Friday, August 19, 2011

Does Rick Perry Believe in Science?

A few pundits are holding out for a white knight, but, all told, the field of Republican presidential candidates is complete. It’s going to be Romney, Perry, or Bachmann. More likely it’s going to be either Romney or Perry.

As much as I hate to say it, Chris Christie is not running. He has said it too often and too clearly. Were he to change his mind, he would immediately be taxed with going back on his word.

As for Paul Ryan, how are you going to challenge a president who suffers from youth and executive inexperience with a candidate who is younger and less experienced?

It is not enough to have a plan, as one conservative thinker said the other day. A president chooses a plan; he need not invent it. To be effective, he must sell and implement the plan.

By now, we all know that Democrats would much prefer to run against Mitt Romney.

If you were Barack Obama, you would too. You would open the first presidential debate by thanking Romney for crafting a health care plan that laid the groundwork for Obamacare. You would look gracious and generous, and you would put Romney on the defensive.

Romney could huff and puff all he wanted about the two not being the same thing, but you cannot win an election on a distinction that does not make much of a difference.

Rick Perry seems to be scaring the Obama team silly. He has also attracted considerable scorn from establishment Republicans, but one does not feel that being the anti-establishment candidate is going to detract from his candidacy.

Clearly, the Obamacrats do not want to run against the Texas job machine. They do not want to run against a governor whose state is producing jobs by beating down labor unions, trial lawyers, and environmentalists.

And the Obamacrats do not want to see Barack Obama standing on the national stage next to someone who looks like the Marlboro man.

Obama would be far more comfortable with a former Massachusetts governor who comes across as a bland technocrat.

A new, improved Michael Dukakis.

Next to Rick Perry Obama is going to look like an effete metrosexual. He would not look very presidential.

Like it or not, Rick Perry seems to have a higher virility quotient than either Obama or Romney.

Rick Perry projects old fashioned manliness at a time when the liberal left has just about obliterated it.  Rick Perry has the matriarchy quivering in its boots… not because it is afraid of men, but because it is afraid of giving up its own power and influence.

Over the past few days, the Democratic pundits and activists have been out in force, scaring the elderly, manipulating women, shoring up Obama’s base of pseudo-intellectuals, doing everything in their power to stop the Perry juggernaut.

Remember the woman who told her son-- he looked to be 10 or 11-- to ask Gov. Perry how old the earth was. Huh?

The world financial markets are in turmoil. America is falling into a second recession, and this brilliant mother wants to test the candidates knowledge about… what?

Next, the same mother, having turned her son into a ventriloquist’s dummy, prompted him to ask Gov. Perry his opinion of evolution.

Perry offered something of an answer, suggesting that evolution is a theory and that there are gaps in it. He added that children in Texas could learn creationism and evolution.

Ventriloquist Mom was not finished yet. Still afraid to ask a direct question, she told her son: “Ask him why he doesn’t believe in science.”

In the old days people would question whether or not you believe in God. Nowadays, science has become the new religion, so people want to know whether you belong to the same church they do.

Leaving evolution aside for a moment, let’s recognize that when she asks whether or not you believe in science, she is really asking whether or not you believe in the leftist policies that are being imposed on us in the name of science.

Believing in science means accepting the dogma of climate change and joining the ranks of the Luddite environmentalists who have never seen a job they wouldn’t sacrifice to save a smelt or a lizard.

Be that as it may, what about evolution? For what it’s worth, count me among those who accept that the theory of evolution is science.

But, believing in evolution does not preclude believing in God.

Why would God’s hand not be guiding evolution? Why wouldn't natural selection be a natural law that expresses the will of God?

If evolution is scientific fact, then it certainly worked its magic before Darwin thought about it. But if the development of species was following the laws of evolution before anyone thought about them, then clearly, they existed prior to their becoming science. If so, in what place did the idea exist? If it was an idea that existed regardless of whether or not humans understood it, then, who or what was thinking it?

A more intriguing issue, is to ask whether sophisticated liberal thinkers today believe in Darwin? Do they really believe in science?

Most liberals today believe that gender differences are social constructs. They refuse to accept any scientific evidence to the contrary. Do they really believe in science? I remarked the other day on how the zealots who believe in gender parity willfully ignore the fact that the disparity between male and female SAT math results reflects nothing other than a biological difference.

Politically correct thinkers also believe that reality is socially constructed. But if you do not believe in an objective, measurable reality, then you certainly do not believe in science.

Worse yet, how many liberals today believe that human sexuality is really about how to reproduce most successfully and how to ensure that children grow up to count among the fittest.  

When was the last time that one of them argued that reproduction was the meaning of sexual behavior? When was the last time one of them admitted that the purpose of marriage was to support reproduction and to provide the best conditions for bringing up children?

In truth, no one on the political left would ever admit to believing such things.

If you defend traditional marriage on the grounds that it provides the best circumstances for producing and raising the most fit children, you will be denounced as a bigot.

Sophisticated modern thinkers believe that the meaning of sex is pleasure, that all forms of sexual pleasure are roughly equivalent, and that only a troglodyte would want to privilege couplings where a child is raised in a home with his or her two biological parents, or where necessary, by a reasonable facsimile of same.

Will the real Darwinians please stand up?


Robert Pearson said...

A great exploration of the contradictions between leftism and "science".

Objective reality has a way of smacking one in the face. The idea that with enough effort and $$$ we can have 50% of scientists be women, or that schools can feminize boys, reminds me of a Robert A. Heinlein tale (in Time Enough for Love) about getting ahold of a little wolf pup and raising it as a dog...with enough dog training it would, of course, be a loving house pet.

The outcome is left as an exercise for the reader.

The Ghost said...

religion and science both end up at the same point ...

science can explain where we come from all the way back to the big bang ... but then what ? what created all of that matter ? It was just there ? Really ? because that leaves the door open to say that God was just there at the beginning also ...

If scientists don't have to explain where the matter came from then religious folks don't have to explain where God came from ...

see, both at the same point ... and both can coexist ...

Robert Pearson said...

Heh, Ghost, the other night I watched Stevie Hawking exlain to us proles that before the Big Boom there was NO TIME, see, so there was no God 'cause Something came out of Nothing due to quantum flucuations. And that's why he's an Atheist.

Quantum flucuations, the Unmoved Mover...something out of nothing, one way or the other. I think you're spot on!

Anonymous said...

Why would God’s hand not be guiding evolution? Why wouldn't natural selection be a natural law that expresses the will of God?

The problem Bible believing Christians have w/ evolution is that according to the Bible death came AFTER Adam sinned. And Jesus Christ needed to come and die in order to pay for their sins and gain victory over death.

If evolution was involved in bringing about Adam that would mean death existed BEFORE Adam sinned. B/c as we know, there was an awful lot of death and dying before man came to be...according to evolution.

Evolution cannot co-exist along side of Bible believing Christianity.

tiendas eroticas said...

What exactly you're writing is a horrible mistake.