A Few Thoughts on ID - Part I. The Fossil Record

At the risk of being dismissed by the ID crowd as not being an expert in the subject, there are a few aspects of their flawed reasoning about which I would like to comment.

This post is very long, so I am going to break it into three parts. To get it into the proper order on the page, Part 3 was posted 1st, Part 2 2nd, and Part 1 3rd. Hence the apparent contradiction in the time stamps is an artifact of ensuring a convenient reading experience.

Part I. The Fossil Record
Part II. The Age Of The Earth
Part III. Religion In The Classroom


IDers frequently complain that the fossil record fails to contain evidentiary link of the evolution of “man from ape.” This argument is disingenuous as it shows a complete lack of understanding of what the theory of evolution says. Man did not evolve from extant species of apes, rather, man and ape share a common ancestor. Thus, the fossil record would never show intermediary species between human and ape. What it would (and does) show is a progression backwards from both species to intermediary forms sharing increasingly (as time goes backwards) similar traits.

In other words, the theory of evolution states that millions of years ago, there was a species B that due to environmental pressures and random mutations became two nearly identical species, B’ and B’’ which occupied similar, but slightly different, habitats. As time went on, B’ and B’’ (also through environmental pressures and random mutations) further differentiated themselves (i.e. widened the gap of similarity). This process ultimately resulted in two completely new species, AB and BC, along with numerous intermediary forms, b, b’, b’’, etc. that became extinct because they could not adapt or compete.

What did survive, however, was species AB, which displayed predominantly human-like traits, and species BC which displayed predominantly ape-like traits. As the evolutionary process continued in the same manner as above, AB evolved into modern humans (A) and modern apes (C). Actually, I think species C is either orangutans or rhesus monkeys. Again, I’m not an expert, I just read a lot. Either way, the point is that there would not be a direct intermediary path between species A and C.

What galls me is that the IDers refuse to acknowledge that this is what evolution teaches, and instead insist that without the direct link between A and C, it “proves” that evolution is wrong. Even were they to argue in good faith that there were gaps in the intermediary forms, it would not disprove evolution. The fact that there are gaps in the evolutionary record is not half as surprising as the fact that there are so many “slots” on the path that are actually filled in. It takes very precise conditions for a fossil to result from the bones of a dead creature. Ravages of time and weather further decrease the likelihood that any particular fossil will even survive the intervening millennia such that it can be found. I think that a fossil is much like making a cheesecake: it takes very specific conditions to come out right, but when it does, the result is spectacular.

A Few Thoughts on ID - Part II. The Age of the Earth

The second area which defies logical reasoning is the young Earth argument. In the interest of fairness, I should point out that not all IDers subscribe to the young Earth (yE) belief. Those that do, and the strict creationists, believe that the Earth came about around 6000BC. Whenever science demonstrates a method to prove the Earth is older, the yEs use various leaps of logic to show how the measurement or observation is wrong.

I’m not interested in debating the relative merits of any of the arguments for or against the yE theory, simply because I believe there is a much better source of proof that has been overlooked, primarily by westerners (both scientist and non-scientist alike). That source is the history of China. Perhaps unique among the Chinese throughout their history is the wholesale absorption of previous cultures into succeeding groups and dynasties, which gives an unbroken record back in time.

I have seen arguments using the ancient Egyptians as proof that the world must be older than 6000BC. The problem with this is that ancient Egyptian culture and peoples ended around 1000BC or so, thus leaving room for yEers to argue that the actual dates are flawed. This situation does not exist with the Chinese. The Chinese have an unbroken written history that extends to 5000BC and an unbroken oral tradition that extends to 7000BC. In fact, the earliest creation story in Chinese history dates from around 7000BC. The story places the origin of the earliest Chinese culture at around 10000BC. In case you are curious, there is a fantastic display of this fact in the National Palace Museum in Taipei, Taiwan.

Just to make this clearer, the display is a timeline that shows the rise and fall of various civilizations and peoples throughout the world. Over all of this is superimposed a timeline of the Chinese, which correlates events in their history with that of the rest of the world. This gives us an independent method to validate the age of civilization, if not the Earth. It would be impossible to impeach this source for the simple fact that there is no gap!

