Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category
South Bend, Indiana: Kill children, not dogs
Friday, November 20th, 2009
In South Bend, a stoned driver who killed two little girls gets ten days in jail:
St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Richard McCormick sentenced 56-year-old Leroy Hoover to 60 days in jail Thursday with 50 days suspended.
I guess McCormick couldn’t bear to see Hoover spend the whole 60 days in the slammer. Ten days isn’t a sentence, it’s an endorsement. There’s probably some reason that McCormick and Hoover shouldn’t spend the rest of their lives sharing a cell, but I don’t know what it would be.
In other news from South Bend, residents are outraged that a burglar shot and killed a dog that was suffering from bone cancer:
Gina Oliver created one of the reward funds after reading about the disturbing crime. She says the robbers “crossed a line that no one should ever cross.”
I sympathize with the dog’s owner, Dan Warner; I’ve experienced the shock of a beloved pet’s sudden and unexpected death. But on a scale of “disturbing” crimes deserving of outrage, on the list of lines that “no one should ever cross”, killing children really should rank higher than killing a dog.
Maybe not in South Bend.
Posted in Culture | No Comments »
Obamanation: The Nobel joke
Friday, October 9th, 2009
Ya gotta love those crazy Norwegians! An amateur statesman who has accomplished precisely nothing gets the Nobel Peace Prize. But before we start taking this silliness too seriously, let’s look at the real reasons. This won’t take long. The prize serves two obvious purposes, one backward-facing and one forward-facing:
Giving this prize to a ten-month U.S. President who has done nothing to earn it serves as a repudiation of his predecessor. There being no Nobel War Prize to give to Bush, they did the next best thing and gave the “Peace” prize to Obama.
Giving this prize to America’s first true socialist President serves as a repudiation of capitalism. If it weren’t for the first point, they may have given it to Propagandist Mikey Moore instead.
That’s it. The prize serves no other purpose. Well, no, it does serve an unintended purpose: It provides stark evidence of how politicized and corrupt the whole Nobel Prize industry has become. There were candidates who actually deserved to win the Prize and could have used the money to further real work, not just raw political ambition.
Posted in Culture, Politics | No Comments »
Why do they call me an IDiot?
Monday, August 17th, 2009
I’ve been having a lively discussion on a “science blog” (“Dispatches from the culture wars“) about Intelligent Design (ID) and the nature of Darwinism. In the discussion, I noticed a new term, “IDiot”. The term is used to imply that anyone who defends ID is an idiot. This is fairly typical of a large segment of people who continue to defend Darwin. I suppose those who persisted in defending a flat Earth in the face of mounting evidence of the planet’s roundness had a similarly snarky attitude and for the same reason. (To be fair, no one in the discussion referred to me specifically as an IDiot.)
Anyway, in the discussion, I mentioned a brief filed in the case of Edwards v. Aquillard in which the Supreme Court ordered (correctly, in my opinion) that Biblical Creationism could not be taught alongside evolution in public schools. Despite what both the Darwinists and Creation Scientists would like you to believe, ID is not stealth creationism. It’s a valid scientific hypothesis that continues to gain traction in the secular scientific community despite decidedly non-scientific attempts to suppress it.
One of those in the debate asked me “of all the cases you could’ve brought up, why in the Intelligent Designer’s name did you pick Edwards v. Aguillard?” I replied that I brought it up because there is something much greater than specific biological questions at stake. According to the brief,
Science is devoted to formulating and testing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. It is a process for systematically collecting and recording data about the physical world, then categorizing and studying the collected data in an effort to infer the principles of nature that best explain the observed phenomena. Science is not equipped to evaluate supernatural explanations for our observations….
Science seeks only naturalistic explanations. Sounds reasonable, but it isn’t. The a priori assumption is that a naturalistic explanation exists for every natural phenomenon (i.e. observed event in the “physical world”). If evidence points to a supernatural cause, science won’t bow out of the investigation but will continue to pursue (and promote) a naturalistic one – whether one exists or not. (The state of modern science is such that any crummy naturalistic explanation is better than admitting the possibility of a supernatural one.)
