Why Debating Evolution VS. Creation/Intelligent Design Doesn't Work

First, let me get this out of the way.

Yes, I'm sure I'm not an atheist. No, I don't have anything against Christianity or Judaism. Yes, I'm sure I'm not an atheist. No, I don't think human beings are worth less if evolution is real. Yes, I'm sure I'm not an atheist.

Almost got me on that last one. As a former Fundamentalist Catholic/Creationist I think I may be in a special position to discuss this in a way so that all sides can at least understand what's going on with the evolution/creation/intelligent design debate. Again though, I must get my own beliefs, opinions, views and history out of the way because this debate always turns personal on some level. It's never about the argument, it's about the people making the claims and presenting the evidence. So, in addition to the above statements/claims that I have already made I will go ahead and give you a little background on the guy behind the offensive screen-name.

Hi, I'm Rob, I am a back-slider, I am currently agnostic (subject to change upon physical manifestation of Jesus Christ), I'm pro-life, I'm pro-Christian, I'm a Conservative, I support gay marriage as individual freedom and I deny global warming and believe many of the scientists who propose it to be corrupt. Did I mention that I think the theory of evolution is correct, supported by mountains of evidence by credible scientists? Oh, well I just did.

If you take the Bible, the Koran and the Torah and you read them literally and then make the statement that any one of these books (hopefully you just chose one) is the uninterpreted word of god then right off the bat there is no reason for you to even debate. You have faith. I know what it's like to experience a personal relationship with god, to know...not just think but really know that my soul would live on for all eternity along with my family, friends and benevolent creator. That faith isn't something anyone or anything can change. As long as your faith isn't driving you to murder and torture unbelievers then myself and people of faiths other than yours don't have any real conflict. The conflict between the literal interpreter and the proponent of the theory of evolution comes when the subject of proselytizing comes up such as in the push to teach Biblical creation or intelligent design in the already woefully incompetent public science class.

It is the desire to convert others to your way of thinking, your belief system, that drives this. Instead of demonizing those who would want others to join their faith we must look at the idea behind such action.

If a Christian believes only Christians go to heaven and everyone else in the world suffers eternally in Hell, isn't their only moral decision to try and save non-believers??? The Bible, unlike the Koran, teaches the idea that one must love their enemies, but let's not forget that fact that it teaches also to love your neighbor (fellow man/woman) period. Christianity has been, is and will continue to be an extremely positive force in the world. I can respect their position in this case, but I must oppose it when it comes to getting religious beliefs taught as science.

The literal interpreter also, by definition, must distrust science and those who call themselves scientists. Much of science is contradicted by religious text. So going into a class room where something you KNOW is wrong is being taught, the only logical reaction would be to conclude that the teacher is either lying or unknowingly spreading false information. The lies just keep adding up, scientist after scientist makes impossible claim after impossible claim. The teaching of the theory of evolution must look like some sinister conspiracy against those who believe. These claims must be designed by people who hate god and want to turn people away from religion, mustn't they? (For me, I lost my faith before I found evolution...)

That brings me to the scientists, those without faith and actual pseudo-scientists. Throughout history there have been many corrupt, ignorant and plain evil (Yes, I believe in the existence of evil too) people who considered themselves scientists. There have been false discoveries made by money-hungry morons. People have lied to protect their jobs. Scientists have made unprovable claims to try and shift political policies. I can name dozens of examples, but that does not mean that science itself is wrong or that the scientific method is broken. If anything the same things could be said, correctly, about religion as well. There have been liars, morons, and just plain evil people who used religion to their own ends. This isn't the fault of religion or science. Humans are flawed. That, I think, is something that both sides can agree on.

Humans also tend to focus on ideas and evidence that coincide with their perception of the world. This means that when someone with no fundamental understanding of science but a strong left political leaning hears that humans are creating man-made global warming they are more likely to accept it. Anything that supports their personal views, regardless of its worth, is exciting, fresh and pertinent. Check out any forum and you'll find members guilty of that unbending team loyalty. They might even agree with you on a few subjects but, it soon becomes obvious that they are merely parroting ideas of others and not thinking for themselves. Just because Person A agrees with me on a subject does not mean they came upon the idea rationally. This explains the flame wars so common on the internet. Even if you're reasonable and open-minded, it doesn't mean that the guy on the other side is and even if you're intelligent, reasonable, open-minded and polite it DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. There are plenty of jerks out there who have the same beliefs as you, whether you're a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic...there is someone with identical beliefs or opinions who is vile. There are rapists who believe that Jesus Christ died for their sins and "scientists" who think that alien lizards are secretly controlling the government not to mention liberal mouth-breathers who believe in evolution and climate change without ever picking up a book or looking at the methodology used to come up with the claims.

