Jake displays openly aggressive behavior on Rand Paul

Jake, a member of the species homo petulans (in more ways than one), has raised his tail and lowered his head over my comments about the reaction to Rand Paul's refusal to address a question about creationism in a speech to a home school audience last Friday.

I simply observed that the creationists in the audience responded in a more civilized and humanoid manner than the Darwinists, who, despite purporting to be members of a higher species, reacted with the aggressiveness that has come to characterize their behavior when faced with opinions differing from their own.

You would have thought I had poked a stick at them through the bars or something, their reaction was so frenzied.

Now I have been observing various liberal Darwinist societies for some time now, and can say with some authority that the subspecies inhabiting the Page One blog are among the loudest and most openly aggressive. This could possibly be the result of a vegetarian diet and their penchant for brie cheese and multi-grained bread.

The individual whom we call "Jake" seems to be the dominant male in the troop (although I am willing to listen to other theories as to gender), and he has taken the most aggressively hostile posture. When my comments were thrown into their cage, it was Jake who howled the loudest. I have taken the liberty, using various linguistic devices, to interpret his vocalizations and gestures and determined that he thinks we "hate" Darwinists "with great passion."

Now part of the problem with Page One society is the tendency of its members to jump to conclusions--conclusions which seldom logically follow. This provides additional evidence that their subspecies was an early deviation from the main human branch. This, of course, poses insurmountable difficulties when a group of them form together and try to run a blog.

I do not hate Darwinists. On the contrary, there are many of them of whom I am quite fond. In many cases they can be tamed and even housebroken, and make fine companions if they can be discouraged from their natural arrogance and dogmatism through stimulus and response training.

In Jake's case, that might involve the use of electric shock. But the benefits could be substantial.

Rand Paul opposed to dead people

Rand Paul may now finally have stepped over the line. He is now opposed to dead people.

According to Al Cross at the Rural Blog, Paul told WHAS's Mandy Connell that he is opposed to dead farmers receiving agriculture subsidies.

Oh, the insensitivity! Oh the callousness!

Where is the outrage, liberals?!

Darwinists chatter excitedly over Rand Paul's refusal to answer creationism question

The Darwinian fundamentalists suddenly ceased grooming each other and started chattering excitedly about a video of Rand Paul addressing Kentucky home schoolers and declining to say where he stood on the issue of creationism.

While the creationist home school crowd continued to listen politely and attentively to Rand Paul after his remarks, the Darwinists started wildly throwing coconuts at the candidate for U. S. Senate.

The creationist crowd took Paul's refusal to answer their question with measured aplomb, and sat there politely while he finished his talk. But social dynamics in Darwinist communities often include threatening displays by their more dominant members when there is any deviation from accepted group opinions. In fact, despite the common belief that they are intellectually tolerant, this characteristic is hard to find among them, and is often punished when found among their members.

Experts continue to believe that Darwinists are capable of rational thought and other traits characteristic of humans, but research into the question continues.

The test of success for charter schools: popularity with parents

Richard Day's continued attacks on charter schools are indicative of the wider public school establishment's disdain for them. Day and other fixtures of the education establishment want the same kind of accountability that has failed the public school system for years: that is to say, no accountability other than to themselves.

Charter schools are less accountable to the teachers unions and the state education bureaucracies that have occupied the driver's seat as our natures schools continue to worsen.

There is only one measure by which charter schools should be judged: their popularity with parents. This criterion, of course, is anathema to the crowd William Bennett once referred to as "the blob."

Day criticizes charters for failing the children of poor families. And the public school system has served them well?

A Quick and Easy Test For Worship Music in Church

Here's my test to determine whether the music in a worship service is appropriate: move those performing the music to the back. If it changes the character of the worship experience, it is not appropriate for a church service.

Could all humans be eliminated through overpopulation?

As if we really needed more evidence that the End is Near, now comes the prediction by another member of the Ministry of Fear: Australian scientist Frank Fenner, who predicts that human beings will become extinct in 100 years. The culprit? Well, the first is Global Warming, because everyone knows that Global Warming is going to kill all of us, and we have to say that.

