it with great skepticism, as scientists do whenever there is less than scientific proof.

Thus it was, until the recent past, when mathematicians and statisticians concluded that the number of random mutations required to evolve from primordial ooze to humans (excluding leftists, who are a lower form of life) would take billions of years longer than the longest estimates of the earth's age. In other words, scientific evidence exists to refute the idea that we are evolved from simple plants.

In addition, scientists have also concluded that inter-species evolution could not occur, according to the theories of evolutionists. That is because, for example, a sea creature becoming a land creature cannot occur with a simple genetic mutation: It would involve multiple, simultaneous mutations. Instead of gills and flippers, the animal would need lungs and nose and feet, and an articulated head, to search for predators and enable feeding of land creatures or plants, teeth, etc.

And, it would require simultaneous corresponding mutations by others of the species, in order to begin reproduction of the new species, unless the new characteristic is created by dominant genes. One characteristic changed by one example of an organism is insufficient to propagate the new species.

This is not to say that species do not evolve. Of course they do. But, slimy green pond scum does not eventually result in humans--not even Democrats.

As far as the earth beginning with "a great explosion," you may be aware of my theory, constructed just as is the Big Bang Theory, of supposition and conjecture, that the earth was created by several medium sized bangs. But, scientific confirmation is minimal in either case; and, as is the case with the Theory of Evolution, it simply does not address the "First Cause," a concept studied by theology students and freshmen in Philosophy 101.

Whatever I write here does not presuppose "Creationism." That, too, gets too far into details, without evidence. But, some form of intelligent creation is a far more scientific model than random mutations. An incredibly complex organism is not likely to have appeared by accident, or billions of accidents.

So, why the emphasis on Evolution as the source of humanity? It is part of the left-wing agenda to remove the concept of a Divine Creator from the vocabulary. The origin of a creator is as unknown or mysterious as the secular view of the origin of life--but, certainly, it is no more so than a belief purely in evolution, and random explosions, as the ultimate source of human life. Bangs require matter and energy. Evolution, and Big Bangs have no explanation for their origins.

So, why persist in a belief in the absurd based solely on faith? Because, leftists have no faith in the Divine, merely in the secular. They embrace Marx, or central planning in its many permutations, as a substitute deity. And Hegelian/Marxist social evolution cannot exist without species evolution. The parallel beliefs fall if species evolution is not the answer to human existence; because, the Marxian dialectic providing the inevitability of the progression, feudalism/capitalism/socialism/communism, falls if its model based in species evolution disintegrates.

It is interesting to note that the Marxian dialectic has failed spectacularly, even while our very administration clings to its tenets.

As far as the earth revolving about the sun, it has some significance, in the referenced test. Galileo, after developing the telescope, and devising the early scientific gathering of data, and drawing scientific conclusions, proved the theory of Copernicus, that the universe is not geocentric, as Aristotle and church theologians had long taught. In fact, it was the sun at the center of our solar system, about which earth revolved, resulting in seasons, due to the elliptical orbit and skewed earth's axis. What is stunning is that some people are completely unaware, but more so, that; over 40% of people believe in at least some validity to Astrological teachings. Astrology is based on the assumption of a geocentric universe, with the heavenly bodies, at the time of each birth, exerting influences on the person. However, the whole scheme was found to be ridiculous over 400 years ago, because its theoretical underpinnings were completely destroyed.

Prior to Galileo, observations of the heavens were made by naked eyes. In spite of clever devices to measure movements, such observations were very crude, and led to erroneous conclusions, interspersed with superstitions. So, the belief in Astrology as a significant influence on human development was thoroughly discredited by some of the earliest and most significant scientific developments in history.

Conclusion: Astrology is bunk, a fraud perpetrated on the gullible, and which is based on long discredited assumptions. Evolution is just a theory, with scant evidence, useful politically by leftists, who try to intimidate people by claiming it is "science." It will become a scientific law when the evolutionary theories can be proved, as in the Law of Gravity. [See Galileo, and I. Newton.] Until then, it deserves skepticism, if not ridicule.

Next, they will try to convince us that there is anthropomorphic catastrophic global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10640518/One-in-four-Americans-do-not-know-the-Earth-circles-the-Sun.html

~~Robert

Treason of the Times

The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and other publications, have come under severe criticism for disclosing secret information. The information published revealed details, accurately or inaccurately, about overseas programs which have uncovered details of currency transfers to terrorist organizations. Often, the media refer to such revelations as "leaking." Disclosing classified information is not "leaking," it is essentially spying on behalf of an enemy in a time of war. Disclosing classified information that has helped to find and apprehend terrorists and their supporters is "giving aid and comfort" to our enemies. Even the insufficient excuse that the public "needs to know" does not pertain; as, there is no illegality implied, and no compromise of privacy asserted. The sole justification is that the editorial staffs involved, by their own admissions, believe that no harm will result.

