Sunday, August 27, 2006

No One Is So Blind. . .

Three incidents of the last week give me pause – much reflection – some frustration.

Shortly after I returned from camp I answered the phone to kindly voice; it conjured the picture as a sweat faced, elderly woman. After establishing who I was, she told me she was the daughter of ________ and asked if I knew who _____ was. I said I knew him well, but before I could finish my thought, she interrupted to say, “Well, your father did.” Since I could not deny my father knew ______ better than I, I did not contradict her. She continued, “I hear you tell a very funny story about my father shaving a hippy.” I knew the story she meant at once, but I thought sadly – it is not about her father at all, though I do mention his name at the very beginning of the story as someone who once offered me a job. I was thinking she perhaps wanted to hear the story or to get a copy of it and was trying to think of a way to tell her that unfortunately the story was about someone else, when she launched into a vindictive. She accused me of hurting the feelings of _____’s numerous grandchildren and great grandchildren by making light of his alcoholism. She then demanded I stop telling the story. I was flabbergasted. I assured her that I made no such implication about her father, that the story was about someone else entirely and that I only mentioned _______ in an absolutely true and benign reference to someone who once tried to help me. She would not believe me. Her voice was never raised, but she assured me that she knew the truth – that I was saying hurtful things about her father. She said she had been told this by people she believed and insisted that I stop using his name. Then she hung up. I couldn’t recall her name. I had no way of getting her back to tell the story and give evidence of her father’s totally innocent role in it. So she is left believing that thousands of people have heard her father defamed, and I am left to contemplate ______’s hither to unknown drinking problem and his daughter’s determined ignorance.

I intended to finish Ann Coulter’s book *Godless* sometime over the summer, but never had time to read. I did lend the book to one of my staff. After much reminding, he finally returned it to me the day he left for home. It was warped and growing mold. He assured me he had read it and that it was all “bunk”. Last week I picked up reading where I had left off in the spring. To my surprise Coulter spends the last several chapters of her book debunking Darwin. For years I have been a staunch supporter of Darwin. With great affection I recall Carl Sagan’s calm and quirky voice assuring us that evolution is not a theory – but a fact – that the mechanism of evolution is Natural Selection as put forward by Charles Darwin. I read and reread *Origin of the Species* years ago – and it seemed utterly reasonable, and piled on top of it were the text book pictures of spotted English moths and “The Cosmos” series reenactment of the “growing amino acids in a flask” experiment. From the same PBS program there were all those cute little line drawings that “evolved” in forty seconds from a bunch of squiggled molecules to Eve standing at the foot of the tree of life. I have directed the play *Inherit the Wind* twice at our high school. It seemed so logical; who could challenge it? For years the “brothers across the road” have tried by sending over their photocopied articles and issues of the “Ensign” to dissuade me. But there was never any answer in their harangue, never any challenge in their contentions. Then came Ann Coulter and there went Darwin. Friday, I lent my moldy copy of *Godless* to the Principal of the Seminary. I am left to contemplate the shallowness of my long held positions, marvel at the power of truth, and wonder if there is still another page to turn.

Thursday, in a very hot classroom full of cranky and resentful sophomores, I tried to stir an argument. Somewhere along the line to the idea of “Absolute Truth that exists but cannot be known,” one student blurted out, “Why do you keep attacking Saudi Arabia?”

“Don’t you mean, why do WE keep attacking Saudi Arabia?”

“No you!” – he replied bitterly.

“Why would we attack Saudi Arabia? They are our ally in the war on terror.” I ventured.

“Then why did we blow up Saddam Hussein?”

“We didn’t blow up Saddam Hussein, we arrested him, besides, Saddam is not from Saudi Arabia, he is from Iraq.”

“No he’s not” the student insisted, “He’s from Arabia.”

“Well, maybe his ancestors, but he was the dictator of Iraq,” I ventured.

“No he wasn’t. Why should we believe you? You could just be telling us anything.”

This was a perfect segue into the quote on the board, the same one that is on the masthead of the Agora, and I took advantage of it to move the discussion that direction. At the end of class I called the student forward, hoping to seek together the origins of Saddam Hussein, and perhaps learn something on which to reason. But he replied, as he stalked toward the door; “I’ve got things to do!” I was left alone, in the stuffy heat, to contemplate how difficult it is to get the blind to see.

My father’s words came to me, “No one is so blind as he [or she] who will not see!”


a quiet listener said...

Well Lysis, as for the shaved hippy story... In the 8 or so years I've known you I must have heard it but since I can't remember I can't give my opinion.

What really has me interested is what you've written in this blog about evolution. I can recount many times sitting in your hot classroom alowing my gaze to wander from artifact to artifact as some plump seminary council youth screamed that you were wrong and going to hell while you elegantly held your position that God certainly exists, but used evolution as the tool to create man much as a carpenter uses a hammer or a saw. Am I to understand that finally you and the "brothers across the street" have come to some agreement?

I have long held to creation as my belief. There are definitely things that I don't understand fully, and I don't deny that since Adam there has been time and again examples where creatures are evolving, but the simple fact of the matter lies in 1 cor. 15:21. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." ---If we are to believe the Bible then we need to understand as Isaiah said in isa. 11:7 that in the paradiasical condition (ie. millenium or garden of eden) that the lion ate straw as the ox. Death did not exist. This doesn't mean that death among men alone didn't exist. The survival of the fittest food chain did not exist. Death even among the animal kingdom didn't exist and therefore one of the key foundations of evolution is removed. How can survival of the fittest create new species by evolving stronger, faster, more resilient if they aren't dying off at all? The answer, at least to me, is that they couldn't until Adam brough death into the world through his transgression.

I wonder now what points were raised in that book that changed your opinion? I have heard Ann Coulter on the radio but have not read anything of hers... I wasn't exactly impressed as I heard her get in a yelling match with whoever it was she was arguing with. I'm certainly intrigued.

There is always a page left unread. I often look back at positions I held to so tightly and see how wrong I was. An Absolute Truth certainly exists and is able to teach us and make itself manifest as one ponders this life and it's mysteries.

Lysis said...

A Quiet Listener:

Such a pleasure to hear from you! If you’re interested in “hippy shaving” I know a fellow with a book for sale.

I still maintain that God used “Natural Laws” to create man and his world; I’m just – thanks to Ann Coulter – not going to buy Darwin’s line of natural selection anymore. Please don’t jump too many guns, and please take the time to read Coulters agreements before you conclude that she in any way proves the “Pleasant Poetry of Genesis” to be literally truth.

As for 1st Corinthians 15:21; come on AQL, this is the very type of chop logic that got the “brothers” in trouble all those years. Why do you think I sent them the book? – To save them from the need to perform such flagrant scripture bending. Your “Animal-centric” view of life is troubling to a botanist like me. Did the straw die before the lion ate it? Or did it pass in some “still living” state from fangs to dung? L Frank Baum tried that one in the Wizard of Oz books – sounded disgusting to me even as a kid. What about all that fruit, of every tree save one, that Adam was munching all those millennia? Did it pass jaws and digestion without death? Do cells die in your immortal paradise? If so is it only the vegetable kind that passes away? Did all that fruit never ripen and rot? Or did it just pile up to “Heaven” while Adam waited around for Eve to get him up and moving? Let me suggest you read Coulter’s book while you are still intrigued and looking for the truth; don’t leave those pages unturned.

As for the scripture; isn’t straw just another name for DEAD grass? Go figure.

MindMechanic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MindMechanic said...

Good points...

I agree completeley that there are none so blind as those who simply will not see. Reminds me of the quote "you can lead a person (horse) to water cant make him think (drink)."

I grow more and more weary of people that take two second sound bites (or the word of any person on a blog for example) as gospel. The reality is we all have at our very fingertips a treasure trove of knowledge. Truth isnt found on the "I feel lucky" site of is found through examination and re-examination of MANY ideas thoughts and positions. The more absolute a site presents itself to be, the lesser credibility I tend to apply to it.

Read, study, THINK...then engage mouth. I wish they would teach that more in school.

The subject of evolution gives perfect example. Based on peoples own bias the realm of debate and discussion is virtually lost when it comes to mans origins. Many on the religous front declare "we have our bible and need no more." Lets not be too quick to ridicule the religous folk, because the scientific community does the EXACT same thing..."we have the theory of evolution and while we may adapt it to fit arguements, it is still all we need."

Darwin himself struck the largest and most honest blow against the theory of evolution. When asked, Darwin once stated "if my theories on evolution cannot explain the existence of complex organs, then my theories must be wrong."

OR at least deserving of some good, honest, open discussion and debate.

