In the NY Times, Russ Douthat analyzes the Imperial Obama. But from the start he asserts a belief in Obama's initial sincerity which was unjustified at the time and even more unjustified now. Obama had two known, primary features at the time of his 2008 elections: first he was a dedicated Leftist community organizer teaching Alinsky's Rules For Radicals to the Chicago victim class; second, all of the other pertinent information about him was concealed, locked down by Leftist sycophants, and is still concealed. His primary qualifications then, were a) he is black; b) he is black. As for Obama having been sincere and openly honest, no one who actually looked objectively and thoroughly at the embryonic Obama phenomenon could actually come to that conclusion.
So based on Douthat's undeserved introductory gift to Obama, none of his subsequent feelings on the subject bear any weight either. It was clear from the onset of Obamaism what the character of the man is. That has not changed, and to call it change is absurd: it was perfectly, obviously inevitable.
2 comments:
Stan, what do you make of this:
Wikipedia: List of transitional fossils
I got this off a blog that was talking about the ex-baseball player Curt Schilling and his denial of evolution. One person said this in response:
Quote"Seriously, if someone says evolution is wrong because there aren't fossils between monkeys and men, find a monkey and hit him with it."Quote
Ya gotta love 'em for trying - both sides.
Side One: Using "lack of" transitional fossils - or lack of anything - as a statement of proof, is less than juvenile. It is part of the Inductive Fallacy, because at any moment that "lack" could be filled, thus falsifying the assertion.
Side two: Calling Archaeopteryx a transitional fossil is false, and that has been dropped from evolutionists' lexicon long ago. And calling Tiktaalik a transitional fossil, ditto.
Evolution will not be either proven or disproven based on fossils: fossils just are, and no truth can be derived from them beyond that they existed and died as they are found. Any extrapolation beyond that is a subjective inference, a flight of fancy, frequently a flight of fancy based on ideological presuppositions, such as Philosophical Materialism.
Evolution is disproven by the existence of features and structures which cannot be deduced from mineral properties, and by its inability to form into predictive theories capable of being subjected to cause/effect replication and validation.
Evolution is not a cause/effect hypothesis of the order of Newtonian physics. It has no influence on modern biology, because it predicts anything, everything and nothing, all simultaneously and without causal explanation. Modern biology in no manner uses evolution to build new hypotheses to pursue empirically. It can't because there is no predictability inherent in evolution.
From this it is obvious that evolution is a meta-theory which exists outside of physical prediction necessary to be a science: that makes it a belief system, not objective knowledge. It is, in fact, metaphysical and since it engenders radical belief, it is religious in nature.
Post a Comment