Evolution: Is This Progress?

God of the Gaps? Good grief, no. I was merely pointing out that such concepts as "randomness" and "probability" are concepts that implicate events that are not causally determinate in any a priori sense. Sort of like friction in physics. Will heavier objects fall at the same rate as lighter ones? Yes, but only when certain ... um ... un-earthly conditions are present, such as a vacuum. Introduce pressurized air into the occasion, and lighter objects tend to fall slower than heavier objects. How much slower? Well, that in turn depends on many other factors, all of which need to be discovered through observation and measurement, and hopefully, can be reduced to some formula of predictability that, at base, is arbitrary, even if true. In reality, the mathematical precision of the laws of gravity gives way to the actual behavior of real objects in real life, and "friction" is a convenient scientific catch-all encompassing these all but infinite exceptions to the rule.

To put my original point another way, secular evolutionists appear to embrace non-causal or quasi-causal conceptions ("random" and "probability") they deem important, but will not admit other kinds of non-causal conceptions. And with rare exceptions, they do so without explaining why these other conceptions are refused a place at science's table. They simply declare, "Ad hominem." And when questioned further, they loudly reply, "Ad hominem!"

God is not in the gaps; oh no, not at all. The gaps are merely the limits of human understanding, and God is in the gaps, the non-gaps, and most importantly, in the humans who refuse to rest in ignorance and despair. At base, secular evolutionists seek comfort rather than truth, because if there is a God, then the world is most certainly a larger place than is contained within their philosophy. And in this, they are more like religious dogmatists than they are like free people created in the very image of God.

Posted by: Whitman via email.

Evolution: Is This Progress?

So, Whit, are you espousing some sort of God of the Gaps idea? I've often thought this was a particularly demeaning approach to including God in the scientific discussion. After all, part of scientific progress has been the gradual closing down of more and more places where God might be located, each time making Him appear like some Grapes of Wrath immigrant, uprooted again, tiredly loading His heavenly goods on a broken down truck, searching for some plot of earth that will sustain His own.

via email.

Evolution: Is This Progress?

Well, not if you are a secular evolutionist, aka an atheist, aka the mythological media creature known as a "scientist." A scientist in this sense somehow transcends the human, and lives in grand conceptual constructions where the merely human has no place. Unfortunately, the whole notion of "progress" is precisely human in content and import, and has no place in any theory of a true scientist – unless of course "progress" is defined as having one's theory published and peer-reviewed and extolled and admired by other scientists. Then the secular evolutionist's theory becomes more than true; it becomes Truth, a large edifice anchored in the granite rock of unexpressed metaphysics.

Except for the approbation of their peers, the secular evolutionists are particularly obsessed with keeping science free of anything remotely human. By and large they do so by erecting around their little garden massive walls of "randomness" and stout gates of "probability." Evolution's processes ultimately must be random, or measurable only in a probabilistic way. Anything less, and evolution might become teleological, and heaven forbid, might even point us towards some sort of theocratic presence. But what are "randomness" and "probability?" Well, whatever they are, I do not think they can be defined without reference to the important Enlightenment (and scientific) concept of determinate causality. They are, in essence, conceptual placeholders for things that happen for which we find no necessary causative precursor. Random events are effects that do not have causes, and probable events are effects whose precise causes are
unknown or indeterminate.

But on this view, randomness and probability are themselves outside of determinate causality, or at least NOT OF determinate causality. How then do such concepts differ from objective teleological concepts, artistic categories such as mystery and beauty, and in deed, theological concepts like divine intervention? But even if they differ from them (and I most assuredly think they do), why on earth do secular scientists think they necessarily exclude teleology, aesthetics, and theology?

Because that's how secular scientists define them in the first place. Or to put it another way, that's how secular scientists want them to function. Careful, Doctor, your metaphysical presence is showing.

Posted by: Whitman via email.

A Rude Awakening

It's early. Sipping my first cup of coffee, I look south-west out my 2nd floor window, and freeze. The short grass of the rolling hills of the pasture, framed by the tall trees hiding the far Pacific, seems normal except …

It's the bovines. They are crouched down in the grass, staring at me. Just the chance flick of a tail, the close-lipped motion of a single cud being chewed, else I would never have noticed. They mass for attack.