(We should be fair...they werent REALLY Darwins theries...were they? On the evolution of species, Darwin simply spoke words offered by several others long before Darwin. No, Darwins original theories involved social content-extermination of the insane, sterilization of all criminals, and the eventual triumph of whites over the "savage races." For some reason, we dont speak too much about Darwins OTHER theories...)

sorry...where were we...ah yes...

Darwin was asked to exlain then the eye, the existince of the neuroreceptors without optics, the simple development of the occular cavity, etc. Darwin hemmed and hawed for several moments (even later attempting a clumsy 'impromptu' recreation of the discussion with an even more complex answer in a book). Finally, Darwin responded in the most simplistic and faith based way imaginable..." must have happened, because we have eyes."

HE knew that wasnt going to fly long so he set out on a greater explanation. Darwin later theorized that it was 'possible' that the solution came in the notion that a species might develop or create precursors that will allow over the course of generations and time for comlex organisms to evolve-not as an individual series of evolutionary events, but as one event with complimentary results.

Nice save Chuck D!

Science did then what science often does...takes quantum leaps to prove a theory rather than offer unbiased experiments and allow theories to either prove or disprove based on fact and not bias (something I see almost daily in the psych world). As a result,

"The researchers set up an experiment in which organisms replicate for 16,000 generations. They then repeated the experiment 50 times.

Avida beat the odds. In 23 of the 50 trials, evolution produced organisms that could carry out the equals operation. And when the researchers took away rewards for simpler operations, the organisms never evolved an equals program. “When we looked at the 23 tests, they were all done in completely different ways,” adds Ofria. He was reminded of how Darwin pointed out that many evolutionary paths can produce the same complex organ. A fly and an octopus can both produce an image with their eyes, but their eyes are dramatically different from ours. “Darwin was right on that—there are many different ways of evolving the same function,” says Ofria."

Isnt "intelligent design" a wonderful thing?

(note-I self edited this posting due to a few minor but significant typing errors. That explains the 'missing' post)

Reach Upward said...

BrainMechanic, thanks for that cogent lesson. Lysis, your point about the difficulty of getting the willingly blind to see is instructive. Now, if only I could quickly and easily discover my own blind spots...

Aeneas said...

I've heard the story of the hippie many times. There is neither an explicit or implicit assertion that ______ was an alcoholic. However, the story does imply that ______ drank. This "possibility" in no way makes me think any less of ______.

As far as either evolved or he didn't. My own belief system allows for the possibility that God used evolution to create man and all species. I in no way find the marriage of science and religion a threat to my faith. I have never had a strong opinion on the matter other than to say I am completely open to the possibility of evolution. I would further say this about persuasive arguments, they are just that persuasive arguments, not necessarily the truth. As an attorney, I know something about presenting facts in such away so as to persuade my listener to agree with my interpretation of those facts. A skilled speaker or writer need only sequence, emphasis, and present the facts in such a manner so as to feed the listener a particular point of view. Sometimes it is just that easy! I have not read Coulter's book, I look forward to it, and when I do read it, I will be keeping an eye out for the techniques she uses to present her augments. I will also keep an open mind...that is, I will ignore the fact that she has a very specific conservative agenda, and will read the information, again, open to the possibility that she could be telling the truth.

MindMechanic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MindMechanic said...

OHBYTHEWAY regarding the young student and his statement on Iraq, Saddam...etc...

Sort of tough to fault him when the national media does it every day.

How often have we heard "we must end the war with Iraq" from the liberal left and their media shills. When was the last time it was pointed out that

1-the war with Iraq ended in 2003,

2-We have been supporting the people and the military of Iraq and helped them succesfully hold natioanal elections with higher voter turnout (and in the face of death) than we have here, and

3-the 'war' in which we now engage is a global war, one against terrorists, people that think nothing of slaughtering innocent and unarmed men women and children around the globe and it is a war that can NOT be stopped?

Funny...I thought liberals like causes like womens rights, gay rights, free will concerning their bodies, sexual choices, education for girls over the age of 7, etc...

I wonder if they even think about what side they are arguing on or if it is JUST a kneejerk "hate Bush and all things conservatives stand for" response.

Anonymous said...

"Your view of life is troubling to a Botanist like me." -Lysis


You are no Botanist!!!!

Do not shame the real Botanists who do the WORK of science.
Data, Data and more experimental Data support meagre (in proportion) facts and theories. You, however, do no scientific work, you write irresponsible anti-scientific dreck for political ends . . . just like Coulter. Political hacks are not Botanists -- a Botanist wouldn't take the time.
The Coulter plagerist and the ID propagandists don't DO science they 'do'(sell)ignorance for bucks and notoriety -- science itself is a LOT of work and sacrifice. You won't see original "scientific" findings from Coulter/ID hacks because they can't be bothered to research or create data of their own.

When you espouse Coulter, say goodbye to honorable pursuits of Science and the veracity of intellect.

If Lysis wants to debate ID over Darwin or evolution, no need to hide under Coulter's skirts -- just make arguments -- of course you know you haven't made any yet!!!!

Lysis said...


Thank you for actually giving us some arguments to support your position. It is very refreshing. I notice that the “Limp One” posting below avoids you entirely – I think you should be honored. You are exactly right about people’s biases driving their thinking and their arguments. Your quote from Darwin – on how he recommends one prove him wrong – is also mentioned by the scientists that Coulter marshals in her arguments.

I have long faulted one of Darwin’s claims in *Origin of Species*. He attempts to argue that change is caused by “use and disuse”. Of course we know that all inheritable change must come through mutation. The Soviets long held to this canard – but that millennia of shaving will not save future generations the trouble, has long made Darwin’s explanation a bit of a joke.


I am sure you have heard “Big Jon” many times. But the woman who called me was not Jon D’s daughter – rather the daughter of a man who I mention so briefly in my story, that obviously in you many experiences with it you don’t even remember he was in the story at all. Big Jon knows this story well and loves it – as do his numerous offspring. He has a signed copy of “The Book”.

I wish you could have been there the day Big Jon bought the staff a bum lamb off a sheep herder for a six pack of beer and a gallon of root beer. As he cut the lamb up he explained how lambs come to be “bum” and he made some comments about a certain staff member’s endowment that set the kid blushing for a year and has left me chuckling to this day.


Once more your post lives up to your standards. You give facts to support you claims and you allow those willing to think to draw conclusions. Until the “Left – and I don’t think they are “Bush Haters” they would hate anyone in the White House that they do not control through their special interests and propaganda, are like many other Jihadists – willing to die for their cause, and the terrorists we all oppose are going to kill them all if they get their way. Too bad we’ll all have to go with them isn’t it?


Allow me to show you why your effort doesn’t stand.

1. One you have no more idea of my scientific credentials than you do of the depth of my research and study. You scream you vindictive, and make you asinine definitions of “real Botanists” with out any inkling of what work I do.

2. As for the Data – I told you were to look it up, but you have no more read Coulter’s book than you have attended one of my science lectures. I would no more do your home work for you than I would for my students. Read Coulters scientific data and deal with it – or admit that you are either to stupid or to lazy to do so – but quit calling names out of ignorance.

3. You call Coulter a plagiarist and ID propagandists. She is neither; if she was you would be able to provide DATA not just scream as your bubble pops.

4. If creation through natural law is ID – then I guess I believe in it – but then so did Darwin as he states in *Origin of the Species*!!! Oh, I forgot – you never read books – not even the ones you claim to believe.

5. You have proven to be just what Brainmechanic has described and have done all the things you have falsely and unsupported accused me of. If nothing else you have proven that you don’t fit your own definition of a scientist.

6. Finely I do not want to debate ID over Darwin or evolution; I don’t have to make arguments – Coulter has made them for me – they are available for your scrutiny. I truthfully stated that Coulter’s book has finally convinced me that we need to look somewhere other than natural selection for the origin of man. I invite all to read and present their opinions. You have not read – therefore you opinion is meaningless. Please do your home work, surely there is someone out there you can turn to refute Coulter for us all. I would love to go back to supporting Darwin – I have all those lessons already prepped, complete with video clips form *Inherit the Wind*. Please save me from having to condense *Godless* for my student’s consumption when my class gets to the 19th century “age of science”.

Your agreements are limp because they have nothing in them!!!

MindMechanic said...

I'm not sure which 'theory' I susbcribe to. As a person of faith, I will say simply that it is enough for me to accept that through God all things are possible. I make no apologies and I dont try to twist it to make sense of it. But...

I am a HUGE fan of science. I LOVE studying in as much depth and detail as I can. I see nothing but upside in learning scientific theory. I have what I believe is a fairly solid but by no means expert grasp of much of the theories of ID, creation, evolution, the big bang, etc. So much to learn and more everyday...and I love it.

That is what I find most disappointing in the refusal to accept the 'theory' of Intelligent Design. Think about it for a second...without defining 'who', imagine the depth of learning that we can achieve now in Physics classes.

