Argument against Intelligent Design is Fear Based

Evolution based on hypothesis unseen and unproven is no different than people believing in intelligent design or God.  How many people have seen God?  Both are based on faith.  In an effort to reconcile science and faith, William Paley formed the Teleological argument that the universe and its fundamental constants, evolution, While talking to a local professor of geology in his office recently we discussed some basic precepts of physical laws governing the universe and world in which we exist.  The professor held dual doctorates and placed his reliance of understanding nature and creation on the empirical evidence around him.  My questions were designed to corner him and see if he thought there might be something else such as God or intelligent design behind evolution.  I asked him that if according to basic laws of physics where matter can not spontaneously create itself from nothing, then how can its existence be explained?  Einstein’s theory of relativity E=mc2, explains the conservation and equivalence of energy and mass.   Matter being converted to or from energy started from something and science does not offer an answer as of yet.  As we went outside I picked up a blade of grass and asked him to explain what caused the incredible process of genetic sequencing and unique balance in our environment.  The mathematical probability of us happening by chance is about one trillion to the millionth power. We undoubtedly know there are basic building blocks of life and to a large extent, how they work. My focus of questioning was; who or what is behind how it all came to being?  Was Intelligent Design possible?

Not long ago I picked the brain of one of the nations foremost authorities on educational psychology.  This man is brilliant, gentle and humble.  Being a little mischievous and constantly probing his thoughts, I challenged him to define the concept of “love”.  In doing so he wasn’t allowed to describe it by identifying how it inspires or makes us feel or manifests itself in us.   Mostly though he wasn’t allowed to use any form of God or allude to God in the definition.  He had three days to come up with an answer and after the third day I sought it.  He was articulate describing love but failed to meet my criteria.  When he asked for the answer, I said “God”.  I never said it wasn’t.  Only to define love without God.  Should love be banned from public schools because the bible states God is love repeatedly?  Only if the ACLU has something to do with it! 

 “Intelligent Design” may well be code words for God.  But if scientists believe there’s no God, then why would they feel threatened by Intelligent Design?  According to Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, he stated “The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree.  I believe this simile largely speaks the truth.”  He didn’t state “completely” but rather “largely”.  Most people don’t know that Darwin was influenced by his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin who actually proposed that life changed over time.  Erasmus’ writings contained comments suggesting the “possibility” of common decent, based on changes in animals during development and artificial selection by human beings.  This idea actually dates back to the ancient Greek philosopher Anaximander and Roman philosopher Lucretius.  They coined the concepts that all living things were related and had changed over time.  When schools teach Darwin’s “theory” of evolution, most material may be factual but not all proven.  Because of this it may be wise to teach all and not part of the story.  One of the biggest facts not taught with evolution and should be is that Charles Darwin was a Deist.  He believed in Intelligent Design!  Evolution is still a theory.  To teach all of it as conclusive fact and dispel the idea of Intelligent Design is pompous arrogance by the intellectual elite.  Teaching emankind, a given species…) was too complex for man to ever know. 

            Evolution as applied to human beings took off when Herbert Spencer applied the theory to races and nations in his book Social Darwinism.  It justified competition during Europe’s period of colonialism between nations as well as racial and cultural superiority. Not to answer man’s question of origin.   There were racist components behind this theory because it justified conquering, enslaving and killing Africans and Native Americans.  Baldwinian Evolution theory states human beings as cultured animals capable of symbolic (extra somatic) learning can change their environment, or the environment of any species, in such a way as to result in new selective forms.  This is true.  We can manipulate DNA, cure disease yet cause the extinction of species.  Is this our own form of intelligent design or short-sighted reasoning?  I say both because humans are blessed and cursed with both.  So possibility for advanced intelligence exists.

            The reason why people are against Intelligent Design being taught is fear itself.  Throughout history leaders maintained power and influence by limiting and controlling the flow of knowledge to their citizens.  By manipulating and controlling information leaders from Alexander the Great to Hitler influenced the masses.  The first Christians were put to death by the Romans.  Later, the church persecuted anyone who questioned their teachings.  During British rule over India Gandhi threatened the leadership with peaceful protests.  In China the Falun Gong threatens the leadership.  The threats are the same; freedom of thoughts and beliefs.  In the former Soviet Union religion was outlawed.  In their case like most, the government or ruling authority had the final word and tried removing the threat of existential beliefs that threatening its leadership.  The state tried to play God.  Therein is the problem for governments as well as schools.  Beliefs are more powerful than school or government ideals.  This becomes dangerous to authority when a direction schools or governments take conflict with personal beliefs.  If enough people are influenced by those beliefs they then become a threat to the power of the authority.  Remember Tiananmen Square?  