For the sake of argument, even if we were to be credulous regarding the age of the oral histories, they could be independently verified by the archeological record. Artifacts have been discovered in China dating to before 5000BC which exactly correlate to the oral tradition. Thus, once again, the age of the Chinese culture can be established as originating around the time of those artifacts. I have seen tortoise shells bearing marks of having been heated over open flames in museums in China that have been dated to 6-7000 BC. There are also both written and oral records of ancient Chinese using tortoise shells heated in fire as a means of divination, thus proving the age is at least possible.

There may be research into this of which I am not aware, but if not, it certainly seems that it would be an unanswerable argument against the yE “theory.” At the very least, Chinese history is fascinating and bears a closer look by westerners.

A Few Thoughts on ID - Part III. Religion In The Classroom

The final area in this debate about which I want to comment is the separation of church and state. The IDers insist that scientists are trying to remove religion as a subject of discussion in schools. Their implicit argument is that science and scientists are atheists. This argument is flawed on both accounts. First of all, science and religion are not mutually exclusive, a topic I examined in “Get Your Politics Out of My Science.” Second, the scientific community is not opposed to religion or its teaching. In point of fact, the establishment clause does not prohibit the teaching of religion in school. The clause merely prohibits teaching of religion in a manner that could be construed to be endorsing one belief system over another.

I have read many articles by members of the scientific community who have suggested that religious objections to evolution or even religious beliefs in creation stories have a place in the public schools. That place is in philosophy, comparative religion, history, or even literature classes. Teaching about religions and their beliefs in this manner would not violate the establishment clause and it would expose the students to the very ideas that the IDers and creationists want them to hear. I can see no reason why the IDers and creationists refuse to accept this alternative.

Of particular note is the IDers’ and creationists’ failure to respond to the question of which ID or creation theory to teach. As has been noted by numerous proponents of evolution (and in a most hilariously satirical way in the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), there are as many creation myths as there are religions. To teach one as “science” to the exclusion of all others would mean that the proponents were in favor of teaching a “theory” about which there was significant disagreement among “experts.” Thus, they would fall victim to their own argument regarding not teaching evolution.

This contradiction forces the IDers to adopt their latest tactic, which is to “teach the controversy.” This too, however, fails, as the “theory” of ID is disputed by countless “experts” of other creation myths. Presumably the creationists have less of a problem with this as they actively want to force an evangelical belief system into the public schools. Curiously though, I have never heard of a creationist who objected to English classes teaching “The Book of 1000 Nights and A Night,” despite the frequent references to “the one, true faith” and the fact that Burton rarely translates “Allahu Akbar.”

Thus, the only “controversy” in evolution is an artificial one introduced by the opponents for reasons which cannot be defended, even by their own arguments. American students are continuing to show performance gaps in math and science when compared to other industrialized nations. Our schools have suffered enough at the hands of the IDers and the Montessori crowd. It is high time to demand quality, rigorous teaching at all levels using material appropriate to the subject. That means teaching science in science class and religion elsewhere.

It's The Context That Matters

Last week the NCAA announced that any school with a name or logo that refers to American Indians will be banned from displaying that name or logo during post-season games. Today, NORAD has decided to change names of exercises that use similar words. As an example, the head of NORAD, Adm. Keating, sent a memo to the Pentagon: “Amalgam Fencing Brave will now be known as Amalgam Fencing Dart.” Thanks, that’s useful information.

Why do we insist on seeing offense where none is given? In the case of the Florida State Seminoles, the name, mascot, and costumes were all designed by the Seminole Nation themselves. Despite this, the NCAA seems to think that they know better than the tribe members and that this name is offensive. The majority of athletic team mascots are things like “Giants,” “Bears,” and “Timber Wolves.” These all refer to things which are known for their size, strength, ferocity, or some other aspect we admire and respect, not hate and decry. Names like “Seminoles” or “Braves” are no different. The schools choose the names to honor the American Indians, not deride them.

NORAD presents an odder case. A NORAD spokesman said that the changes were made, not because of any complaints, but rather to avoid offending anyone. Unlike the existence of the Seminoles, I didn’t even know we had an “Operation Amalgam Fencing Brave” let alone know I should be offended by it.

A name cannot be offensive on its own. Rather, it is the context in which it is used that determines if offense is meant. If Discovery Channel does a special on “The Poison Frogs of Madagascar,” no one insists that they change the name of the show in order to avoid offending people of French decent. Out of context, the word “frog” has no morality – it is merely a word.

The case is no different for the name “Seminole” or the word “brave.” Florida State chooses to put the word in a context that honors the natives (oh, sorry – is that an offensive word?) of the area where the school is located. They are not using the mascot to deride the Seminoles; quite to the contrary, the Seminole Nation actively participates in ensuring historical accuracy of the portrayal. This only can be judged a positive context for the word.