Accept the big bang as a reality or a makes no difference. What we KNOW is that we have planets (once 9, then maybe 10, now maybe as many as 12 but with one fewer than what we used to know) that are placed perfectly in an orbit around the sun. The planets are each of a specific and particular size and they have moons that 'balance' the rotation. Everything is set in place to maintain this perfect yet improbable gravitational orbit around the sun (a reality which destroys the "big bang" theory BTW-we can discuss that at length if anyone wishes...).

Now imagine the math, physics, and yes, chemistry that would go into the creation (change the word to whatever you like...invention, build, etc) of such a delicate and yet perfect model. Imagine the engineering and discovery that could be achived. Assign a class the task of designing a computerized model of a galaxy...we are talking formulas for DAYS...

THAT is something worthy of study. It is worthy of discussion.

Instead what we are left with is this...

The entire galactic particulate was once compressed into a single molecule of incredible density. Through some unexplainable, happy, catastrophic event, this partical ex/imploded, showering subatomic particulate throughout the cosmos. From this we had gaseous clouds that would eventually form nebulaes and compress into suns, we had molecules of incredible variety that were sprayed out and then later bound together to form gravitational mass of planets...and so on and so on...

And the BEST that science can offer is that we have to accept on FAITH that this single molecule existed.

Talk about voodoo. How disappointing.

MindMechanic said...

I think it was already mentioned, but the more correct description of evolutionary change is actually DEvolution. Most scientific models show changes in a species as a subtraction (genetically inferior) from the core species.

Sticking with the eye analogy, 12 million neuroreceptors per side for the brain to interpret electronic impulses into a usable 'shape'. What evolutionary advantage is gained in the formation of these neuroreceptors WITHOUT the optic nerve, the neuropathways, heck, even the brains ability to interpret the impulses (with no reference software or code) without the electronic impulses to work with! The what evolutionary gain the development of the occular cavity? The eye opening, eyebrows, eye LASHES, the on. The formation of the brain and skeleton to support an optic network...

ANd without a frame of reference to what shapes are (where) why would the brain even decide in the first place that it was a good idea to evolve in the first place?

(Ive heard scientists-real live college professors-state that the brain would easily see a survival advantage in identifying shapes for hunting and defense...except, with no frame of reference, the primitive unevolved brain would have no basis to make that requirment. And then of do you convince your genes to mutate? You it has to be accidental at best. And if it is purely accidental...well...OK... but if that is the case it defeats evolutionary advantage. Right?

Stink beetles have as a defense mechanism- 3 separate chemicals that become noxious when mixed, but individually, they have no effect. Why then develop multiple cavities without first the chemicals, and why one without the other two? And over generations? What evolutionary science allows for the creation of a physical component based on the future development of chemistry that doesnt even exist?

And lets talk feathers for a second...PLEASE...the evolutionary environment that would have to go into creation a feather, let alone the bone structure, muscle structure, and metabolism to support and sustain flight...

Sorry...I love talking about this stuff.

I would especially love to hear actual real live honest to goodness science based remarks that would go to explaining these things. Real live discussion. Whaddya say yank? Want a shot at the title?

MindMechanic said...

For the record...I do not in fact have too much time on my hands. I am intentionally avoiding writing a final on psychopharmacology. And now I have pretty much run out of excuses...


Cameron said...

In the last Utah legislative session Senator Buttars introduced a bill that would have modified the way evolution is taught in Utah schools. He posted the text of the original bill on the Senate Site in December of 2005. An interesting debate ensued with 101 comments (and counting).

MindMechanic said...

lots of good points there and sadly, lots of the you bad me good language as well.

I dont think I would be in favor of LEGISLATING teaching ID as theory. I think the schools, the districts, the teachers ought to have the ability (and IMO the intellectual integrity) to offer all potential theories.

It isnt a very 'scientific' arguement to state that while science has admitted holes and flaws it requires no defense because it is theory, whereas ID deserves no consideration because it is just theory. I think some folks missed that...

Reach Upward said...

BrainMechanic, you make some good points. What I want my children to understand about science is how the scientific method works, plus what we really know, what we think we know, what we are unsure of, and what is completely unknown.

It would be great if my kids came out of science classes understaning that while we have some well-developed and interesting ideas, there are many questions that are open for study by application of the scientific method -- something in which they themselves could someday be involved.

Instead we sometimes get ideogogical stone walls that boldly confirm (or at least imply) that we *know* that something occurred a certain way, although, many obvious leaps of faith are required to accept such 'knowledge.' Discussion of the deficiencies of these 'facts' results in cries of herecy and idological witch hunts.

Indeed, religion has no corner on the market on faith. It also has no corner on the market on discouraging inquiry.

Science is about inquiry. It should welcome inquiry, even if new discoveries require the rewriting of textbooks and the jettison of research grants. Now, that would be bold indeed. The increasing politicalization of science threatens the very core of real science.

Cameron said...

Reach, you are so right about discouraging inquiry.

Just ask an environmentalist to clarify a few things about global warming and note the reaction you get.

MindMechanic said...

At some point in the history of time, perhaps some ten to twenty billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was extremely close together. In fact, it was so close together that it was all in the same place, the exact same point. This point, of infinitesimally small size, had infinite density. The curvature of space-time was infinite. Essentially, the universe was curved into itself. At such a point, the general theory of relativity breaks down, according to its own principles, and all the laws of science known to man today break down with it. Mathematicians call this type of point a singularity. The singularity at the beginning of the universe was in a condition for which man has no ability of prediction. Our mathematical and physical laws cease to apply, and we can neither say what will come after nor what came before.
At this point, man’s ability to describe the state of the universe is extremely limited. The laws of physics under such a condition are not known. Indeed, nothing then would be recognizable to man, or comparable to the state of the universe which he observes today. Therefore, man cannot say why the events which happened next did so; he can only say that they happened….
For an unknown reason, the universe suddenly began to expand.

An expansion would automatically result in a decrease in temperature. Thus, the condition of the universe began to change immediately, and slowly the particles which we recognize today began to take shape and form.
10-43 seconds after the big bang, still under very high energy, particles such as quarks, electrons, antielectrons and some possible others began to form. Their behavior of decay and collision at this time is still very much unknown, but theories such as the Grand Unification Theory attempt to describe the activity of particles at such high energy.
10-34 seconds after the big bang, quarks and antiquarks are formed at a high rate as a result of the collisions of particles at such high energies. These particle/antiparticle pairs were produced at the same time that some were being annihilated. However, for whatever reason, they were being produced much faster or with more frequency than they were being annihilated. The universe, at this point, is now the size of an orange.
By the time 10-10 seconds has elapsed, the antiquarks, as a result of collisions with quarks, have been completely annihilated and have disappeared. These collisions also resulted in the formation of photons. Also at this time, protons and neutrons have formed.
Finally, one full second after the initial moment of expansion, at a temperature of approximately ten billion degrees, the universe began to take a recognizable form: there were mostly photons, electrons, and neutrinos, and their antiparitcles, along with some protons and neutrons. The protons and neutrons started to bind together to form the nuclei of elements we know today as hydrogen, helium, lithium, and deuterium (heavy hydrogen).
With three minutes passed, at a dropping temperature of one billion degrees, the matter that has already formed couples together with radiation. This radiation is still detectable today.
Jump forward now 300,000 years, and the expanding universe still does not resemble the universe in which we live. Matter and radiation begin to decouple as electrons bind with nuclei. There is now background radiation.
Jump forward again one billion years and finally things begin to take shape. Clusters of matter form quasars, protogalaxies, and stars which burn hydrogen and helium forming heavier nuclei, and newer elements.
Finally, we stop at about 15 billion years after the big bang, possibly our present day, and what do we have? Solar systems have condensed around stars. Atoms begin to link to form complex molecules. Some of these molecules link to form living matter.
The universe is still expanding, possibly even accelerating. The expansion of the universe is modeled after the expanding surface of a balloon. Galaxies, like points on the surface, would be expanding away from every other point, such that no one point is the center. (Source for previous info: Hawking, Stephen, A Brief History of Time, 1988.)
Some estimate that the mathematical improbability of an accidental creation of the cosmos is something to the order of not just one in one zillion, but likely one in 6-7 zillion.

“The big bang theory is, of course, a mathematical model. There is a vast amount of observational support for the basic idea of an abrupt, explosive origin for the cosmos about 15 billion years ago, and I don't think the basic scenario is in doubt. But the actual originating event itself is far beyond any foreseeable observation. In the laboratory it is possible to recreate the conditions that prevailed about a trillionth of a second after the big bang, but the sort of physics we need to explain the origin of space and time occurred well before that, at energies trillions of times greater. So the explanation for the natural origin of the universe using quantum cosmology is a highly speculative piece of mathematical theory. It may turn out to be totally wide of the mark. But that doesn't matter! The key point is that we can envisage how the universe might have come into being from nothing, without violating any physical laws. A special supernatural act isn't needed to start the universe off.”