There is no compromise through reason, debate, discussion, evidence or anything else you can think of that will defeat the other side. If you are a literal interpreter the other side is full of liars and misguided heathens. If you understand the theory of evolution then the other side is full of pushy missionaries, and pleasant but ignorant lunatics. If you think for yourself than the only person who can change your mind about a) your faith or b) your scientific knowledge is you.

Motherlover

First DJ Battle Ever

Watch The First DJ Battle in the World and more funny videos on CollegeHumor

Liberals and Torture:The John Demjanjuk Comedy

It was hot in Texas yesterday. I drove home in a manic stupor thanks to a busted air-conditioner and the LSD the CIA weekly slips into my coffee, at least I think it's LSD.

I remember Rush's booming voice and a tale so ludicrous it simply could not be true. I like Rush, I would even go as far as saying I trust the man...even so I have a tendency to need confirmation for any statement and so I often research the claims of the great bear of a man. Before I discuss the results of my fact-checking mission I should show you what I thought was just a drug-induced hallucination.

"New York Times today: "Charges Seen as Unlikely for Lawyers Over Interrogations." Now, we're supposed to cheer. But you don't even know the half of it. If you know the details, you still don't know the half of this. "An internal Justice Department inquiry--" read Eric Holder, "--into the conduct of Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations has concluded that the authors committed serious lapses of judgment but should not be criminally prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on a draft of the findings.

"The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask state bar associations to consider possible disciplinary action, which could include reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said." We're talking here about John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury.

"Do you know the name John Demjanjuk? Some people pronounce it John Demjanjuk. John Demjanjuk is 89 years old. He lives in Cleveland. He is accused of being a Nazi concentration camp guard...He has been requested to be extradited by Germany, to be tried in Germany for the same crime. His objection -- now, follow me on this -- his lawyers, Demjanjuk's lawyers are saying to the Justice Department, (paraphrasing) "You cannot extradite John Demjanjuk to Germany, you cannot do it because he will be tortured." Eric Holder and the Justice Department have said to Germany and Demjanjuk, "Demjanjuk, you're wrong, because Germany is going to use the same techniques on you that were proposed by Bybee and Yoo and Bradbury to interrogate Al-Qaeda terrorists." In other words, the Justice Department is denying Demjanjuk's requests to not be extradited because he will not be tortured, while saying that he will not be tortured, they are advocating that these three Bush lawyers be disbarred because they engaged in torture. "

I thought I had hallucinated this diatribe or that Rush was exaggerating. See, though I disagree with the liberal stance on what constitutes torture and what circumstances if any would make such aggressive interrogation necessary I like to think that their stance is based on principle...people on the left, I like to think, just don't approve of violence and brutality. They're pacifists (fancy word for wusses) and I can accept that.

I can't accept that the Obama Administration as well as the Left in general would by hypocritical on such a basic idea as "torture is wrong". Is it only wrong when it's done to bad people of a specific faith? Were John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury only "committing serious lapses of judgment" because they didn't specify that it was okay only in the case of alleged Nazis? Is this just rhetoric from the administration or do the lowly members of the Left indulge in this two-way fantasy?

Associated Press writers Thomas J. Sheeran and Terry Kinney in Cincinnati, and Patrick McGroarty in Berlin wrote an article that appeared at the Mecca of Solid Reporting and Unbiased Analysis (Huffpo Link: Not Safe for Republican Computers).

"We are currently considering legal options including an appeal to the Supreme Court," his son, John Demjanjuk Jr., said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

"Given the history of this case and no evidence of his personal involvement in even one assault, let alone a murder, this is inhuman even if a court says it is lawful," he said."

