Oops

Guest blogger “Ross” over at Andrew Sullivan’s place is a little confused in his critique of Michael Ledeen’s optimism about democracy in Iran:

…I’d be more convinced that “a bit of guidance in the methods of non-violent resistance, a bit of communications gear, and many words of encouragement” will bring down the mullahs in Iran if there were a single example of a successful democratic revolution anywhere in the Arab world that Ledeen could cite.

This might be a salient question if we were discussing an Arab country, but Iran is Persian. And in fact most polls I’ve seen indicate that in a free election, it’s likely that a democratic Iranian government would be pro-west and pro-America. The generation that’s grown up over the past quarter century of mullahcracy has had its fill.

Cannibalism

I’m always a little disconcerted by holiday products that are food in the form of sentient creatures.

When a child, I loved getting chocolate Easter bunnies, not because I believed in the resurrection, or because I loved bunnies (I don’t mind them, but I find cats preferable as pets) but because I love chocolate. But I was always put off a little by the fact that I had to eat a bunny. And a helpless bunny at that, one that, by virtue (if that’s the right word…) of being composed purely of sugar and cocoa and various fats, but no proteins or muscle tissue, was in no position to defend itself, and was entirely prostrate to my gustatory whims.

Now comes Christmas, and Patricia has put a chocolate Santa in my stocking. And not just any chocolate Santa, but knowing my weakness (hers is dark chocolate), a milk chocolate Santa.

So what do I do? It’s not bad enough that I eat it, but lest I consume the foil wrapping, thus making my teeth and fillings vulnerable to powerful local radio stations and the mind-control beams of the incompetent CIA (whose incompetence extends to the possibility of scrambling my brain, but probably not leaving it uncorrupted by their brain-death beams), I had to strip the foil down from it prior to consuming it and its precious life-giving constituents. Kind of like stripping down a cadaver before consuming it, lest one get the threads of the clothing of the helpless victim caught in one’s incisors.

(Ummmmm…….braaaiinnnsss)

Anyway, my choice was to put it out of its misery immediately, by biting off its head. Then, the rest of the body can lie painless and dormant as I consume the remainder over the next few days.

So, am I sick, or should I start a rock band?

Why I Don’t Link To Some Worthy Posts

Like, for example, this one by the appropriately named A. E. Brain.

When I see that the blogfather has linked to someone, I assume that it needs no further linking, unless I (rarely) have some unique words of wisdom to append to it.

Is that right? Are there really readers of this website who don’t also read Instapundit? If so, then perhaps I should reconsider my position, but my preference is to point out things that people won’t read elsewhere, for parsimony of my efforts, if for no other reason.

Why I Don’t Link To Some Worthy Posts

Like, for example, this one by the appropriately named A. E. Brain.

When I see that the blogfather has linked to someone, I assume that it needs no further linking, unless I (rarely) have some unique words of wisdom to append to it.

Is that right? Are there really readers of this website who don’t also read Instapundit? If so, then perhaps I should reconsider my position, but my preference is to point out things that people won’t read elsewhere, for parsimony of my efforts, if for no other reason.

Why I Don’t Link To Some Worthy Posts

Like, for example, this one by the appropriately named A. E. Brain.

When I see that the blogfather has linked to someone, I assume that it needs no further linking, unless I (rarely) have some unique words of wisdom to append to it.

Is that right? Are there really readers of this website who don’t also read Instapundit? If so, then perhaps I should reconsider my position, but my preference is to point out things that people won’t read elsewhere, for parsimony of my efforts, if for no other reason.

The IDers Rear Their Heads Again

Hugh Hewitt discourses on the introduction of ID in the public schools, alongside evolution. At the risk of setting off another evolution debate here, while his point about the MSM making ID defenders out to be gap-toothed sibling-marrying Bible thumpers is well taken, he’s quite mistaken on the general policy issue. He’s viewing this through the eyes of a lawyer, but that’s not how science works:

My limited expertise is not with the interaction of ID and evolutionary theory, though it seems to me quite obvious that the hardest admission to wring from a evolutionist enthusiast is that while even conclusive proof of evolution wouldn’t deny the existence of God, no such proof has yet been offered.

Of course no such proof has been offered. Proof of the validity of the theory (and there’s nothing about that word that should shake our confidence in evolution or any other scientific theory) of evolution does not, and cannot, exist. And that’s true not only for evolution, but for gravity, quantum chromodynamics, and any scientific theory that one wants to consider. Proving that theories are correct simply isn’t how science works.

How science works is by putting forth theories that are disprovable, not ones that are provable. When all other theories have been disproven, those still standing are the ones adopted by most scientists. ID is not a scientific theory, because it fails the test of being disprovable (or to be more precise, non-falsifiable), right out of the box. If Hugh doesn’t believe this, then let him postulate an experiment that one could perform, even in thought, that would show it to be false. ID simply says, “I’m not smart enough to figure out how this structure could evolve, therefore there must have been a designer.” That’s not science–it’s simply an invocation of a deus ex machina, whether its proponents are willing to admit it or not. And it doesn’t belong in a science classroom, except as an example of what’s not science.

I’ve made my position on this subject quite clear in the past. ID, and creationism in general should be able to be taught in the public schools. Just not in a science class–they need to be reserved for a class in comparative religions. Of course, I don’t think that public schools should even exist, but that’s an entirely different subject.

The point is that ID isn’t science–it’s a copout on science and the scientific method, and as I said in my post a couple years ago, creationists attempting to get their views into science class, whether explicitly as the 6000-year-old solution or dressed up as science, as in ID, is a failure of their own personal faith in their own beliefs. They seem to think that if science doesn’t validate their faith, then their faith is somehow thereby weakened, and that they must fight for its acceptance in that realm.

But that’s nonsense. Faith is faith. It by definition requires a suspension of disbelief. If their faith hasn’t the strength to withstand science, then they should reexamine their faith, not attempt (one hopes in futility) to bring down a different belief system that is entirely orthogonal to it.

[Update at midnight eastern time]

Hugh responds:

I do believe in Intelligent Design –in Christianity, actually– but the point of my posts yesterday was not to wade into those battles, but to underscore the Washington Post’s lousy reporting on the controversy in Dover, Pennsylvania.

That’s, of course, beside the point. I already agreed with him about the abysmal nature of the reportage on this issue. But whether or not he believes in ID isn’t the issue. The ultimate issue is what should be taught in science classes (regardless of whether the school is public or private). I’d be interested in his thoughts on that, in light of the discussion here.

I’d particularly like to see his thoughts on it considering that he’s essentially admitted that ID is tantamount to Christianity, which, last time I checked, was not a branch of science…

Merry Christmas To All

I’m not a Christian, but I’m certainly not offended when someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, and while blogging will be light for the next couple days, I’d like to wish all my Christian readers the merriest one yet.

There has never been a Christmas when the world is at peace, and this year is problematic, but it was one in which Afghan women who used to be beaten or worse for appearing in public with too much face exposed, and without their men, just voted in an election, casting many of their votes for other women. It is one in which the Iraqi people, despite the totalitarian scum who continue to murder them indiscriminately, continue to register to vote in their own upcoming elections.

Sadly, it is also one in which thousands continue to be murdered and raped, in never-ending wars in Africa, and the traffic in human slavery continues unabated. But as I said, these things have been going on since time immemorial, and if there’s more of it now, it’s only because there are more humans than ever before–not because humans are becoming worse.

Despite that, in many ways, for many millions of people, things are better on this planet than they’ve ever been, and with diligence and courage, we can continue to spread the zone in which people can celebrate Christmas, and other holidays of this solstice season, free from fear and want.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!