Cmon now…with scientific logic like this how can you NOT love this stuff? is the cool part. You know how we figured all this stuff out? By Intelligent Design. We use KNOWN mathematical possibilities, add in mathimatical improbabilities through quantum work, deconstruct the construction based on our experience, and voila...we SCIENTIFICALLY create the origins of the cosmos.

Scientifically, vs chance. I think that is an argument for something...just not sure what it is.

Anonymous said...

Reach Upward:
Great comments!

Now, Back to Lysis' 'Flaccid' thing . . .

After this Summer's well-publisized account of the eminent rotundity, the bloviating/flatulating Oxy-contin king, "Bush/Republican spokes-mouth, needing to "pump up" his dangling macho profile by illegally smuggling in a "grundle" of VIAGRA to restore, if not his sagging opinions, at least "pump up" the chemical imbalance in the member he thinks best with; Lysis should be chagrin to use the term "flaccid" for ANYONE else. All together now . . . EEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

Why would I read Ann Coulter's opinions about evolution -- or has she suddenly now too become a Botanist?

Non-specified "credentials" and lecture notes on Inherit the Wind does not a Botanist make!!!!

I don't watch Jerry Springer to edify myself about the Theory of Relativity, and I don't seek out Howard Stern for Spiritual counseling.
But now, I am supposed to read Ann Coulter's "God-for saken" book to become worthy enough to comment on evolution and ID -- what hoo-ey!!!!

"I don't have to make
arguments, Coulter has
made them for me." -Lysis

. . . sounds like LOVE

Better Coulter than Divine Jupiter!!!!

Lysis said...


“In the beginning Eru, the One, who in the Elvish tongue is named Iluvatar, made the Ainur of his thought; and they made a great Music before him. In this Music the World was begun; for Iluvatar made visible the song of the Ainur, and they beheld it as a light in the darkness. And many among them became enamored of its beauty, and of its history which they saw beginning and unfolding as in a vision. Therefore Iluvatar gave to their vision Being, and set it amid the Void, and the Secret Fire was sent to burn at the heart of the World; and it was called Ea.” (Source for previous info: Tolkien, J.R.R., *The Silmarillion*)

I see much similarity between Tolkien’s imaginings and those of Hawkines; which you posted. Both are men of great intellect and both imagine a beginning to the World that suits their fancy.


Global warming is another sacred liberal cow – like the claim that Carl Rove outed that secretary over at CIA. They will never see the truth.

Reach Upward:

Great comments, they are the same as Coulter’s.


The only thing proven by your pain induced dribble is that “It is the Truth that hurts.” Once again your limp response; desperate, foul, and impotent; merely proves to all thinking readers the premise of this post, “No one is so blind as he who will not see!!”

MindMechanic said...

I sort of like Tolkiens version!

He was a good writer...they ought to make a movie or something out of some of his works...


Anonymous said...

Hay Anonymous above?

No one asked you to read Coulters book to get opinions on evolution - Lysis just wanted you to read her book so you could comment intelligently on her book. It seems to me you have already made up your mind on this topic and are afraid to find out the truth. Seems like you’re the religious fanatic and your religion is the godless one Coulter talks about in her book.

Reach Upward said...

Lysis, I very much enjoy the fantasy in the Silmarillion, but I was too dense to understand it until my mid-20s. My 15-year-old recently gave up trying to grasp Tolkien's meaning in the book. I told him to revisit it again in a couple of years. Tolkien's seemingly boundless imagination is fantastic. But at least he never promoted it as anything other than fantasy.

MindMechanic said...

Speaking of the blind leading the just plain goofy...

Wasnt it just a few months ago that the lib left was screaming for Rove's head on a platter insisting TREASON charges be brought for outing a 'high level' CIA operative and spearheading Bush's dirty tricks campaign against his political enemies? Werent they callijng for impeachment?

Now we find out it was Richard Armitage, opponent of the Bush administration on the Iraq foreign policy...

and silence from the left.

C'mon...where are your pitchforks and torches???

Anonymous said...

I'll hold my nose, let the text fall open to where it may and swiftly dip my finger at random into the steaming pile of horse excrement called "God-for-Saken"

Lysis, will not ascribe even ONE of Coulter's "arguments" . . . not depict even the BEST of Coulter (what an oxyMORON THAT is). So first, let's take what Coulter hides from everyone!!!!

"The problem with all the anti-evolutionists is the same one Coulter suffers from via the osmosis of her secondary reading. NOT ONE OF THEM HAS THE SLIGHTEST COMPREHENSION OF OR INTEREST IN THE FACTS OF NATURAL HISTORY. They have no working idea in their own minds of what DIVERSITY exists in the real world, or how much variety is to be found in the fossil record. Add to that the complete conceptual failure to WORK OUT FROM THEIR OWN NONEVOLUTIONARY (ID) PERSPECTIVE exactly what they think was going on in the past -- (asside from Myth, Tolkein and Divine Jupiter nonsense)-- or what should have been taking place were the dreaded evolution theory really NOT calling the shots.
In a quite real sense then, anti-evolutionists are comparing NOTHING (their lack of understanding of evolutionary theory -- (Lysis should read more REAL Biologists and Botanists and less Coulter) to NOTHING (their NON-formulated design theory). No surprise then that they decide that Intelligent Design wins this contest.
The initial failure of Coulter's reading starts with the fact that her reference base has no comprehension of what speciation involves; ie BIOGEOGRAPHY.
It was no coincidence that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace independently hit on the "descent with modification via natural selection" ideas from having explored the world as field naturalists. Unlike the museum based evolution skeptics Cuvier, Owen, Lysis. Darwin and Wallace saw firsthand the peculiarly restricted nature of animal diversity, especially on isolated islands.
It was hardly a problem to imagine a designer populating an island with creatures well suited to their existence there. But if the driving force behind life were natual evolution, then a entirely different imperative comes into play. No matter how habitable a fresh water stream might be on a distant isle, there could be no fish there because specialized freshwater adapted fish could not have crossed the oceans to colonize it.
No matter how big the forest may be -- composed, not incidentally, entirely of plants able to propagate by floating or airborne seed dispersal (e.g. via bird droppings. (Botanists who collect DATA tell us) -- there would be no large endemic vertebrate herbivores or carnivores strolling amongst the foliage. This pattern was so ubiquitous, seen by Darwin and Wallace in different decades and opposite sides of the world, that they were each driven to realize the only way to account for these DATA was to accept that branching speciation had indeed been the cause of it.
What is the ID/Creationist/Coulter explanation for all this? They don't have one. Oh, it's way worse than simply offering lame or pathetic ad hoc excuses for the facts of biogeograpghy. It is that the Coulter anti-evolutionists literally do not think about biogeography at all -- neither to refute its evolutionary implications, not to somehow integrate it into the INTEL-DESIGN framework whose scientific verity of which they are so confident.
Because biogeography is a complete non-subject for Coulter (not typically caught reading people she doesn't already agree with)Coulter/Lysis would have no way of knowing the monumental hole residing at the very center of ID MYTHOLOGY. Millions of species of plant and animals and microorganisms have flowed through time and space in a pattern UNIQUELY accountable by evolutionary theory. This is attested doubly by detailed discussions evolutionists (REAL Botanists even and devoted to the subject and willing to do the work) and by the FAILURE of antievolutionists to even dare a clumsy whack at it. That would evidently include all of the tutorials whom Coulter (2006, 303) reported she obtained from those Discovery Institute Fellows Behe, Berlinski and Dembski (NONE of whom have ventured any opinion on the biogeography/speciation issue.

To reiterate: without a firm grip on the raw DATA of biogeography the Coulter antievolutionists can have no sense of what branching speciation can do in the living world. Hence they can possess not even a ROUGH heuristic to apply to the much more fragmentary fossil DATA DATA DATE to assess how much may be conservatively accounted for by the microevoltionary wiggles of accepted speciation mandated by the strictures of observed biogeography. Indeed, to fit the full range of biogeography into a design framework funtionally requires attributing "creation with apparent ancestry" to the designed organisms. Which puts Coulter/antievoluionism into the same omphalos category as "creation with apparent age" used by Young Earth Creationists to dismiss theologically unpleasant geological of cosmological findings."

a quiet listener said...

Lysis, I remember as a kid being in the kitchen and all the adults would be gathered around the island countertop in the middle talking. I always wanted to see what was going on and stood tippy-toed to the edge but still couldn’t see what was on top of the table. I found myself looking upward in curiosity often enough that I tried jumping or climbing on creaky desk drawers. In either scenario I was only able to glimpse a whole new world of things for but a moment before falling again to the ground.