But, the editorial staffs have not been elected by anyone to make these decisions; we have a duly elected and re-elected Commander-in-Chief, who is the one person legally entitled to direct these intelligence gathering activities, as part of a multi-pronged attack on those sworn to destroy us.

The excuse asserted by the editors of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times is that the public has a "right to know," and that the editors have decided that disclosure will not harm our military personnel or our fight against terrorists. That claim is outrageous, as is their claim that the terrorists already knew what we were doing. Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, asserts in a defensive editorial that the program disclosed was common knowledge, and that it was a secret program that needed to be disclosed. The secret and effective program was referred to as "secret" several times in the New York Times article which infamously revealed the program. Therefore, the assertions that it was already known, and therefore could be disclosed without consequence, and that it was important to reveal, because it was unknown, and worthy of publication on the front page of the most influential paper in the nation, are self-contradictory in the extreme. In an unprecedented fashion, the executive editor of the New York Times has joined forces with the editor of the Los Angeles Times, Dean Baquet, to circle their editorial wagons for their common defense in the scandal. That is not a sign of strength; it is a sign of great weakness.

When the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA analyst, was “leaked,” and published, the hue and cry from the media was deafening, including the media discussed here. A special prosecutor was demanded, and appointed. He found no crime committed; and, is currently pursuing a charge of perjury in a case involving no other alleged wrongdoing. In fact, it was not an illegal “outing,” as the person in question was not and had not been a clandestine operative for over eight years. Indeed, her identity was by no means a secret, as she was well known in Washington circles. And no one was assisted in breaking the law by publication of her name, in reporting that she influenced the choice of her husband, to be sent on a “fact finding” mission. The mission had the ulterior motive of discrediting an administration which her husband passionately opposed. Yet, the two editors of two of the most influential newspapers in the United States of America assert that it is fine judgment on their parts to publish confidential information regarding details of our tactics in the war against terrorists.

The excuses, analyses, and subsequent interviews, as on Sunday's Face the Nation program, reveal upon careful consideration only the latest manifestation of media hubris, arrogance, and a sense of unbridled ability to publish whatever may promote partisan agendas and sell newspapers. The New York Times has evidently learned nothing from the recent scandals surrounding faked "news" at CBS News, NBC News, and the New York Times itself. Indeed, the present managing editor at the forefront of the current scandal has obtained his appointment to an esteemed position at the "Newspaper of Record" due to the disgrace and resignation of his predecessor, who was in charge when at least two reporters repeatedly published "news" stories which subsequently were found to be works of fiction. The one common denominator, in addition to editorial irresponsibility, has been the presence of the current publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., AKA “Pinch,” who inherited his position. His tenure is maintained through family ownership of a substantial interest in the stock of the Times. The results are predictable, following his known demonstrations of lack of intellectual ability, and his various comments defending the even more serious Times revelations of the successful secret NSA program.

It is clear that the agents of the United States government who passed the information to the newspaper reporters have committed treasonous acts, as common spies. They should be vigorously pursued and prosecuted. The editors and publishers may or may not have committed crimes; but, the seriousness of their reckless acts warrants a vigorous investigation and thorough prosecution.

The motto of the New York Times is, "All the news that's fit to print." Unfortunately, under the direction of the Publisher, "Pinch" Sulzberger, the news published in several notable recent instances is "All the news that's NOT fit to print."

Economic Bad News

The most obvious news cited by the doomsayers is the GM layoffs. Well, all of the commentators repeat the mantra that nobody wants GM cars, because they are no good. It reminds me of Yogi Berra's comment on a hot nightspot: "Nobody goes there anymore-it's too crowded!"

GM sells more cars than any other company. Unfortunately, next year it may very well be in second place. It is saddled with extremely high costs; as, labor laws and contracts constrain it from doing what the Japanese have done: build plants in the old south, where unions have less power, wages and taxes are lower, and people are grateful and enthusiastic to work. Thus, the bulk of Toyotas and Hondas sold here are assembled in the south; and, the cost of producing the cars is less. And the younger workers cost less in pensions and medical. As far as quality, if you read J.D.Powers, the quality differences are tiny, and the cars with the fewest problems are often a surprise. The competition is intense, and American companies have improved quality and efficiency greatly, in the last bunch of years.

