Vox Popoli

In celebration of the 148th anniversary of the publication of “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, I shall be asking various evolutionary biologists about their opinion on precisely how much more intra-species differentiation is required to separate the Yellow Race from the Negro, and how long this will be expected to take.

For while we are all one species now, in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”, Daniel Dennett explicates how Saint Darwin is quite clear on how it is only a matter of time before the human species subdivides into divergent parts that are incapable of intermingling.

(Well, okay, Dennett specifically mentions dogs and coyotes, but let’s face it, those are CLEARLY just code words for blacks and Mexicans.)

And isn’t it fascinating how science fiction, for all its enthusiasm for evolution and its pretensions to being bold and daring, never seems to explore this obvious scientific inevitability!

That is the question:

How does one tell the difference between hearing the Voice of God, and the onset of paranoid schizophrenia?

Well, that’s the crucial question now, isn’t it. But in the aforementioned case of Elisha and Elijah, I think that seeing fire come down from Heaven and incinerating dozens of priests of Baal would likely serve as sufficient proof to even the most precariously balanced or skeptical minds that they were not, in fact, delusional.

There’s no question that God understands our doubts. Jesus Christ was not only sympathetic towards his dubious friend Thomas, but he specifically said that talk was cheap, hence the miracles.

The Dixie Chicks, a band with which I am pleased to be utterly unfamiliar, take a bold stance against everyday Americans:

The Dixie Chicks, who stirred up a hornet’s nest with a jibe at President Bush, won all five Grammys for which they were nominated on Sunday, including the coveted album of the year. The victory marked a stunning validation for the female country music trio from Texas, almost four years after their dream run as the darlings of Nashville came to an abrupt end.

Singer Natalie Maines told fans during a 2003 concert she was ashamed to come from the same state as Bush, and the group was transformed overnight into pariahs. Radio stations stopped playing their songs, while album and ticket sales suffered….

“I think people are using their freedom of speech tonight with all of these awards,” Maines said.

Obviously Miss Maines isn’t particularly gifted in the brains department. The last time I checked, the Grammy Awards weren’t given by the public, who tend to vote with their radio requests, album purchases and ticket buys. And it’s hardly a surprise that they’re so popular with sort of left-wing losers who dedicate their lives to pursuing fame by making howlingly bad music and posing for the paparazzi; I’d be surprised if I owned more than ten CDs by Grammy-winning “artists”.

I don’t recall Ministry, Mozart or My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult ever winning anything, anyhow.

You have to consider the criteria. I mean, if you set a few of my more anti-Bush columns to music, I’d probably stand a decent shot at getting nominated for a Grammy.

Jefferson poses a feeble trap:

If your god revealed to you in a set of flawless communications you could not dispute that you should kill every child you see under the age of 2, would you?

I don’t see what the problem is, or why people were avoiding this last night. I mean, of course it’s supposed to be a trap but it’s a toothless one of no concern to any sufficiently intelligent individual. The answer is yes, and how would you possibly take issue with that position regardless of whether you believe in my god or don’t believe in any god?

If I am correct that my God is the Creator God, that we are all his creations, then killing every child under two on the planet is no more inherently significant than a programmer unilaterally wiping out his AI-bots in a game universe. He alone has the right to define right and wrong, and as the Biblical example of King Saul and the Amalekites demonstrates, He has occasionally deemed it a moral duty to wipe out a people.

And as we are informed in Revelation, He will wipe out many peoples through the acts of (presumably) His angels. Jefferson can complain that this makes God unworthy of worship all he likes, but that’s as irrelevant as complaining that Stalin wasn’t properly elected according to the Soviet Constitution. Although in this case it isn’t might makes right, it is a much simpler case of might = right. Obey or perish.

If you accept that argument from the IRS without question, then why would you refuse to accept it from the Creator of the Universe? Because excepting the unusual case of an exceptionally brave individual, the logical answer is that you don’t actually believe the choice you are posing.

And then, if I am incorrect and my god does not exist, then we must ask why Jefferson, an atheist, should object to one set of meaningless atomic arrangements being randomly sorted into different arrangements. A reason, that is, besides the one that he has previously provided, which is that he would not like it. As adults do not accept that as sufficient justification for a course of action from toddlers, there is no reason why we should accept it from him either.

Now, I admit that if I was wrong and my god did not exist but another one did, one of his worshippers could likely provide a rational reason for why I it would be immoral to embark upon a toddler-slaying rampage. Of course, that would depend on the moral code of that other deity. And then, a Christian could certainly call into question the legitimacy of my divine orders; I’m quite sure that every Christian of my acquaintance would, in fact, do so.

Nevertheless, this is remarkably dangerous ground, not for Christians, but rather for anyone who is pro-science. If you are going to debate the legitimacy of a belief system based on the potential danger it presents, secular scientists are vastly more vulnerable than Christians.

Cedarford raises a spurious issue:

Nice flap starting about Iran’s weapons killing hundreds of troops since 2004. High tech weapons the Mullahs tested out using Hezbollah in Lebanon are being built in 3 Iranian factories and shipped across the Iraqi Border. With targeting and electronic security under the direction of Iranian al Quds Forces that report straight to Ayatollah Khamenei.

140 Iraqis cops/soldiers killed, 17 Brits killed, 170 Americans killed and 600 wounded (including over 200 horrific maimings) by Iranian Explosively Formed Projectiles.