One can only guess what NORAD had in mind when they originally came up with the names of the exercises, but it seems reasonable to assume that victory, and not defeat, was the goal. Under that assumption, we must conclude that the word “brave” was used in a positive context.

It’s not rocket science. The morality of a word can only be determined in context with how it is used. Asking a Native American, “Are you a Seminole (or Sioux or Apache or whatever)?” is no more offensive than asking a European American “Are you Irish (or French or German or whatever)?” Calling an athletic team or military exercise the Seminoles or the Braves is exactly the same and equally inoffensive. However, if the NCAA insists on upholding this ridiculous policy, I hereby grant FSU the right to call themselves the Florida State Exsubdrivers. I promise not to be offended.

A Satire Is Worth 1000 Arguments

I wouldn't normally post links, but this is too funny to ignore.

My favorite website is www.badastronomy.com. The author (Phil Plait) is an astronomer who uses science to debunk different conspiracy theories and misconceptions. Lately he has been on a crusade against the anti-science IDers. No matter how cogent his arguments, however, they all pale in comparison to the one he found here: www.venganza.org.

As If Driver's Licenses Weren't Enough...

A good real estate agent will tell you to ignore “median home price” as a metric to gauge cost of living. This is due to the fact that median prices depend on actual sales over some given period of time (usually 6 months) and do not reflect the general housing market. A much better metric is new construction pricing, as this reflects market rates consumers are willing to pay. Based on that, Silicon Valley has some of the most unaffordable housing in the US. Average new construction pricing exceeds $700 per square foot throughout the Bay Area. At that rate, home ownership is out of reach for a substantial portion of the population, and with rental pricing on the rise again, the affordability gap is growing.

Enter the California liberals. Concerned that illegal aliens cannot afford to buy homes, many financial institutions have created special lending programs for illegal aliens that bypass the need for a Social Security Number. Recognizing that if an illegal alien has an SSN, it must be fraudulent, financial institutions have introduced loans that require a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) instead. This is motivated by the liberal mantra that illegal aliens are honest, tax-paying citizens. Let’s check the facts.

The IRS started giving out Individual TINs in the mid-1990s. According to IRS records, since then, about 8 million IDs have been assigned, but only 2 million are used annually on tax returns. That means that at most 1 out of 4 of the honest, tax-paying illegal aliens is in fact, honest and tax-paying. In stark contrast to that number is the estimated total illegal alien population of 18 - 20 million (Bear Stearns, Jan 2005). Which means only 1 in 10 illegal aliens is truly honest and tax-paying.

Despite this, the California liberals continue to insist that illegal aliens have some divine right to all the privileges (and many illegals-only special programs) of lawful residents of California. They have even come up with the term “undocumented immigrant” to disguise the fact that these people are in the US in violation of immigration law. They are criminals. Why are we trying to reward them with the ability to buy a house when there are plenty of legal immigrants and citizens who cannot afford to do so?

Buying a home is a means to establish residency, which then conveys certain rights to the resident, many of which are financed at the expense of the public treasury (such as use of the public schools and in-state tuition rates for higher education). Thus, criminals are illegally obtaining benefits. Not so say the liberals – the United States does not restrict foreign nationals from owning real estate in the US. Not so says exsubdriver, the law applies to legal immigrants, not criminals.

The California liberals say that they have introduced these financial programs to help stop the illegal aliens from becoming victims of fraud. The victims of fraud are the thousands of immigrants who obey the rules and apply for lawful immigration status. The perpetrators of fraud are the millions of illegal aliens who feel they do not need to play by the rules that bind everyone else. And the California liberals are lining up to help them achieve home ownership – something that John Q. Public cannot do, simply because he did not sneak across the borders.

It's not rocket science. Government should be enforcing laws and providing equal access to goods and services to all those who are legally eligible for them. We should not create or condone special programs that benefit a portion of the population who believe they are entitled to break the laws of this country.

No-bid Or Nobody Else?

“White House awards Halliburton no-bid contract to rebuild country following regime-changing war costing billions of dollars in which purported cause for war proven false.”

Does that sound like headlines from today’s media regarding Iraq? Surprise – that same headline applies to Clinton’s war in Serbia. For all of the loudly protesting liberals out there, Clinton spent $77 Billion to depose Milosevic following the Clinton administration’s claims of rampant mass-murdering of civilians in the former Yugoslav province. Let’s check the scoreboard: no mass graves were ever found and there was never any proof of war crimes.