Similarly God can enlighten and elevate our thoughts and knowledge in a few aspects for a brief time but the whole knowledge will come only as we grow spiritually. I believe that since this life is a preparatory time that people aren’t intended in this life to know all God knows, but rather grow and progress and prove ourselves worthy to continue in bigger better things. The barbarian who lived before Christ, modern technology and other advanced education as we have it now will have an equal chance to learn all things if he lives correctly in his sphere.

As a botanist you are bothered by my “animal-centric view” of the Garden of Eden in that it does not corroborate with your observations of nature. Well, as chemist you might think that likewise I would be very much upset by Christ being able to turn water into wine. What scientific process can explain such a phenomenon? None, well, none that are known anyway. Let’s suppose that in the future science advances will be ample enough to explain it. Will only those living in that era be able to benefit from this knowledge? I think not, I think that those who beheld the miracle in the first place will benefit as much or more by the miracle because they learned faith by and through it. As we grow we’ll see that it makes sense although now it seems to contradict nature.

Now to avoid being as pleonastic as BrainMechanic (you might tell that I’m working on my vocab in preparation for taking the GRE in a few months). I’ll get to the point. Maybe BrainMech’s very long entry about the big bang is correct. Maybe in a few years Science will quietly replace that “truth” with a new “truer truth” as it often does. So What? Isn’t that the more important question? What if God said those verses of pretty poetry in genesis and it was so? So What? I argue that the important part of this is how we let it affect who we are and what we do. If an absolute truth exists but cannot be known then as you suggest we must live by reason and faith. How did God create this universe? I don’t know, but if I did know the exact mechanics of it… I hope that I could still live a good life regardless and benefit in putting faith in the miracle of the creation. Like I said the important part of anything we reason or have faith in is what we do with it. If I manipulate and corrupt what truth may be present to bolster my own self-serving purposes this is evil. An example of this is Social Darwinism. It’s a pity poor Darwin should have his name attached to such an evil doctrine used to justify immoral actions when he had no part at all in that evil application.

What’s the take away from this? Is a sure knowledge better than faith in something believed to be true or can we benefit just as much in the ultimate degree by living by reason and faith.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Flaccid’ you still can’t make a stand can you. Your flip-flopping column demonstrates conclusively that you still have not read Coulter, you have not even dipped your fingers into the pile. All you did was pretend to address *Godless* and then go off on an attack of ID which neither I nor Coulter claims as to support.

Let me point out to all that:

1. An attack (Especially – ad homonym) on ID is not a defense of Darwin. Saying George Bush speaks poorly does not mean Bin Ladin is any less of a terrorist. Flaccid, when will you ever learn this simple principal of argumentation?

2. Flaccid’s presentation of “Branching Speciation” is IN FACT itself a repudiation of Darwin’s theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Branching Speciation is an attempt to explain diversity without natural selection; proving that many “Scientists” have abandoned Darwin.

Now, Flaccid – since you are unwilling to actually read Coulter’s book yourself let me “ascribe” some of her arguments to see if you can stand up to any of them.

From Coulter’s book:

1. Pgs. 202 - 203: She makes three claims as to what the “Theory” of evolution is:

a) Random mutation of desirable attributes
b) Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals
c) Leading to the creation of new species

Question to Flaccid: Where is she wrong here?


2. Pg. 203 She asserts that, “Most of the time, it takes more than one lousy mutation to create anything really useful, like an eye or a poisonous fangs or a tail. In order to get to the final product, each one of the hundreds of mutations needed to create a functional wing or ear would itself have to make the mutant animal more fit, otherwise it wouldn’t survive, according to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. . . The evolutionist’s answer is Assume that each one of the hundreds of mutations necessary to create the final product is itself “fit” in ways we don’t understand but must accept on faith because it’s Holy Scripture. We haven’t even gotten to the second step, and evolutionists are already asking us to assume a miracle. That’s what they mean by “science, not faith.”

Question to Flaccid: Can you explain or give examples of the step by step evolution of gills or eyes or any other complex biological system by scientifically demonstrable “fitter” intermediate steps?

On pgs. 203 – 204 Coulter presents the arguments of Michael Behe, Lehigh University biochemist as presented in his book, *Darwin’s Black Box*. (By the way Flaccid – calling Behe names will not refute his arguments.) Remember these are Behe’s arguments, not Coulter’s. Behe produced various “irreducibly complex” mechanisms, of which there are thousands – complex cellular structures, blood-clotting mechanisms, and the eye among others. A bacterial motor, called a flagellum, depends on coordinated interactions of 30 – 40 complex protein parts. The absence of almost any one of the parts would render the flagellum useless. An animal cell’s whip like oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap, with far fewer necessary components than a cilium or flagellum. Though there are only a few parts to a mousetrap, all of them have to be working together at one time for a contraption to serve any function whatsoever. If one of the parts is missing, Behe says, you don’t get a mousetrap that catches only half as many mice: you don’t get a mousetrap at all. Behe then demonstrated that it is a mathematical impossibility for all 30 parts of the flagellum (or 200 part of the cilium) to have been brought together by the “numerous, successive, slight modifications” of natural selection.”

Question to Flaccid: Please tell us how Behe is wrong? Please do it by giving observable examples of the working and naturally advantageous successive but not complete modifications that lead to the production of even so “simple” a biological mechanism as a flagellum?

On pgs 208 Coulter debunks an attack on Behe by [Richard] Dawkins in his book *River Out of Eden*. In the book Dawkins claims that there are computer simulations of evolving eyes. But Coulter then references David Berlinski in “Commentary” magazine, quoted by Tom Bethell in *The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science*: “This notion that there is somewhere a computer model of the evolutionary development of the eye is an urban myth. Such a model does not exist. . . The senior author of the study on which Dawkins based his claim – Dan E. Nilsson – has explicitly rejected the idea that his laboratory ever produced a computer simulation of the eye’s development.”

Question to Flaccid: Why shouldn’t we conclude that refutations based on lies are proof that the Darwinists have no legitimate biological evidence to support their beliefs? Once again, would you please provide us with a real model of the evolution of any complex biological mechanism?

On pgs 210 – 211 Least her readers (something that Flaccid obviously is not) should think that Coulter only has one scientist in her corner, she goes on to reference Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, (please examine his scientific awards on pg 210) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (who holds the highest doctorate –Sc.D - from the University of Cambridge and is a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University of Wales, and director of the Cardiff Center for Astrobiology.) “Hoyle ran the numbers to determine the mathematical probability of the basic enzymes of life arising by random processes. They concluded that the odds were 1 to 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes, or ‘so utterly minuscule” as to make Darwin’s’ theory of evolution absurd. Hoyle said a “common sense interpretation of the facts” is that “a super intellect has monkyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

Question to Flaccid: Would you please produce your scientists, their credentials, and their models and conclusions contradicting Hoyle and Wickramasinghe?

On Pg 211 Coulter quotes Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel prize for his co discovery of DNA. [Crick] also realized that the spontaneous evolution of life could not be reconciled with the facts. As he said, “The probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd.”

Question to Flaccid: Would you please find a scientist of greater distinction to counter Crick – and present your scientist’s evidence in doing so?


On pg 212 Coulter claims that “Survival of the Fittest is a tautology. “Through the process of natural selection, the “Fittest survive. Who are the “fittest”? The ones who survive! Why look – it happens every time! The “survival of the fittest” would be a joke if it weren’t part of the belief system of a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community.

Question to Flaccid: Would you please show how Survival of the Fittest is NOT a tautology?

On pgs 213 – 214 Coulter argues that survival of the fittest can’t be observed or empirically tested in the laboratory. Scientist bread into fruit flies an obviously advantages trait – avoidance to eating poison – but guess what, “the fruit flies bred to avoid eating poison did not survive. They died out while the original dumb fruit flies with no aversion to eating poison survived to reproduce. Thus, the scientists concluded: Stupid is more fit. As the headline in the “New Scientist” put it. “Cleverness May Carry Survival Costs.” Yes, it’s been observed for centuries that it’s the truly stupid who are the most successful, live the longest, are the happiest, the wealthiest, them most desirable, and so on. Let’s face it: It’s the stupid who have the inside track in this world. This is what’s known as “A Theory Incapable of Disproof.” (Or perhaps, “A Theory Born off Self-Interest.”) The fruit fly experiment is now cited as scientific proof of evolution. So whenever you hear about the “Overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution.” Remember that evolutionists have put the fruit fly poison-eating experiment in their “win” column.

Question to Flaccid: Please explain to us how such utterly ridiculous rationalization of experimental failure can be based on anything else than a fallacious tautology? How is it any different than saying “The Bible is true because it says so right in the Bible”?