The weapon is only 10 inches by 6 inches, easly concealable, and will penetrate all armored US vehicles. They are made in 3 Iranian factories in military production parks north of Tehran.

Iranian 81mm mortars, sniper rifles, RPGs – made and delivered after 2004 – account for hundreds more Iraqi deaths and dozens of US troops.

Do we do something about it?

In short, no. That would be incredibly short-sighted, considering that there are far more countries that could regard US weapons sales as a justifiable casus belli. By this reckoning, the September 11th attacks were fully justified due to the many Islamists killed by the Egyptian and Saudi Arabian governments armed by the USA.

You cannot claim that you are beyond justice simply because you happen to be the most powerful at the moment. You can, of course, simply operate on the principle that might makes right, but there are no shortage of historical examples demonstrating how the powerful usually overestimate their power and the way in which things usually ends poorly for those who primarily upon it.

If you don’t want to see American troops killed, then perhaps you should not order them to play target in a kill zone.

The neocons are really starting to reach here and it’s not going to work. The American people will not support any military effort against Iran without first experiencing one or more major attacks, preferably atomic or nuclear, blamed on Iran. Even that might not be enough considering the widespread suspicions about the current administration’s willingness to manufacture another Maine/Lusitania/Gulf of Tonkin incident.

This doesn’t mean the administration won’t simply go ahead and do what it wants without public support. Bush has already eviscerated the Republican Party’s political prospects – you may recall I was one of the only people predicting this a few years ago – so he might as well go ahead and destroy it for the next two generations by leaping headlong into a third undeclared and unpopular war.

Hey, it worked for the kid:

Witnessed in a Supermarket, surrounded by dry goods

CAST:
Mother, late twenties, early thirties, pushing a cart with;

Daughter (presumably) in front little seat, age two, possibly three.

Daughter: **crying inconsolably**
Mother: No, I won’t let you do this to me. No, You can’t blackmail me with your tears. No!
Daughter: **continues crying**
Mother: STOP! You can’t do this to ME! Who do you think you are! STOP!
Daughter: **cries louder**
Mother: NO! I won’t put up with this abuse! **breaks down, also begins to cry**

I rather enjoy negotiating with three year-old girls myself. Most of the little cabbage heads will sign away practically everything from their future loss of virginity to their social security payments in exchange for a kitten or a lollipop. But you have to watch out for abusive hard cases like this one clearly was, the crafty little bitches can take you down like a semi hitting a squirrel if you make the mistake of falling for that whole wide-eyed sweet and innocent act.

I’m glad I didn’t have to witness this. I might have started crying myself… with laughter.

As I was reading Daniel Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”, which is really quite good thus far, it struck me that Christians and other theists such as myself are taking a less effective route to crippling atheist arguments than we might.

Instead of trying to logically demonstrate to them that they have no claim on morality and that this would have a negative effect on human society, we really should take their arguments against God and ask them to make a scientific case for the very existence of morality. Not the “atheist morality” about which I have written, but rather the basic concept itself.

Where is the proof of “good”? Where is the scientific evidence that defines the distinction between “good” and “bad”? And if there is no scientific evidence for such a distinction, then don’t we have the same obligation to teach children the nonexistence of a moral imperative that we do of God?

This won’t stop the “I feel it” idiocy on the part of either atheists or theists, but it should shut the intelligent ones down. Then we can return to the inevitable utilitarian conclusion and end up agreeing that Israel must be driven into the sea, fat people must be converted into gasoline and women must be forcibly bred to the most fit.

The good of the greater number demands it!

Some of you may have noticed that I was experimenting with Blogger’s new template options. It’s not bad, but since it doesn’t seem to have an easy way to add Haloscan comments into the Post box, it’s unusable. It did provide a nice means of showing the recent posts on the sidebar, as per a request a few people have made, but that’s not worth breaking the comments. Also, it had some graphical glitches that were annoying.

Thus we shall stick with the tried and true for the nonce.

And has an unusual request:

The announcement is that a couple weeks ago I created a blog. Please check it out. I hope you find it mildly entertaining and a more than a little theologically challenging. At least that is my hope. Indeed, I have failed one of my primary goals for starting a blog if this is not the case.

So here’s the request. If you would be willing to put me on your blog roll, could you put me in Target Rich Environments? If you’re not sure on whether to grant this request, what might put you over the edge? Want me to talk about how pleased I am, as a home-schooling parent, that Public Schools exist? Can do. Do want me to make nasty remarks about people who spend too much time watching football? I can fit it in.

Do you want me to say that people who say that God doesn’t know the future are speaking He- . . theologically incorrect statements. Consider it done. Want me to say bad stuff about Nate? I’m there (but not SpaceBunny. I am no fool and SpaceBunny’s like a decent person, whereas Nate once called me a hippy. (Yes, it was a hard day for me.))

I also plan on putting in some personal poetry which you (no stranger to verse) might describe as having . . . questionable quality. And I might speak well of Star Trek. And I might trash “Dark is Rising,” as well as point out your startling inconsistency on that matter. You just never know.

Yes, yes I do want you to say bad stuff about Der Hausfrauhrer, but that’s neither here nor there. But the mere fact of Jamsco’s having publicly committed poetry makes his blog, by definition, a Target-Rich Environment.

Request granted.