Now you might claim that these scientists just made a simple statement of fact because “natural” (phenomena) is identical in meaning to “naturalistic” (explanations). If that were the case, however, the statement would be tacitly acknowledging the possibility of non-natural phenomena that might also be observed in the physical world (otherwise, why qualify it?). The original statement could then be recast as something like “science looks for naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena but does not look for non-naturalistic explanations for non-natural phenomena”.
But that would introduce the fundamental problem of categorization – how could science, without determining all of their causes, possibly separate the non-natural phenomena from the natural ones and study only those? The inability to categorize the observed phenomena would leave science with no legitimate areas of inquiry. That position would obviously be untenable, so the signatories to this brief did the best they could; they punted.
More specifically, they created the (possibly false) impression that any phenomenon that occurs in the physical world is both “natural” and subject to a “naturalistic explanation”. But there’s that sneaky a priori assumption again – based only on philosophy, not science. The assumption is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. And it’s not falsifiable because science specifically declares that any effort to falsify it is outside the bounds of science! Neat.
The brief also claims that “without passing judgment on the truth or falsity of supernatural explanations, science leaves their consideration to the domain of religious faith.” But of course it doesn’t. Whether it’s rooted in petulant hatred of God and his followers (atheist stooge Richard Dawkins) or simple hubris, many scientists do indeed pass such judgments. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of epistemology (the philosophical study of what knowledge is and how we get it) knows that there are ways of knowing other than the scientific method (and a seriously compromised one at that). When scientists become amateur philosophers and operate on the ridiculous assumption that theirs is the only way of knowing, their credibility suffers.
There’s a reason the public does not trust science as it once did. Arrogant scientists will look outward and blame it on public stupidity, Walmart, and talk radio. Smart scientists will look inward to see if they’ve overstepped their bounds, particularly their own. Science has been defined by a majority of its practitioners (by no means unanimously) as an endeavor that by definition must always reject ID and must always support a naturalistic explanation even if it is repeatedly shown to be fatally flawed and barely credible.
Why would anyone – whether they have confidence in other ways of knowing or not – trust such an enterprise?
Posted in Culture, science | No Comments »
A toxic orthodoxy
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009
The title of this post is my own; I doubt my “guest” here would agree with it. But I think that threats of retaliation and un-Biblical litmus tests do indeed suggest some level of toxicity. I have previously written about ill effects of dogmatic insistence on a young Earth and a literal six day creation. In a recent commentary on Moody Radio, Bryan Litfin, Associate Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute, identified some others. With his permission, I have reproduced his remarks below.
Misplaced Priorities
by Bryan Litfin
I had a disturbing experience recently when I was interviewed on Moody radio about the viewpoint held by some Christians called “progressive creationism.” I’ll explain what that is in a moment, but my goal isn’t to rehash that topic today. It was the response from listeners that disturbed me, and that’s what I want to focus on. I think it’s an example of misplaced priorities when it comes to the Bible’s emphasis.
Basically, progressive creationism argues that God created the universe over billions of years. This is not the same as Darwin’s evolution, because progressive creationists do not hold that man descended from other hominid species. They say God directly created certain species, including man, over billions of years. It’s an old-earth view of creationism. In this way, God’s Word and the scientific record can be reconciled. Again, my point here isn’t to revisit that topic.
It was the response from listeners that disturbed me. When I said on the radio that progressive creationism is an acceptable Christian view, and indeed one I find plausible, some listeners responded negatively. They wrote letters to me and to Moody vehemently disagreeing. That of course is fine; there’s nothing wrong with theological debate. But there were accusations flying as well, including the suggestion that certain creationist viewpoints must be a litmus test for teaching at Moody. There were threats about withholding donations, or not sending students to Moody, and even accusations of infidelity to God’s Word. Though I didn’t feel personally threatened by all this, I was bothered by the lack of discernment I was hearing. I thought, “Is this what we’ve come to in the American church today? Have we been so deluded to let a side issue become the centerpiece?”