Question to Flaccid: Would you please give and example of a single species that demonstrably evolved from another?

On pg 215 – 220 Coulter points out that Darwin hoped that the Fossil Record would provide evidence of the gradual evolution of species but “In 1979, David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, described the problem this way:

“The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his *Origin of Species* to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. There were several problems, but the principal one was that the geologic record did not then and still dose not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. . . We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions that we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.”

Coulter Quotes Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould – a passionate defender of evolution - as having “Called the “extreme rarity” of transitional animals the”Trade secret of paleontology.” He said, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. And evolutionary biologist Robert Carroll admits, “Very few intermediates between groups are known for the fossil record.”

Question to Flaccid: Would you please give some examples (that are not faith based inferences) from the fossil record of the vast quantity of hapless creatures that died out in the incremental evolutionary process of survival-of-the-fittest? Would you please provide a scientist to revel to us the “Trade Secret of Paleontology”?

****** I am now 20 pages into Coulter’s 81 page evisceration of Darwin. I will pause here for fear of overwhelming Flaccid – or wasting my time, should he fail to answer even these questions. If he or anyone else does, I will be glad to continue with Coulter’s further claims so they can all be dealt with as well.

**** I hopefully await Flaccid to stand up!

Quiet listener

Why would God give us the power to think than expected us to be satisfied with blind faith acceptance of poetry? Why would God allow us to discover how to produce electricity and perform brain surgery, but draw the line – as too much for his children to understand - at the question of where we came from. Are you seriously telling me that God would give us a mind of infinite capacity (In His own image) and then be pleased if we forsook asking the questions that would bring us to his level? You’re starting to sound like Steven Hawking, with all this “we can’t possibly understand this” stuff.

As for water to wine – try Cool Aid, or try to figure out how he did it according to the laws of nature during your break – but don’t give up and say “God only knows” so I’ll quit thinking.

MindMechanic said...


Me??? Long winded???


Believe comes in handy when I am cranking out a chapter a week or a term paper at the last minute.

So...In deference...I'll stick to short answers and monosyllabic grunts.

nah...just wouldnt be me...


Anonymous said...

Some questions for Lysis to answer while I work on HIS questions -- I hope there is a lesson in this about questions and answers.

Describe the history of the papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its social, political, enonomic, religious, and philosophical impact on Europe, Asia, America, and Africa. Be brief, concise, and specific.

2,500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.

Creat life: Estimate the difference in subsequent human culture, if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English parliamentary system. Prove your thesis.

Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisias, Rameses II. Gregory of Nicea, Hammurabi. Support your evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.

Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: Cubism. the Donatist controversy, the wave theory of light. Outline a method for preventing these effects. Criticize this method from ALL possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the LAST question.

Explain the nature of matter. Include in your answer an evaluation of the inmpact of the development of mathematics on science.

Sketch the development of human thought, estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.

HONEST questions are phrased within responsible parameters and usefulness. Some questions and questioners are as DISHONEST as the answers they settle for.

But, I WILL answer !!!!

Lysis said...


Thank you for classifying questions as HONEST and DISHONEST. As I had provided ten examples of the former in my post above, I appreciate your seven examples of the latter that you have presented.

We all await your answers!!!!

Anonymous said...

You want more than seven???? Ten is more than seven so you win???? . . . that's pathetic.

The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In 10 minutes a hungry Bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel appropriate. Analyze and justify your decision.

Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test you theory.

Take a position for or against the TRUTH. Prove the validity of your stand.

So, that is ten for me too.

Typically, you've missed the point . . . again!!!!

Anonymous said...

Sorry, wasn't finished-

I am glad you discovered that "MY" questions were "DISHONEST".

Now cross-apply the characteristics of dishonesty_you found in THEM to YOURS and consequently discover my meaning!!!!

MindMechanic said...


Is it ethical to post antogonistic arguments in opposition to a position without affirming that they really arent your arguments at all but ones you have taken from someone elses blog?

It's totally OK to cite it...but I think Mr James Downward would like at least a LITTLE credit...

Anonymous said...

"Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest" is tautologous because it says that the fittest individuals leave the most offspring.
1. Survival of the fittest is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of *Origin of Species*. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to different reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified.

2. The phrase cannot be a tautology it is not trivially true. Yet there have been theories proposing that the fittest individuals perish:

Alpheus Hyatt proposed that lineages, like indiviuals, inevitably go through stages of youth, maturity, old age, and death. Towards the end of this cycle, the fittestr individuals are more likely to perish than others
The theory of orthogenesis says that certain trends, once started, kept prgressing even thougnh they become detrimental and lead to extinction. For examplw, it was held that Irish elks,. which had enormous antlers, died out because the size increase became too much to support.
The "fittest" ondividuals bould be considered thosee that are ideally suited to a particular environment. Such ideal adaptation, however, comes at the cost of being more poorly adapted to other environmnets. If the environment changes the fittest individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to any environment, and the less fit but more widely adapted organisms will survive.

3. The fitterst, to Darwin, were not those which survived, but those which could be expected to survive on the basis of their traits. For example, wild dogs selectively prey on impalas which are weaker according to bone marrow index (Pole et al. 2003). With that defintion, survival of the fittest is not a tautology. Similarly, survival can be defined not in terms of the individual's life span, but in tems of leaving a relatively large contribution to the next generation. Defined thus, survival of the fittest becomes more or less what Darwin said, and not a tauology."

An "honest" question for Lysis:
"I give you the Nylon bug.

Which, as described by Ohno in '84, and widely studied in the years since then, is a type of previously Unknown flavobacterium, which, through a single, well document framing error MUTATION can now eat nhylon.

Nylon didn't exist before 1950.

Now let's be honest here. Can I prove that there was no single favobacterium cell on the Ark that could matabolize a plastic that didn't exist yet. NO

But if you're going to use that argument we're not honestly evaluating the evidence. And since the TOE is now the accepted standard, and Creation/ ID the accepted challengers I want YOU to prove that there was no single DNA "founder molecule" 3 billion years ago."


Where are the MOUNTAINS and OCEANS of SCIENTIFIC research that affirm ID and Creationism -- may we begin to examin these Lysis?

What is the theory? Please reveal the experimental DATA and evidence that supports Coulter ID!!!!

Anonymous said...

I quoted but didn't attribute -- it WAS there or so I thought.

I liked Downward's arguments, I quoted them, we agree -- now they are MY arguments as well.

Woops! Mark Isaak attribute

Anonymous said...

You had some interesting remarks about the "Eye Analogy" -- those YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENTS and EXPERIMENAL DATA????


Is there an ETHICAL problem posting arguments and experimental data not of your own experiements and not properly quoting or attributing them?

C'est la vie
C'est la guerre

MindMechanic said...

Anon my arguments at will. When I cite know it.

Yes...the arguments as presented are mine.

When you have read a few hundred thousand positions both pro and con, you then have the ability to form your own thoughts, your own opinions, and in your own words.

However, when your big 'zing' posts are just someone elses with your own comments added in to make it appear like maybe you have DONE some actually thoughtful consideration...well...its a little cheesy IMO.

Sad too...because I was really looking forward to reading and researching YOUR intelligently presented arguments. Imagine my sadness when I found that you did far less than what Downward vilifies Coulter for...Parroting someone elses work. At least you are in good company.

I will say though that there is much reading ongoing based on Downwards article and much learning as well. So for that at least I thank you.

And for the may notice in the past and present that I dont cut and slice and pick just the parts that fit my arguments. I am looking for honest and open discussion-not just "nyah nyah you suck." I can get that from the 12 year olds.

I stated in my first posting on this..."I dont know which theory I believe". That still holds true. Theres value to it all...INCLUDING that to which we disagree. I dont kneejerk close my mind to theory just because it doesnt jibe with my 'faith.'

I do think much of the evolution arguments are ludicrous. I have YET to hear a defense that was a real and honest explanation. On that day when I DO get a real explanation or defense, I will be THRILLED because it will give me a better defense and understanding of the evolutionary theory.

MindMechanic said...

Now hush for a second while I read your other post. It actually looks well thought out!

MindMechanic said...

Anon...just so's it is clear...I posted pretty clearly...the origin of the eye arguement was in Darwins own writing.

"Darwin was asked to exlain then the eye, the existince of the neuroreceptors without optics, the simple development of the occular cavity, etc. Darwin hemmed and hawed for several moments (even later attempting a clumsy 'impromptu' recreation of the discussion with an even more complex answer in a book). Finally, Darwin responded in the most simplistic and faith based way imaginable..." must have happened, because we have eyes."

And from that argument it grows and grows.

So...was Darwin himself correct? Since no evolutionary advantage can be gained from the development of this complex organ system and its complimentary brain component...was it just an accident? Is it all just an accident and chance?