But the other cause of the extinction of the human race is more interesting: overpopulation. That's right: having too many humans could result in not having enough of them.

Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo sapiens will not be able to survive the population explosion and “unbridled consumption,” and will become extinct, perhaps within a century, along with many other species. United Nations official figures from last year estimate the human population is 6.8 billion, and is predicted to pass seven billion next year.

Fenner said that climate change is only at its beginning, but is likely to be the cause of our extinction. “We’ll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island,” he said. More people means fewer resources, and Fenner predicts “there will be a lot more wars over food.”

Isn't the solution clear? If overpopulation will bring about human extinction, then the only way to prevent human extinction is to depopulate them. We can head off the elimination of human beings by eliminating human beings.

You gotta love science.

What is it that is beautiful, howls like a Banshee, and is a complete nuisance

The street I grew up on made today's Wall Street Journal, for a very interesting reason: peacocks. The place has been infested with them since I was a kid. They are a nuisance: they get in your garden, roost on your roof and leave droppings--and then there is that unearthly howl.

But all in all you get used to it. My mother still keeps peacocks on her farm in Kansas. And, of course, Flannery O'Connor kept them.

Can't be all bad.

Harvard as diploma mill

In a post in my Google Reader about the fact that Harvard University graduates basically everybody, there is an ad for the University of Phoenix.

A serendipitous moment.

Making sense on Adam and Eve

My post on the Adam and Eve controversy has my detractors chattering in the comment box. Nothing less than total submission to their dogmas will do. Even skepticism is unacceptable. Here is James Chastek, making sense again, with his own very sensible comments on the Biologos discussion that started the dust up.

Evolution: A syllogism

Jay Wile's recent post on the falsifiability of evolution reminds me of the penchant that Darwinists have for quoting Karl Popper, who enjoys somewhat of a canonical status among them. He is their go to man on the demarcation question (the question in philosophy of science having to do with the determination of what is and isn't science), and his appeal to the falsifiability criterion is something of a refrain among Darwinists.

Popper believed that a scientific theory could never be proven, but only disproven. The scientist sets forth his theory and then makes attempts to find falsifying instances. This is, according to Popper, the appropriate activity of the scientist, much more so that finding confirming instances. Because of this, you find Darwinists readily saying (as they have on this blog) that you can't prove anything (scientifically).

The problem is, they will just as readily say, in other contexts, that evolution has been "proven." Put these two propositions together, and you get the following syllogism:

No scientific theory can be proven
Evolution is a scientific theory
Therefore, Evolution cannot be proven

Just thought I'd mention it.

John David Dyche doing the KY media's job for them

John David Dyche asks some questions that the media don't seem all to inclined to ask Rand Paul's opponent. And, by the way, what does it say about Jack Conway's candidacy that more people know who we are talking about if we refer to him as Rand Paul's opponent than by his real name?

P. Z. Myers does not exist. Done

In a post titled "Adam and Eve did not exist. Done," P. Z. Myers has announced that Adam and Eve did not exist:

There was no Adam. There was no Eve. We are the product of populations
and pools of genes that are briefly instantiated in individuals, and
it's a great conceptual error to even fuss over finding "the"
many-times-great grandparents of us all.

So, Myers, a self-described product of populations and pools of genes that has briefly instantiated himself as an individual, in pressing his case that we shouldn't identify our particular antecedents, identifies our particular antecedents, namely, populations and pools of genes. In the Darwinian Myth that replaces the Theistic Myth, the rational beings called Adam and Eve have been replaced by the irrational processes called Populations and Pools of Genes.

You can say at least this for the Adam and Eve theory: it at least allows for the possibility that their descendants are the kind of beings who could rationally reject the Adam and Eve theory, whereas under the Populations and Pools of Genes Myth the beings that are its products cannot possibly rationally accept the Populations and Pools of Genes Myth--or anything else for that matter, since its materialist undergirding cannot account for rationality in the first place.

And what's even more odd is that these products of populations and pools of genes who cannot account for rationality at all are the very ones who go around giving lectures to the descendants of Adam and Eve who can account for it about the importance of rationality.

Go figure.