The Bible doesn’t make a big issue of the age of the earth. Man has done that. Scripture emphasizes God as Creator, absolutely. But the specific “how” isn’t something that reverberates throughout the Bible. Defending six-day creationism is not the lynchpin of faithful Christianity. Nor is belief in evolution the root of all evil in the world. What science textbooks teach about human origins in the public schools is not a make or break issue for us.
We as believers have got to let creationism assume its proper place in our list of priorities. Sure, it’s an issue for debate among Christians. But when it comes to the unbelieving world, it’s time to stop attacking science as some massive demonic conspiracy, and stop attacking scientists as godless reprobates. Instead, it’s time for Christians to embrace the scientific enterprise, and engage unsaved scientists in serious debate and charitable apologetics.
Perhaps most importantly, we’ve got to start spending our dollars wisely. There’s only so much money to go around. We live in a world full of massive human need and suffering. Should we here in America become obsessed with our own culture wars at the expense of such need? When children are literally starving to death, and widows are oppressed by thugs, and orphans multiply daily, and young girls are forced into prostitution, day after day after day – do we really need a museum with animated dinosaurs and displays about Noah’s flood? Seriously – where do you think Jesus would spend his time? As for me, I have a hunch it would be with the poor and the oppressed.
For Moody Radio, I’m Bryan Litfin.
Professor Litfin is the author of Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction.
Posted in Christianity, Culture, Personal | No Comments »
Politics: Having your cake and eating it too
Sunday, March 29th, 2009
Disclaimer: I occasionally smoke a hand-made imported cigar. I quit cigarettes 27 years ago and have never chewed.
“Having your cake and eating too” could apply to much of what’s going on in Washington these days – Senator Chris Dodd handing his AIG buddies millions of dollars in bonuses then criticizing them for taking the money, Obama promising not to force the burden of our economic mistakes on future generations while creating the largest and fastest-growing deficits in the history of Earth, and so on.
But I’m particularly amused by the reasoning of those who raise taxes on tobacco. Inevitably, these geniuses manage to do something I cannot – believe that both A and not A are true at the same time. I suppose this irrational ability is a consequence of the post-modernist belief that truth is relative:
Rational Person: “Is truth absolute?”
Post-Modernist: “There are no absolute truths.”
R P: “Really? none?”
P-M: “True. Absolutely none.”
According to the story cited above, the reason for raising the federal tax on cigarettes from $.39 to $1.01 is “to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children”. Rooting for the increase is the president of the American Heart Association:
The tax increase “is a terrific public health move by the federal government,” he said. “Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down.”
Wow! 33 billion bucks to spend on children and improved health for smokers who are forced to quit or cut back! Who wouldn’t want that? But there’s a more realistic question – which one do you want? Someone needs to explain to liberals that they can have one or the other, but not both. Either smokers keep smoking and keep coughing up the taxes (so to speak) to pay for children’s health insurance, or they cut way back, get healthier, and leave no one to pay for the insurance.
But liberals, the poster children for irrational public policy, obviously believe that cigarette smokers will simultaneously pay and not pay the tax; they will both smoke and not smoke.
And, of course, there’s another hallmark of liberalism here, hypocrisy:
Some policy analysts have questioned the wisdom of boosting tobacco taxes to finance health care for children. They argue that the fate of such a broad program should not depend on revenues derived from a minority of the adult population, many of whom have low incomes and are hooked on a habit.
There you have it, pure post-modern liberalism at its best.
Posted in Culture, Politics | 2 Comments »
Real must-see TV: Energy independence
Monday, October 6th, 2008
If you want to know why we need to reduce our dependence on all oil (not just imports), watch these videoo. If you want to know how to do it, watch these videos. If you want to see through the phony plans of McBama, OCain, T. Boone Pickens, Al Gore, and everyone else who is trying to get rich, elected, or both, watch these videos.