Trembling ever so slightly, I look down at Frederick, my dog, mostly Labrador, and give him the bad news. "Okay, here's the plan: you go out the front door, and meet the first wave. That will give me time to run out the back door and get help."

Frederick seems decidedly dubious. Just my luck: the one time I need a man, and all I have is a dog.

Posted by: Longfellow via email

Citizen Nanites

If you haven't heard yet, President Obama is not like other politicians in Washington. Unlike past administrations, he wants it to be clear that he will be meticulously monitoring government spending to eliminate waste, fraud, incompetence and personal or political agendas. On February 14, the Washington Times tells us: "As he prepared to sign the massive economic recovery spending bill President Obama ... [told the American people that] ... 'ultimately, this is your money, and you deserve to know where it's going and how it's spent,' [and promised] to help with the most ambitious spending scrutiny project the government has ever undertaken." And then again, as reported by FoxBusiness News on February 20, Mr. Obama warned the Mayors of America:"We have asked for the unprecedented trust of the American people to deal boldly with the greatest economic crisis we have seen in decades -- and the privilege of investing unprecedented amounts of their hard-earned money to address this crisis. With that comes an unprecedented obligation to do so wisely, free from politics and personal agendas. On this I will not compromise or tolerate any shortcut ... " But the problem, of course, is just how spending of this magnitude - let's repeat it again as it cannot be said enough, the stimulus is close to $1 trillion - just how spending of this magnitude can possibly be monitored to achieve such pristine and pure results as are desired by Mr. Obama. Not to mention the fact that neither Mr. Obama nor the Congress have enunciated any objectives precise enough to give direction to any such oversight. They have talked of spending "stimulus" that will be "stimulating" on "shovel-ready" projects, that will "save" the economy and those who are "most harmed" by the failure of capitalism, but these obviously fall far short of the precision needed. In actuality, the most concrete objective our governing class enunciated in all of their deliberations was that the spending needed to be "large." History apparently teaches us that FDR, our sainted 32nd President, committed the grievous error of not spending enough, and so the current crop of FDR wannabees began with a number in mind, $800 billion, and then proceeded to insert spending projects until that number was met or exceeded. To Washington, any spending will "stimulate" and it is only important that it be sufficiently LARGE enough to "jolt" the economy back into gear. Unfortunately, LARGE is not any more precise for oversight purposes than "stimulus," "stimulating" or "shovel-ready." Now it is the bane of the existence of the largest corporations in the world (who deal in billions and not hundreds of billions, much less trillions) to control such gargantuan spending as they do each year. It is actually a marvel of the capitalistic system that such large entities have developed ways to track and manage their spending in any meaningful way, but no victory against corporate bloat ever ends the war. Each month, each year, each decade produces re-newed bloat, inefficiencies, fraud, and sloth in the body corporate, and the company that forgets this is the company that ultimately will fail. But don't worry, President Obama has a plan to leverage the information age we live in to effectively monitor all this federal spending as no one has been able to do before him: he is introducing what I can only call citizen nanites into the blood-stream of the economy, to oversee and report to him the effectiveness of all this stimulus spending, right down to the smallest dollar spewed out of the body politic. That same Washington Times article noted above stated: "As he prepared to sign the massive economic recovery spending bill President Obama called Saturday for citizens to become watchdogs on where the $787 billion goes ... [and] ... called on 'every American' to use recovery.gov — a Web site that will be up and running once the money begins to be spent — to track where the money is being spent and to 'weigh in with comments and questions.' " What a concept. Thousands and thousands of citizen nanites, watching government spending at every level and reporting back in real time to President Obama, his staff and Congress, for immediate action as appropriate to save the stimulus package from waste, fraud and abuse. This grand vision provokes a thought-experiment. To be continued ... via email