Despite the parallels, the Democrats latest battleground in Iraq is Bunnatine Greenhouse, the Principle Assistant Responsible for Contracting. Her job is to oversee the billions of dollars awarded to government contractors, not just in Iraq, but in any place the US Army feels that private companies can provide better service to Army personnel than the Army itself could.

Conveniently ignored in the artificially politicized battle of her impending demotion is that her questioning of contracts to Halliburton pre-dates the war in Iraq, and indeed stems from awards under the Clinton administration following the Serbian disaster. To disguise this, the Democrats have resorted to pointing out that VP Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton at that time. How that could have resulted in preferential treatment before he was even considered as a candidate is beyond me, but certainly passes the (il)logic check of today’s ‘Dems.

Also conveniently ignored is the fact that Halliburton is the only company in the world capable of doing the work required under both the Clinton and Bush contracts. In other words, the no-bid claim is nonsense. Imagine for a moment that you were organizing an event for a client who insisted that only Coke be served. You therefore award the contract to a Coke distributor (of which there is only one in your area due to anti-competition rules). Is it fair to say that this was a “no-bid” contract since no Pepsi distributor was able to participate?

The government has a vested interest in ensuring that any bidders for a contract are capable of providing the service required at a competitive price. A company that lacks the materiel or experience ought to be rightly refused without the minority political party crying foul. The current problem is that the ‘Dems are only focusing on the Halliburton angle of Greenhouse’s complaints. However, her questioning of the contracts had less to do with the recipient than they did with the terms and conditions.

Listening to her testimony before Congress, it would seem that her underlying question was whether the T’s & C’s were unfairly narrow so that only Halliburton could make the bid. It defies logic to suggest that Clinton’s administration would provide such a benefit to a company run by the future VP. If there were in fact a political motive behind the Serbia contract, it seems reasonable that the administration would expect the benefit to flow to their own party, rather than a future Republican contender.

John Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” The fact is that for the last four years the Democrats have routinely hurled false allegations at the Bush administration for no other reason than because they lost the 2000 presidential election. They have consistently repeated flagrant lies and half-truths and have relied heavily on the left-leaning media to make their statements sound credible, all the while refusing to acknowledge that Clinton engaged in the exact same activities for which they rebuke daily Bush.

If It Looks Like A Duck...

An article on USAToday.com today states “most minority businesses are small, sole proprietorships, according to the Census Bureau. Many are financed on a shoestring, and access to working capital is limited.” The article goes on to use this “fact” to make a case for the government to enhance programs for minority owned businesses. The author is using a classic argument of only telling half the truth in order to make the case sound convincing. However, the truth is (also according to the Census Bureau) more than 80% of all businesses in America have fewer than 20 employees. The vast majority of these are small, sole proprietorships financed on a shoestring with limited access to working capital. More than 70% of all small businesses fail within 5 years. The problem is not unique to any one group or race, nor is it influenced by a technology imbalance, which the author also implies. It is patently unfair to use “fuzzy math” as a means to further a cause which has dubious benefit.

Companies adopt “diversity statements” and direct their employees to actively seek to award contracts to minority and women owned businesses. They do this not because those businesses are inherently better at delivering to the terms of the contract, but rather to avoid being labeled as diversity unfriendly. In some cases they do it for the even worse reason of being included in a list of “100 best places to work for _______ (fill in the blank with your favorite “historically disadvantaged” group).” Preferentially awarding business based solely on race or sex is discrimination, regardless of the underlying social motive or politically correct language used to describe it. It is also a violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

In the book “It’s Your Ship,” Captain Michael Abrashoff tells of his experience managing the US Navy approved “diversity program” as Commanding Officer of the USS Benfold. According to Capt. Abrashoff, after his crew completed the required training, a survey indicated that black, white, and female crew members all felt they were discriminated against. There were frequent incidents referred for investigation to the Navy equivalent of the EEOC. He promptly cancelled the Navy approved training and substituted what he refers to as “unity training.” Subsequent surveys indicated that 100% of the crew felt they were treated fairly. More importantly, there was not a single incident referred for investigation.