The first video is on the C-SPAN site here. It features Anne Korin of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, who suggests that the way to achieve energy independence is to make ourselves independent of all sources of oil. How? By depriving it of its strategic value. Ms. Korin has a compelling story and a detailed plan for getting us where she believes we need to go. The video is a bit over an hour long with Q&A. The talk itself is about a half-hour of very useful and relevant information but the Q&A is just as informative.
The second video, filmed by alternativeenergy.com is on YouTube here; it is a short (about nine minutes) summary of Ms. Korin’s views.
After you’ve seen one (or both) of the videos, read the related OpEd piece that was published in the Washington Post.
Posted in Culture, Politics | No Comments »
The Republicans’ Jimmy Carter
Monday, September 29th, 2008
George W. Bush is on the verge of limping out of the White House as ignominiously as Jimmy Carter did – reviled, mocked, and bewildered. If his catastrophic 700 billion dollar giveaway gets through Congress, “W” – along with his liberal allies in Congress – will forever be remembered as the President who sold out America.
There’s no need to go over all the bad ideas rolled into this monumental transfer of public wealth to private coffers. Plenty of commentators have turned over the rocks to expose the dirty little creatures scurrying around beneath. I want to focus on Bush’s betrayal of his constituency and his country.
The Great Betrayer of Conservatism
For all his empty talk about the free market, Bush is revealing himself to be a statist who wants to manage the economy for the benefit of the wealthy. It is ironic that real conservatives are often falsely accused of promoting the American plutocracy, but it is Bush, the phony “compassionate conservative”, who is actually trying to deliver the goods. Unlike real conservatives, Bush likes the upside of free markets, but lacks the courage and conviction to accept the downside.
The premise of deregulation is that the market will be a better watchdog over financial institutions than government bureaucrats. The market has spoken. Fanny and Freddy, WaMu and Wachovia, AIG and Lehmann have been disastrously mismanaged and the market has put an end to their follies. But Bush can’t bear to let the market act when it rightly punishes incompetence. To him and his ilk, the”free” in “free market” means only the freedom to succeed; it does not include the freedom to fail. Bush wants to sacrifice America to protect members of his class from failure.
(Of course, the Pelosis and Reids of the world – along with plenty of compliant Republicans – bear much of the blame by encouraging radical organizations like Acorn to push banks into making loans that no sane underwriter would allow.)
The Great Betrayer of America
At a time when left-wing radicals like Al Franken and moveon.org are making an all-out push to oust Republicans from government once and for all (as if they presented an ideological threat to their socialist dreams), Bush is trying to hand them their favorite weapon – class hatred.
In order to seize power, the radical left requires a deep-seated belief that life in America is a zero-sum game. If the rich grow richer, the poor must become poorer. Their entire political life depends on the notion that the only way “working families” can succeed is for the government to take money away from the “rich” and give it to the people who really “deserve” it – people who vote for them.
Liberals will never admit that it is capital – not government – that creates jobs, credit, and opportunities. They will never admit that the whole pie can grow and everyone’s own little slice with it. And they are committed to keeping America ignorant of those simple facts.
Bush has created a new and powerful “Main Street v. Wall Street” class war. He seems determined to prove to the American people that (a) wealthy financiers need to be protected from financial loss, and (b) only government spending can “solve” the problem. This war plays directly into the hands of liberals on both sides of the aisle (especially in the Senate) who hate democracy and hate the limits the Constitution places on their power.
Is there any hope? Not much. Even if sanity prevails and the bailout is somehow averted, Bush will turn over the White House to either McBama or OCain. The Republicans and Democrats will continue to look after their own interests. A return to such archaic ideas as liberty and fiscal sanity would require the American voters to do something they haven’t done in decades. Voters would have to look beyond their own sense of entitlement and the “journalists” who pander to it, and make some tough, responsible decisions.
That seems unlikely. Sadly, John Kennedy’s stirring admonition to ask what we can do for our country has become just another sound bite to be ignored along with the Republican and Democrat candidates’ empty promises.
Posted in Culture, Politics | No Comments »