Blood is Thicker Than Water

I note an interesting new phrase in the news. It came to my attention in the strange case of the refusal of the British government to allow one Geert Wilders to enter the country. Apparently, Mr. Wilders wanted to show a short documentary of his to select members of the House of Lords who had communicated their interest to him. A private showing of a privately produced documentary to willing British citizens was apparently too much for the Home Secretary, who was afraid of .... what? Insurrection? Out-breaks of murder and mayhem? Revolution? Well, maybe, but not likely. After all, these were members of the House of Lords, who have long since buried their warlike passions in a lethal combination of serial marriages between cousins, brandy, cigars and somnolence induced by general public indifference to them and their affairs. No, the Home Secretary was concerned about - and here is the new phrase - a "threat to public policy." Eh? I can see what a threat to public peace might be, or a threat to public order. These invoke images of real life people in a state of turmoil or chaos. But a threat to public policy? Here, I can only see a thin pale faced man with thick glasses and a pocket protector huffing and puffing as he attempts to rip a volume of drainage regulations in half. And behind him, the Home Secretary leading a fully armored SWAT team of British irregulars, racing to the rescue of home and hearth. Without going into the details of Mr. Wilders offense, which are, quite frankly, irrelevant to the whole affair, let's assume that his documentary was inflammatory. Isn't the description of this problem as a "threat to public policy" a rather blood-less way of putting it? And, in fact, a little googling informs me that the phrase originates in that most blood-less of nation-states, the European Union, wherein each member state is allowed the right to protect itself against "threats to public policy." I can see the zealots massing together now, under the imposing acronym PPCRPP: People for the Protection of Committee Reports and Position Papers. This wonkish approach to the world actually points us to the real reason for this unusual show of determination by the Home Secretary. Mr. Wilders and his film were opposed by British Muslims, and whatever you want to say about Muslims, they are not blood-less. And when the resolute force of real human passion meets the thin, watery drool of modern western culture, the result can only be unseemly capitulation. via email

No Harbingers Need Apply

The New York Post tells us that in Buffalo, New York, a man killed his wife due to the stress he was under from his failing business. Apparently, she was divorcing him, and we are to understand from the news report that it was his financial predicament that lead him to take a decided umbrage at her intentions, and he killed her. Now, this is just another dog bites man story. As a friend of the couple says in the story: "Murders are being committed in the US every day ... " As a result, the story garnered no real publicity outside of a few news gatherers, like The Buffalo News, the normally racy Post, and Newsday (the story comfortably ensconced on page 26). But there are a couple of more facts in the story that might tell us a little bit about the age we happen to find ourselves in. Number 1, the couple was Muslim; and number 2, the husband beheaded the wife. Beheaded her? I know (because the press and politicians tell me so) there is a veritable tsunami of domestic violence going on in this country (most of it is husband on wife, but there is also a rising tide of husband on daughter molestation, as well as just general stalking, rape and pedophilia by men in general. Wives just can't seem to satisfy their men anymore). But I have yet, among all the facts, half-truths, myths and outright muckraking on the issue, heard of a man deciding to behead whatever female he happens to be oppressing at the moment. People who are sick in the head do all manner of horrendous things; our culture is certainly no stranger to such aberrations. But the form of aberration that occurs can be a useful indication of the type of influences culture is subject to. Is it possible that beheading was used because the man was influenced by the example of Muslim jihadists? Well, of course it's possible, and really, very probable. Absent the jihadist example it seems all but certain that this man would have come up with a more traditional way to off his wife. In fact, this is a a man bites dog story, a startling new thing that might be an indication of terrible trends to come. Or not; we really don't know. But consistent with our age, no one notices, least of all the news media charged with the responsibility of informing the public about what is happening in their country. And so whether it is a sign of things to come will not be discovered until after the fact, if ever. Harbingers, alas, are no longer news. Sacco and Vanzetti, call your office. All is forgiven. via email (h/t Mark Steyn on The Corner).