What do the insightful commentators over at Huffpo think about all this? I imagine they'd defend him as they have defended the human rights of the perpetrators of 9/11 and various terrorists currently residing at GITMO.

Ah never mind. Interesting note: people on Huffpo have defended torture in the case of really bad people and have defended deportation for minor little things like BEING HERE ILLEGALLY! I thought they were a "progressive" site.

Back to Rush...what did my research provide? Oh, just a highly "unbiased" article over at National Review by Andrew McCarthy stating:

"In a last gasp, Demjanjuk now claims, under the CAT, that his extradition would violate U.S. and international torture law. Given his advanced age, failing health, and expectations of abuse, he contends that extradition to Germany for trial and incarceration will cause him severe pain and suffering.

"This claim may seem frivolous, but the government nevertheless undertook to respond to it. In so doing, prosecutors argued to the court that even if Demjanjuk were put in severe pain, there could be no torture unless he could establish that government officials had an evil motive to inflict severe pain and suffering on him. As the Holder Justice Department puts it on pp. 20–21 of the elusive DOJ brief:

"[T]orture is defined as “an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. . . . ” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, as has been explained by the Third Circuit, CAT requires “a showing of specific intent before the Court can make a finding that a petitioner will be tortured.” Pierre v. Attorney General, 528 F.3d 180, 189 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc); see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (requiring that the act “be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”); Auguste v. Ridge, 395 F.3d 123, 139 (3d Cir. 2005) (“This is a ‘specific intent’ requirement and not a ‘general intent’ requirement” [citations omitted.] An applicant for CAT protection therefore must establish that “his prospective torturer will have the motive or purpose” to torture him. Pierre, 528 F.3d at 189; Auguste, 395 F.3d at 153-54 (“The mere fact that the Haitian authorities have knowledge that severe pain and suffering may result by placing detainees in these conditions does not support a finding that the Haitian authorities intend to inflict severe pain and suffering. The difference goes to the heart of the distinction between general and specific intent.”) [my bold italics and brackets]. . . .

"The Justice Department brief goes on to elaborate that, even accepting for argument’s sake all his claims of anticipated physical abuse, Demjanjuk had failed to state a legal torture claim because he had not shown that German officials had deliberately created and maintained conditions that were specifically intended to cause severe pain and suffering: “To the extent that German authorities may inadvertently cause Petitioner to experience any degree of discomfort during the course of a criminal prosecution or incarceration, this is not cognizable under CAT. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(5) (act causing unintended or unanticipated severity of pain and suffering not torture).”

"This is precisely the theory that Bybee and Yoo outlined in the memos that the Justice Department is now citing as a premise for subjecting them to ethical rebuke — and that Obama and Holder have intimated may be grounds for prosecution. Bybee and Yoo reasoned that unless CIA interrogators specifically meant to inflict severe pain and suffering on the high-level al Qaeda detainees they were interrogating, there could be no legally viable claim of torture. "

Okay, so Rush was basing his opinion on an article that looks to be based on verifiable claims, quotations that you can see here.
So...I guess I wasn't hallucinating. Maybe part of the reason I'm so dumbfounded about all of this is that nobody on TV, the News or some of my favorite bloggers seems to know about this or care if they do know.

The Obama Administration has suggested that giving a legal opinion that differs from their own in any way is nearly criminal and deserving of disciplinary action. So how can they defend this? Oh, that's right, nobody's talking about it. Maybe, the CIA got into everyone else's coffee too.

UPDATE: You can read the transcript of Rush Limbaugh's show at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050609/content/01125107.guest.html

"RUSH: Now, let me be clear about something here regarding the situation with the extradition of John Demjanjuk and this whole Eric Holder business. On one day, certain kinds of torture are okay; certain days, they're not. I didn't mean to mislead and say that the Germans want to use the same tactics on Demjanjuk that they used on Al-Qaeda detainees. I don't want you to think that the Germans are going to waterboard Demjanjuk. What the Department of Justice is saying is that regardless what tactics the Germans may use, even if the Germans cause Demjanjuk to feel severe pain and suffering, this can't be torture because the Germans don't intend to torture Demjanjuk. That is, you can't have torture unless there's an evil motive to torture, and the Germans are saying, "We're not going to torture him," which is an adoption of the reasoning from John Yoo and Bybee. "