Herein lies the paradox of diversity: in order to acknowledge that people are different, one is forced to classify them according to their differences, which is the exact opposite outcome desired. As Einstein once said, “insanity is doing the same thing the same way over and over and expecting a different result.” This underscores the major failure of any program which by its nature focuses on the differences between people. Capt. Abrashoff’s unity training, in contrast, presumably focused on the similarities.

It’s not rocket science. We cannot achieve a color-blind society as long as we continue to use color as a factor in awarding contracts, employment, or college admissions. Diversity in and of itself cannot be a goal. Diversity is an abstract concept that by its very nature cannot be defined. This is what provided the Regents at U. Michigan Law School the weasel room that allowed Justice O’Conner to find in favor of the Law School, despite her ruling earlier in the day against the undergraduate program. For those who don’t remember, the admissions officials were repeatedly asked to define a precise measure of when diversity (their stated goal) had been achieved and they consistently replied that there was none. Instead, they claimed they “would know it when it happens.” A program that arbitrarily provides awards to a preferred group is a racist policy, regardless of whether that preferred group is white, black, yellow, or green.

Former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglas once declared “in regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested toward us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us….I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall!...And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!...Your interference is doing him positive injury.” (As quoted by Justice Thomas in the above mentioned U. Michigan case.)

Punitive metrics to artificially advance one person's or group's chance of obtaining some benefit cannot be defended in a democratic society. Plain and simple it is discrimination. A policy that encourages all small businesses without regard to membership in some preferred group or another is the only one permissible under the Constitution.

A Better Solution To Recess Appointments

Once again Congress is letting party politics get in the way of doing what is right for the country as a whole. We have been without an ambassador to the UN since January of this year. While Bolton may be an outspoken critic of the international body, he is an intelligent and highly qualified candidate to serve. During this critical period of UN reform, it is essential that an ambassador be in place prior to the convening of the General Assembly in mid-September. In Bolton, however, the Democrats have found new ammunition to argue against the pursuit of democracy in Iraq and attempt to bolster their own positions for the mid-term elections next year. This is patently outside of the spirit of the “advice and consent” clause of the Constitution.

The intent of the presidential power for recess appointments was to provide a means for continuity of critical government offices when it would be impractical to obtain Senate consent. This was a necessary result of 18th century communications and the fact the Congress was only in session for about 6 months out of the year. Of late, however, both parties have used this power to place their preferred candidates in offices when the prospect of Senate confirmation was doubtful.

Sen. Kennedy declared “It's even worse for the administration to abuse the recess appointment power by making the appointment while Congress is in this five-week recess. It's a devious maneuver that evades the constitutional requirement of Senate consent…” I have failed to find any evidence that he held the same opinion regarding some of Clinton’s recess appointments. Clinton made a total of 140 recess appointments, including at least one (James Hormel) during a 10-day recess. Clinton also made three appointments of ambassadors during the summer recess of 2000, all three of which went to supporters of Gore’s presidential campaign. For those keeping score, all three came during the same 5-week recess about which Kennedy is now complaining. If selling ambassadorships for political contributions does not rise to the level of abuse of power, an interim appointment of Bolton to the UN certainly does not.

The unfortunate aspect of this politicking is that the Constitution also provides the President another power, seldom if ever used, which could be employed instead of recess appointments. That power is the power to recall the Senate. Although few Congress Critters would admit it, the purpose of Congress is to serve the interest of the country as a whole, not the specific area from which the member hails. While everyone certainly needs a vacation, it should not be used as a political tool to prevent critical business from being conducted. A recall would force them to uphold their obligations.

Granted, if the President used the power of recall, the Senate could immediately vote to adjourn. Doing so, however, would not be in their best interest, as it would expose their true intent of playing party politics. As often as they adjourn, the President could recall them. Their failure to act on a nomination would be exposed, not as serving the country, but rather as blocking any but their “preferred” candidate for the office. The voters would not long stand for this behavior and in all likelihood would not return the Senator at the next election cycle. In my opinion, this fact makes the recall a preferred action over the recess appointment, especially since the other party will cry “foul” and use the contested candidate as fuel for the next election in the latter case.

Using the recall will force the Senate to debate the relative merits of the candidate, keeping the focus on this person and this office, rather than some abstract concept of Republicans versus Democrats. Voters will not long remember who was confirmed for a particular office unless the Senate is able to artificially turn the nomination into the larger issue of party politics. The recess appointment only serves to allow Senators on both sides of the aisle to do just that. This is a disservice to the voting public and completely outside the scope of the duty involved in the “advice and consent” clause.