Racist Stimulus Bill 2009

Nicely hidden in the Stimulus Bill of 2009 is the preparation for an all-out attack on the poor and minorities. Disguised as a macro-economic Keynesian stimulus, the Bill contains provisions which encourage States to expand their welfare rolls, as well as provisions to put welfare payments into the hands of able-bodied adults who have no dependent children, increased sums going to food stamps, the EITC, the refundable child credit, Medicaid eligibility standards, Pell grants, and Title I education grants (h/t Michael Franc on The Corner).

Now, there is hardly a true American who will not help a person who is down on his luck (as it used to be called). It is well documented that Americans are by far the most charitable people in the world, whether in giving money or their own time. But there is also nary an American who would think about helping a person in a way that would keep that person in his sorrowful condition forever. In today's psycho-speak, Americans prefer the "tough love" approach, a concept that fundamentally recognizes that there is something worse than being poverty stricken, homeless, or alcoholic, and that is to be robbed of ones personal dignity.

Against this view you have the Racist Stimulus Bill 2009. It is as immoral a piece of legislation as has come down the pike since slavery in the old south. Simply put: it seduces people to become wards of the State. And the people it seeks to seduce are the weakest, most downtrodden, most susceptible people in our society, the poor. And let's be honest, a large number of the poor are black.

To be sure, there will be many African-Americans who will resist the allure of welfare, no matter how much money the government throws at them. But it is a fact that if you pay more for people to go on welfare, you will have more people on welfare. And this effect will fall disproportionately on African-Americans.

Welfare is a drug, and Congress is a drug-pusher seeking to consign another generation of American citizens to single parent homes, crime and despair. And I will not even give Congress the credit that it has manifest "good intentions." Gross negligence in the service of gross immorality trumps all good intentions.

In truth, the Liberals are returning to their roots: their forerunners, the Wisconsin Progressives of the early 20th Century, were explicitly racist and promoted policies to "weed out" "genetic inferiors," aka African-Americans, in order to enhance their own privileged race. Congress continues this heinous tradition, but instead of weeding out blacks, it seeks to marginalize them into a dehumanized state of permanent dependency on government. This ever-expanding constituency will in turn create ever-expanding political power in Washington, which will then enhance the privilege of the new elite, the fat cat drug-pushers of Congress.

via email

Moderates on the Warpath: A Case Study

Is anything more emblematic of the utter vacuousness of moderate Republicans than the deal struck with the Democrat majority by the three "centrists" in the Senate?   With high dudgeon, Collins, Snowe and Specter announce they smacked the majority party around and got $100 billion trimmed from a nearly $1 trillion stimulus plan.  However, word has it that this hard-won victory of Republican moderates will be short-lived as the Senate-House conference committee eliminates these cuts in the reconciliation of the Senate and House bills.    But don't worry.  Steely-eyed, Senator Collins made it plain that if these cuts are re-instated, that she ... will not vote for the reconciliation package.   Democrats in both chambers thereupon began trembling in fear.  Or perhaps from barely controlled laughter; it's rather hard to tell from this distance.   via email

The Jobbed Bill 2009

Congressional Republicans recently published the following about how our current 7%+ (and rising) unemployment is distributed through the various sectors of the economy (thanks to Mark Hemingway of The Corner)::   Agriculture and related private wage and salary workers - 18.7% Construction - 18.2%     Leisure and hospitality - 11.5%   Manufacturing - 10.9%     Professional and business services - 10.4%     Nonagricultural private wage and salary workers (total) - 9.0%     Wholesale and retail trade - 8.7%     Transportation and utilities - 8.4%   Information - 7.4%     Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction - 7.0%   Self employed and unpaid family workers - 6.5%          Financial activities - 6.0%   Education and health services - 3.8%     Government workers - 3.0% So, given this, the vast bulk of employment relief in the Stimulus Bill goes to .... expanding government programs/jobs, where the rate of unemployment is as near zero as you can get?  "Of course," responds the Washington political class with a look of incredulity that we are even asking the question.   Here's wishing good luck to our friends working in the Agricultural and Construction sectors, who will continue to experience Great Depression levels of unemployment for years to come while Washington loudly celebrates its towering work in service of the people (using our money of course).   This is not a jobs bill, but a "we're being jobbed" bill.     via email