Today, many cars with foreign nameplates are not only produced here, they are manufactured by American companies for overseas manufacturers, especially specialty vehicles such as SUVs. Some people would be greatly surprised to find that GM or Ford built their SUV, even though it says Honda, Nissan, or I believe, BMW. Still, G.M. is like all old, large, mature companies: even when it adapts to the current demands, the public does not perceive their offerings as "cool." Of course, since it is so difficult to stop a freight train, many times the offerings are not so cool. And worse, when the company adapts, it often hurts its popularity with their older customer base. So, sometimes, there is nothing that quite works. Note the problems with Kodak, Xerox, and IBM. They are not substandard; they are just not of this generation, and their costs are too high. Also note that, although we are seeing the "creative destruction" of some of our revered giants, their decline is more than offset by the new employers, many from overseas. Note that the successful foreigners design, develop, and often engineer their products right here in the good old US of A. That is often a major key to their successes.

The bottom line is that the major media distort the economic picture greatly, as you know. My favorite is Jeannine Aversa, of the AP. If unemployment drops, she unfailingly says something like, "Although unemployment has dropped by x%, there are still..." etc.

She makes a sunny day seem like the perfect storm.

Et tu, NewsMax?

Et tu, NewsMax? One expects left-wing spin from left wing media; but, we hope for more accuracy from NewsMax, "White House: Al Gore is a Hypocrite:"

"'If Al Gore is going to be the voice of the Democrats on national security matters, we welcome it,' White House press secretary Scott McClellan said in a swipe at the Democrat, who lost the 2000 election to Bush only after the Supreme Court intervened."

President Bush won the count, the re-count, and the second re-count. The Supreme Court of the United States referred the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for reconsideration, only after the Florida Court ruled for Al Gore's plea, to allow an extension of time to re-re-count in violation of explicit state law. Although Palm Beach County's second re-count was not completed in time for the certification, they continued to count, with the result that Al Gore would have lost in any event. Subsequent independent audited counts failed to find enough votes for Gore to win.

The only thing accomplished by the unwarranted re-counts, was to delay the initiation of hiring and organizing of President Bush's cabinet and advisors. Therefore, it had to be largely accomplished while he performed the duties of president, rather than in advance, as is the usual case.

It could be argued that, in conjunction with the deterioration of intelligence gathering and security operations in the Clinton administration, this delay in organization may have contributed to the inability to prevent the 9/11 attack.

.

Note that both the ABC News and the CBS News websites ran the same piece, without the appended misleading comment, "only after the Supreme Court intervened." The additional comment, reinforcing a common misconception, was apparently included in the original Associated Press dispatch.

Return of the Senate Judiciary

****** out of *****

Well, if you have not watched any of the Alito hearings, you have missed a great treat. Since it is run and re-run on C-SPAN, and will be run again, don't miss it! Or, go to C-SPAN, and play it back from their archives, on your computer. (Are not computers the greatest instrument of democracy since parchment?)

Re Judge Alito, "Where do we get such men?" And why are we unable to get more? Although quite different in personality, there is a great correspondence between Alito and Secretary Rumsfeld. That is, they are both able to suffer the fools with grace and wit, and high intelligence. I believe we may see a Democrat "leader' suffer a stroke in the next few days. The rise in blood pressure is so obvious that a sphygmomanometer is completely superfluous. Even the ever civil and charming Senator Feinstein visibly changed color, and had to determinedly restrain her impulse to scream and curse the judge, in the manner of her less civilized colleagues.

It is difficult to deal with a person so soft spoken, calm, and polite as Judge Alito, who insists on gently using facts and logic to quietly dismantle the straw men, tar babies, and Trojan Horses of the tense, perspiring inquisitors. Just infuriating!

Just imagine, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Should an intervention bring Associate Justice Kennedy back into the fold, we may have an orchestra here. If Associate Justice O'Connor retires, can Ginsberg-Stevens-Breyer be far behind? (Souter will continue to pop-up, as does a bad penny.)

While no one can accurately predict the future rulings of SCOTUS, it is a pleasure to note that some of the members consider the founding principles to be the mold that shapes their opinions.

Finally, I note with great enthusiasm, Judge Alito's testimony that he was greatly affected by the improper behavior of privileged people in the 1960's and 1970's; and, he developed an interest in Constitutional Law as a reaction to the activism of the Warren Court!

It is a fine day in January for our Republic. And, it is not so bad for conservatives.

Rated G.