            There exists a paradox in our society.  We’re guaranteed certain constitutional rights by law.  In question are freedom of religion, speech, and limiting intrusive government.  Separation of church and state was designed to protect us from government sponsored religion only and related to the king’s control of the English church during our independence.  Not the denial or suppression of these rights.  Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.  If someone doesn’t believe in God, it doesn’t mean God does not exist nor does it mean that belief should be forced on someone else.  Public schools don’t understand this.  We’ve reversed teaching beliefs.  Now evolution “theory” is forced on students, not creation.  Both should be taught objectively.  Separating church and state didn’t mean removing God.  Since America’s birth there’s been the belief that something much greater than us is behind creation.  86% of our population believes in God.  From a paleontological perspective human beings are infants compared to most other species.  With so much “evidence” supporting an evolutionary process with dinosaurs, birds, fish and reptiles why haven’t we seen the same with humans?  There are few explanations and not enough proof justifying human evolution.  Survival of the fittest would eliminate apes due to scarce resources and competition.  Of the millions of fossils few if any are human.  Maybe it’s because evolution can’t answer or justify why we’re here without scripture.  Looking at the stars at night it’s a lonely feeling thinking we might be all there is and that we exist only by chance.  With our history, I’d hate to think all we have to rely on is each other.  I base my existence on hope and faith.  By the way, the first mentioned professor answered yes, it is possible.

Michael Kuchta                                                                                                         Ashville, NY

Rant or no Rant.

               Today I just want to say that I am NOT a "birther."  However, I do want Barry to show me, ( I mean us ) what he's got.  I don't think that there is anything wrong with asking that the proper credentials  be made public.  What  I mean is that, any American citizen applying for a job, anywhere in this country has to show proof that they are who they say they are.  Every job offer in this country (and almost all others) comes with certain criteria that has to be met.  For instance:                  
                                                        
                                                               TRUCK DRIVER WANTED.

                                     must have current class "A" C.D.L. with hazmat endorsement,
                                     valid social security number,  and clean 10 year M.V.R.             
                              All candidates must pass ability and Drug testing, and be willing to go O.T.R.

          This is just a typical add for a commercial driver.  There are typically other  requirements like two forms of I.D. (picture I.D. required for at least one.  A Valid Social Security number that matches the picture I.D. provided.  Very often, a valid drivers licence, and proof of residence..   Here is another example:

                                                 Wanted: President of the United States.

                     Must be willing to work 24 hours a day 7 days a week, sometimes without sleep.
                     Give up entire life for at least four years.
                     Put up with untold amounts of B.S. from everyone while smiling.
                     Attempt to satisfy everyone, while still upholding the Constitution.
    Candidate must have the following credentials:

                                 1.  Be a natural born citizen of the United States ( and be able to prove it ).
                                 2.  You must be at least 35 ( thirty five ) years old to apply.

     The job doesn't require the candidate to show his School Transcripts ( although, every president of recent record has willingly done so).  It also doesn't require any sort of college degree to achieve.  Basically, NO EXPERIENCE is required.  So..............Why not just come out and deal with it once and for all.  Satisfy the "birthers" and people like myself who are just interested in the truth ?  Hiding something?  What?  I don't know.  But there is obviously something.  Something that might look bad on a resume ( C.V. ) no doubt.

   If not,  than why not just clear it up.....once, and for all.  I'm sure Micki wont mind.  Then again......there's always Kenya. I hear they welcome your kind of "Government", 'cause I (we ) sure don't.

    Dishonesty and moral turpitude are not what I see as valuable characteristics of the leader of the "free world."  They might come in handy for "the new world order", but we Americans have no use for them here in OUR country.  Stop trying to ram it down our throats.  No more games.  Lets get it on.

      

TWO FAMILY DYNASTIC RULE

                Has anyone noticed that we’ve been governed by a two family dynasty for twenty years?  Why haven’t politicians mentioned the dangers of this power given to so few?  Exchanging King George for Queen Hillary makes me uncomfortable.  What’s more disconcerting is people voting in the next general election for their first time have never known another national leader other than a Bush or Clinton. 