MindMechanic said...

Anon...just out of curiosity, have you read any of the opposing arguments re the nylon bug? Seems to me that both sides are so heavily dependent on proving their bias they arent actually addressing anything at all.

Its an interesting concept. I wonder what the proposed precursor to the evolutionary event was?

Lysis said...

Brainmechanic and Anonymous – I have been enjoying your interactions greatly. Brainmechanic your ability to know and find out things truly amazes me – Anonymous, you amaze me too! Having said that; I do want to thank you for stirring our thoughts and keeping us on our toes.

Now a couple of quick thoughts. I do not defend ID nor do I buy the vast majority of arguments presented by the “brethren”. I am interested in re-establishing my faith in Darwin, a “pleasant poetry” I had long held dear. But, unlike some, my faith must be based on reason, so I have asked you for some reasonable answers to questions Ann Coulter’s points create. I asked you for these answers because you seemed so sure she was wrong. Your efforts to now have only indicated a “faith based response”. It’s Coulter, she must be wrong”. I would not accept this sort of argument in defense of Genesis from A Quiet Listener, why would I accept bind faith claims from you. The key is reason and faith. As to your argument on nylon eating bacteria:

Have you heard of the appearance in the 1960’s of the Big Mac eating teenager? This is particularly exciting to Darwinists because McDonald’s Big Macs did not even exist before the mid twentieth century. OK, I admit they are still teenagers, but then the nylon eating bacteria are still bacteria.

Rumpole said...

Lysis and the Anonymy,

I have read your posts with great interest; I was stirred to use my $25 Barnes and Noble gift certificate from my birthday to purchase Coulter’s book. She makes a comment about evolutionists on page 212 that I think has far broader application than just Darwin’s theories:

“The evolutionists attack the idea of design in the universe, claiming it is a theory based on what we don’t know. The truth is exactly the reverse. The less you know about the physical world, the more plausible Darwinian evolution seems. Primitive people believed in sun gods, moon goods, and fertility gods. But as soon as humans understood the science of astronomy and reproduction (except C. Everett Koop, who still doesn’t understand that one), make believe gods moving the sun and creating babies became a less persuasive explanation.”

“Similarly, the more we know about molecules, cells and DNA, the less plausible Darwin’s theory of natural selection becomes, so the evolutionists bring lawsuits to prevent schoolchildren from being told that natural selection can’t begin to explain such complex parts as the flagellum. DNA is – as Bill Gates says – “like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Darwiniacs want us to believe that DNA – something vastly more perfect and powerful and complex than Windows XP, a program that represents the culmination of tens of thousands of years of human progress – came to exist by means of nothing more than a series of random accidents starting in a puddle of prehistoric goo.”

This is the difference between modern liberalism and conservatism. A liberal would have you believe that he knows better; a liberal would have you believe that if you place your faith in him (as in Darwin’s theory) you will have stepped on to the path of enlightenment. A conservative, on the other hand, would have you pick up the book (Coulter, in this case), read, and determine for yourself.


Considering the above, here is my set of questions.

Why do liberals fear open discussion about Darwinism verses ID?

Why do liberals encourage large groups of minorities to be dependent rather than independent (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.)?

Why do liberals believe that we are victims, rather than agents who control our own destiny?

Why are liberals threatened by the New Media, media that provides opportunity for more information and knowledge?

Why do liberals fear judges who rule based upon law rather than upon agenda?

I only have five questions. That is less than your “original seven”. Does that make you the big winner? Based upon your rousing victory, will you then, in an uncharacteristic show of graciousness and condescension, take a moment to show that you are not intimidated by a differing opinion and open the book, along with your mind?

Anonymous said...

A "few hundred thousand positions" huh? Both Pro and Con? So I square or double the original number? What is the chance of that EVER happening again -- Must be up to the 400th power if anything!!!!

Too bad I can't Google that under hyperbole/ethics . com and get the straight poop!!!!

MindMechanic said...

Anon...your 'arguments' are juvenile and quite frankly, bore me.

Anonymous said...

I haven't a clue what your use of the word LIBERAL means -- have you observed me using the word or acknowledging that I somehow "fit the word as you use it -- Nor do I know ANYONE that does.

All of your questions are really statements that "beg the question".

And how long have YOU been abusing your mother?

Anonymous said...

It is too bad your 'craze' to be entertained and not 'bored' cannot be matched with an equal portion of fair-minded objectivity and judiciousness!!!!

MindMechanic said...

Anon-its equally sad that when presented with a variety of topics for valid discussion with a wide variey of opinion, the BEST you are capable of is this. Pathetic. arent even bright enough to see that I'm not spoiling for a fight.

Anonymous said...

No. This is not the best I am capable of . . . though it is pretty good.
I especially liked the topics YOU introduced, the ones that began with Hmmmmmm and finally ended (perhaps) with "my" juvenile behavior and your boredom.

I've simply responded in kind -- if you prefer a different tact, I can reflect that also!!!!

MindMechanic said...

I guess you must have missed these opportunites for discussion. Lets see...

Discussing Darwinian logic and the evolutionary advantage involved in the creation of complex organs.
IE-eyes, bugs, birds, etc

Darwins 'other' theories...the ones that never get talked about

The pros and cons and merits of teaching the physics of ID as a learning tool (and not the religous aspect).

Mathematical improbablities of the 'big bang'

Faith based positions be they of religous origin (IE creationism) or scientific origin (IE assume it all just existed)

A foray into the merits of legislating the teaching of IDvs allowing it

Research bias

A little segue into media bias

A little tap on the hypocracy of the left and their position on leaking secrets

Anonymous said...

What is Darwinian logic?

How do complex organs evolve?
I have Googled the issue and find (as always) scientfic explanations credible.

Darwin's OTHER theories? Got to help me here.

The Physics of ID?

Once you move away from verifiablity and the scientific method, you start talking nonsense.

I have confidence in Science, I don't have Faith in Science -- Faith in science is a contradiction and oxymoron.

Science and scientists make mistakes all of the time. Newtonian physics was ultimate till Einstein -- Einstein was a theoretical footnote until the genius of Mikelson-Morley verified what seemed a theoretically absurdity.
Without CONSTANT experimentation, verifiability and the Scientific Method (some as clever as Mikelson-Morley) evolution is no more a reliable precursor than the Greek Myths or Genesis.

That Science is SELF -CORRECTING, because of its ever-present discipline of verifiability and its stringent code of conduct and methodology, makes me have SOME confidence in its laws.

Religion is not self-correcting. It factionalizes rather than seeks improvement, having no consistent methodology.

Science has taken our progenitors from out of the darkness and the CAVE ie; Plato's famous allegory.

However, I think there are forces that would have it otherwise; that would have MAN back IN the darkness forever. Science is a fragile cultual phenomenon --science will disappear if it is broken to the subservience of religion. Lysis/ Agorites see this danger coming from the Middle East -- I see the darkness in ourselves as the greater danger.

I wonder why ID and Creationistic ABSOLUTISM would settle for scientific RELATIVISM?

A cheat and a lie to the absolutist and a death sentence to the relativist.

Don't let Coulter et al, kill the goose that keeps on laying those golden eggs.

MindMechanic said...

M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

Rumpole said...


You pose some questions. Here are the answers, not in any particular order.

I haven’t abused my mother, or anyone else for that matter. Thanks for asking!

You ask how I would define liberal. I would define liberal versus conservative as follows:

A liberal is one who feels he (or for discussion purposes, government) knows better, and therefore feels he (or government) is more capable of doing the thinking for other individuals (U.S. citizens).

A conservative is one who thinks individuals are more capable of thinking for themselves.

Coulter’s comment, which I posted, is a great demonstration of that philosophy. In my estimation, liberals have done as much as possible to prevent education on topics such as open debate, dependency, victimization, information, and law in order to promote there own agenda. You have offered nothing to the contrary. Thank you for the tacit acknowledgement.

Further, I believe liberals lose ground where education exists. Do you want me to define education? Those who are educated have developed the ability to think. They recognize the difference between thinking, as opposed to being told what to think.

You are a great example of one who is willing to accept being told what to think. What fear grips you so tightly as to prevent you from being exposed to another opinion? If I could paraphrase and use a little license from Coulter, are you convinced that the less you know about the political world, the more plausible liberalism seems?

Perhaps today is the day you will show little graciousness and condescension by speaking directly to the topic. I look forward to it.

Lysis said...


Thanks for the “free” arguments. I enjoyed watching these or similar ones on Monty Python years ago – you have truly caught the spirit of Flaccid’s challenges to your positions. I hope he gets the point.


Right to the point; as usual! What is sad is that Flaccid has no more interest in your mother than he dose in finding the truth about the origin of life. He has, as you have said, illustrated a perfect example of a liberal.