            Since we’ve been under the leadership of two politically maligned families our country experienced a narrowing of ideological views rather than the broad range of beliefs and understandings that better represent most people.  About 80% of Americans are neither extreme left or right ideologically.  They fall into an area called “the shades of grey”.  The only people who benefit from the polarizing effect of monopolized government are Clinton’s and Bushes.  Abraham Lincoln stated “a house divided against itself can not stand”.  In politics simply divide and conquer.  The polarizing affect of accusations surrounding presidencies the last twenty years earned the United States ridicule and discontent of many nations.  Consequently we’ve suffered a “butterfly effect” from both families throughout.  Looking at history of their (in)actions  are a case in point.

            We’re in a quagmire in Iraq.  This conflict is interconnected through time back to the first Gulf War under our president’s father.  If the senior Bush completed the take down of Saddam Hussein there’d be no cause for our being there now.  The idea that “Little George” is fighting his dad’s war is true in that his father allowed Hussein’s regime to stand, after which the inept handling under Bill Clinton’s watch along with the denigration of our intelligence community directly led us to 9/11.  This happened even though we were justified to invade Iraq under the cease fire agreement of the first Gulf War 17 different times.  Our country was too concerned about Monica, Hillary’s FBI filegate, Whitewater, senate impeachment hearings, and failed health care reform to worry about preventing deaths of our soldiers in Saudi Arabia (1995), bombings of the WTC (1993), the Khobar Towers (1996), the U.S. Embassies in Africa (2000) or the USS Cole (2000).  So when conspiracy theorists suggest blaming one president or another the failure of our national security lays on the last three.  Our president made poor decisions in being forthright by justifying the Iraqi invasion with a false 9/11 connection while Senator Clinton was complicit through her voting record.  Interpretation of whether civil liberties have been diluted with the domestic spying program will taint Bush’s presidency for many years. 

            Hillary Clinton poses a unique situation because of her inherent political flaws.  Her softball interviews haven’t revealed any serious political blueprint.  She’s surrounded by aides she’s yet to disclose and according to former Clinton advisor Dick Morris has always had political ambitions and would go to great lengths for power.  I’m still waiting for her to impact the upstate NY rural community as promised.  She voted for war based on the same intelligence as President Bush but has yet to be held nearly as accountable.  She’s proposing a revamped version of her failed health care reform she’d proposed in the early ‘90’s.  Clintons campaigns were laced with illegal campaign contributions resulting in convictions.  The former Clinton administration still makes it extremely difficult to access information under the Freedom of Information Act.  According to US News and World Report on discussing her presidential agenda she stated “I have a million ideas.  The country can’t afford them” (10/22/07).  We’ve heard her phony southern accent while addressing a southern group earlier this year.  She was re-elected a year ago avoiding any direct mention of presidential ambitions and funneled $6 million from it into a future candidacy with no apparent regard to New Yorkers.  So I ask you, how is it possible comedian Steven Colbert is at 6% in the polls and running in South Carolina as a joke?  I suggest looking at the history of the last 20 years and thinking twice about the monopoly on power.  In reality there’s little philosophical difference separating Democrats and Republicans when it comes to holding onto it.  Only how public view is manipulated. 

Michael Kuchta

Ashville, NY          

Baffeling

There is an old saying that my father used frequently, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with Bull Shit."  I believe that Barry, aka: Barak is attempting to do to the entire nation.  He doesn't actually know what he's doing, so he uses smoke and mirrors to distract us from what is actually happening.

       Take for instance the recent Supreme court ruling on the second amendment.  In this 5-4 ruling it says basically that the states and the cities have to abide by it, allowing their respective citizens to bear arms.  Why they actually had to even examine that question baffles me.  The fact that they made the right decision, even if it was by such a narrow margin gives me hope.

     But..... while we were all focused on the Supreme court and it's ruling, the administration is attempting an end around.  They plan to sign the U.N. small arms treaty that would destroy the second amendment, and make private ownership of fire  arms illegal.  Of course this treaty will have to be ratified by the Senate, but it is still an attempt to subvert the constitution.   While I don't think that the Senate would have the cajones to ratify it, the very attempt shows a blatant disregard for the Constitution.  It is also an attack on the rest of our God given rights.  I believe he ( Barry ) will continue to  assault them one at a time until he has so much control, and the Government is so big, that he can appoint himself King all the while keeping our attention focused elsewhere.  Some one please convince me that I am wrong.  ( I'm Not).