What is frightening is that this gibberish, (so cuttingly parodied by Brainmechanic and The Flying Circus) is what passes for discourse in many circles in America to day. Examples include the “reporting” of the major networks, the Tom Foolery of the New York Times and its subservient news paper system; can you believe this CIA leak hoax?!!!! and what passes for lecture in many University Classrooms. WE see it in the rantings of the DNC and in the comic utterances of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Read. It is as if Rocky Anderson has become the brain of the nation. God help us!


I am still waiting for even one answer to my questions on Darwinism.

Rumpole said...


The reporting of the major networks has truly been gibberish. I’m amazed at the new information out on the Plame fiasco. According to the new book Huberis (Nation’s David Corn and Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff), from the first week in October, 2003, investigators knew who was responsible for the leak. Scooter Libby is accused of obstruction? Give me a break.

And Rocky Anderson? Through our many off-line conversations you know how I feel about him. Now you’re just trying to push some buttons. It’s part of your charm!

It is no wonder that the Anonomy is silent as to the difficult questions. The truth already speaks volumes.

Silver Lining said...

Michael Isikoff still contends that Rove and company set out on an intentional smear campaign against Joe Wilson. I find this interesting primarily due to the fact that in Ambassador Wilson's oped piece for the New York Times, he stated that the Office of the Vice President sent him to Niger. If this is untrue, which it proved to be, how could Amb. Wilson or anyone think that the Vice President's Office wouldn't say that it wasn't the case. Correspondingly, it begged the question of who did send him ...... I know there is a much more eloqent and well thought out oped from the Wash. Post Friday that argues the same thing. I have thought this for some time, however. I am further amazed that an effort to contradict a critic is deamed a smear campaign. Are those tactics associated with Karl Rove because he is well associated with them or because so many have suggested he is for so long. I can't distinguish any longer.

Rumpole said...

Silver Lining,

You raised an issue that I have been wondering about quite a bit as to the prosecution of Libby and Rove vesus Armitage. I’m not a lawyer. I don’t think like one. Perhaps DannyBoy2 could answer.

Armitage leaks privileged information. He does it “apparently” accidentally. After the information is known to have been leaked, Libby mentions it to Tim Russert, who already knows about it anyway. Armitage is not worthy of prosecution because, though he broke the law, according to the prosescutor he didn’t mean to hurt anyone. Libby is worthy of prosecution because, though he broke no law, according to the prosecutor his perceived intention was to hurt someone.

In the ultimate irony, the prosecutor who proceeds on the basis of intent is really the individual who has the malicious agenda, an agenda with no basis in fact!

Last year DannyBoy2 and I had a discussion about the validity of criticizing a prosecutor. This sure seems like another good example of prosecution gone awry. How can Fitzgerald be considered beyond reproach?

And where is the National Media? All those who were so willing to hang Rove, Libby, and the President out to dry say nothing about their vindication. I guess it is pretty hard to be wrong most of the time, and then have to admit it.

Silver Lining said...


I am not an attorney, but I'm married to one. (that really doesn't get me any more expertise). It is my opinion, and I would say very supportable, that Richard Armitage didn't break the law in question. He was interviewed and cleared early on. Whether he has acted honorably or shamefully is another issue entirely and leads to your other points.

I don't think Patrick Fitzgerald is above criticism any longer here. We held to the let him do his job mantra, and now we find out that he had his man and went on with the investigation anyhow. I can only guess, in his defense, that though Armitage was the leaker of importance, Fitzgerald wanted to make sure there wasn't another leak that would have been in violation of the law. I know
DannyBoy has a more informed perspective on this. (It might be nice to get Aeneas to speak up as he has played the role of prosecutor). In my personal opinion, however, a prosecutor should be accountable for basics. Afterall, the public pays the bill. Fitzgerald owes an explanation to the public as to why he continued with the investigation. I would put this on the same level as the Jon Benet Ramsee fiasco of late. That prosecutor owes an explanation to and should be accountable in some way to the people of Boulder. If nothing else, this has many a person reconsidering the appointment of special prosecutors in general.

Scooter Libby was not charged with the same crime one would consider Armitage for. He was charged with a procedural crime, purgery. Given what we know now, however, one has to wonder how seriously we should take Libby's foggy memory given that so many people involved had foggy memories about who they spoke to (Armitage forgot for 2 years that he had spoken to Bob Woodward prior to speaking to Novak). Still, I don't dare call that one.

The press should step back and wonder at what happened. Joe Wilson claimed he had debunked the President's claim from the State of the Union Address. A Congressional Committee etc. found this to be false. Still, many in the press must have been so eager for Joe Wilson to be telling the truth. If we want to believe something is true, it often makes it easier to do so. It takes diligence to search out the evidence etc. However, the that is, in my opinion, the job of the press. They have behaved poorly and shamefully. I think you would enjoy Fred Barnes' column from the weekly this weekend on the whole Plame issue. You can find it at It is definately worth a read. I came out of it saying shame on John Ashcroft among others. However, I think the argument that Richard Armitage was the leaker does not mean that the White House wasn't involved in some incidious revenge plot against Joe Wilson seems the prevailing argument. I would say this was at least worth considering if the White House individuals in question hadn't been cleared of wrong doing. The press doesn't seem to care about that seemingly contradictory evidence though.

I am sorry to be unable to shed any legal light on the issue, but there you have it.

MindMechanic said...

I'm not a lawyer either, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I think this whole affair has been blatantly ugly and dishonest. IF anyone has ever had any doubts about the liberal hacks in the media and their propensity to shill for the democrats, this should put that all to rest.

The media and the left have been giddy...gleeful...excited about the prospect of charges against Rove. Libs were touting a Rove lynching party at the Move On Vegas convention. Democrat senators and congressmen lined up at the mic's calling for inquiry into leaks. "Capitol crimes!" they all shouted. "Treason!"

And now? Silence. Hmmm...

And where have been all thed cries for prosecution from the left for people leaking classified programs to the media?

This country has been paralyzed by the hacks on the left. They play politics and it has cost lives.

Rumpole said...


It’s late. Holidays allow me to stay up a little longer.

I am saddened by the left. I am saddened by what they have become. It seems to me that truth has been eliminated from their lexicon.

The left hates Rove for what he has accomplished. In my estimation (after having checked in at the Holiday Inn Express, like you) the left can’t reconcile conservative victories with the truth. It does not occur to the Move On crowd that the reason conservatives have won elections is because they have more often been on the side of truth. The left thinks it is all about marketing, and how it is packaged to the American people. This has been bourn out over and over again with examples like the Plame fiasco, Dan Rather’s forged documents, Clarence Thomas, and the list goes on.

I am glad for Rove’s vindication, but I feel no great joy. The left has demonstrated again that it will spare no expense, even at the peril of this great nation, to regain its power. The only hope is that Americans will stay well enough informed to stem that tide.

MindMechanic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
MindMechanic said...


I'd like to think the American public stay informed. Sadly...I think the cost of affluence is apathy and that isnt the case. Unless the bad guy is actually in our house AND killing our family, we dont pay atention to them just being there. We woke to the dangers of terrorism after 9-11 but most went to sleep shortly afterward.

Just this last weekend Al Qaida made a pretty direct and straightforward declaration. Convert or die. Its a message that has been spoken clearly for 20 years, but until something actually happens no one listens.

Also, this weekend the wonderful model of modern liberalism, Jimmy Carter. hosted the past president of Iran who promptly spoke out against America and explained why it was America's policies that caused terrorism. Really? 6 years of the Bush administration caused the last 40 years of terrorism? The terrorists anticipated Bush's election and so they tried to blow up the WTC under Clinton? The read the future and saw the Bush election and proactively sent terrorists into America during the Clinton administration? Muslim terrorists hate George Bush so in return they slaughter men, women, and children in Jordan? MUSLIM men women and children?

And yet...liberals WILL listen to this dirtbag and blame the attrocities of decades of muslim fascist terrorists and blame it on Bush.

I was willing to consider a new president in 2004. I admire Bush's commitment to integrity and I believe he is an honorable person. He represents something we missed during the Clinton administration...
integrity, honor, character.

However, I dont think he is without failings.

Unfortunately, we got from the left exactly what we have come to expect from them. Whining, complaining, moaning, arguing, fighting, anything but a PLAN...for ANYTHING.

Social security-nothing
Foreign Policy-nothing

The democrat candidate spent MONTHS running on the phrase "I have a plan"

so...plenty of time to analyze everything...

can ANYONE answer the question "what was the plan?"

The answer is no because the liberal plan is to spew venom and hatred and accomplish nothing. Say NOTHING because then the people might actually hold you to it.

And the media sells it.

And people buy it.

The anon collective is a prime example.