A well-reasoned Catholic Response to Neo-Darwinian Naturalism

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna has written a very good article discussing how Darwinian Naturalism is incompatible with Catholic (and I would say all Christian) doctrinal teaching.

Here's a taste:

The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

Read it here

London suicide bombers

Well, its official...........

The terrorist attack in London was carried out by four suicide/homocide bombers. Read about it in the Hindustan Times

Here's the really troubling part. This kind of murder and attack on our nations is one that we cannot reasonably expect to be able to defend ourselves against in any comprehensive way.

The only option for people in the Western democracies is to live courageously and watchfully and be ready to die.

Thomas Sowell on the Supreme Court and the Future

Read Thomas Sowell's excellent analysis of the current breaux-ha-ha over the courts.

Here!

Meanwhile, many of the signs of social degeneration can be traced to the courts that are supposed to be upholding law and order but which have too often become places for judges to indulge their egos and impose fashionable theories as the law of the land.

Some judges and Supreme Court justices may flatter themselves that they are helping the poor and the disadvantaged but their arbitrary notions often hurt the less fortunate most of all.

Whose homes are going to be bulldozed to make way for a new shopping mall or hotel complex under the Supreme Court's expanded notion of eminent domain? Mansions in Beverly Hills? Condos on Park Avenue? Or working class homes and apartment buildings?

And here!

Many people are too young to realize that there was never a federal ban against abortions before Roe v. Wade created a "Constitutional right" to abortion out of thin air. Before that, the federal government had nothing to say about the subject and the various states had a variety of laws regulating abortions.

What is even more dangerous than this political fixation on abortion is the underlying notion that judicial nominees are to be confirmed or voted down on the basis of how they might rule on particular policy issues.

The separation of powers means not only that judges should stay out of policy issues that belong to legislative bodies but also that the Senate should respect the judicial branch and not try to predetermine how judges will rule on legal issues.

Then here!

A Justice confirmed to the Supreme Court by a narrow vote in the Senate will have just as much authority as a Justice confirmed unanimously.

Regardless of who is nominated to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor or what the outcome of the confirmation vote may be, something urgently needs to be done to stop Senate confirmation hearings from being scenes of public humiliations that can deprive the American people of the services of highly qualified individuals.

We certainly need better quality people than most of those now serving on the Supreme Court. Putting nominees through a cheap hazing circus on TV is not the way to get such people.

A Muddle headed Earth worshipper?

James Wolcott writes here.

I root for hurricanes. When, courtesy of the Weather Channel, I see one forming in the ocean off the coast of Africa, I find myself longing for it to become big and strong--Mother Nature's fist of fury, Gaia's stern rebuke. Considering the havoc mankind has wreaked upon nature with deforesting, stripmining, and the destruction of animal habitat, it only seems fair that nature get some of its own back and teach us that there are forces greater than our own.

It would seem that for some people such as Wolcott the death of humans and the destruction of people's lives is something to revel in. Someday Wolcott will discover that there is indeed a "force greater than our own." To stand before God with a cold-heart toward the suffering of helpless and innocent human beings ............ YIKES! (Remember people can only live in the world they have and the people of Alabama and West Florida did not create the technology that they must use that contributes to global warming or enviornmental toxins.)

I guess Wolcott was estatic when the tsunami his south Asia.

Robert Bork's latest article online --- The Supreme Court

Here he lays out an incredibly incisive analysis of the current state of the Court.

What do the nomination of a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor, constitutional law, and moral chaos have to do with one another? A good deal more than you may think.

In Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote of America that "providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs." Such a people enjoy the same moral assumptions, the cement that forms a society rather than a cluster of groups. Though Jay's conditions have long been obsolete, until recently Americans did possess a large body of common moral assumptions rooted in our original Anglo-Protestant culture, and expressed in law. Now, however, a variety of disintegrating influences are undermining that unanimity, not least among them is the capture of constitutional law by an extreme liberationist philosophy. America is becoming a cacophony of voices proclaiming different, or no, truths.

Once the justices depart, as most of them have, from the original understanding of the principles of the Constitution, they lack any guidance other than their own attempts at moral philosophy, a task for which they have not even minimal skills. Yet when it rules in the name of the Constitution, whether it rules truly or not, the court is the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy. The combination of absolute power, disdain for the historic Constitution, and philosophical incompetence is lethal.

Consider just a few of the court's accomplishments: The justices have weakened the authority of other institutions, public and private, such as schools, businesses and churches; assisted in sapping the vitality of religion through a transparently false interpretation of the establishment clause; denigrated marriage and family; destroyed taboos about vile language in public; protected as free speech the basest pornography, including computer-simulated child pornography; weakened political parties and permitted prior restraints on political speech, violating the core of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech; created a right to abortion virtually on demand, invalidating the laws of all 50 states; whittled down capital punishment, on the path, apparently, to abolishing it entirely; mounted a campaign to normalize homosexuality, culminating soon, it seems obvious, in a right to homosexual marriage; permitted discrimination on the basis of race and sex at the expense of white males; and made the criminal justice system needlessly slow and complex, tipping the balance in favor of criminals.

Read the entire thing. He is right to the bone.

Supreme Court and Liberal fear

E. J. Dionne, a not too very original pundit, thinks George Bush should not expect to be able to nominate Supreme Court justices.

Many Republicans are already saying that since Bush won the last election and since Republicans control the Senate, the president's choice should be confirmed with dispatch. But as former judge Robert Bork wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal, the Supreme Court "is the most powerful branch of government in domestic policy." Today's Republican majority, based on Bush's 50.7 percent of the vote in 2004, has no inherent right to exercise near-total control over that "most powerful branch."

What Dionne does not recognize is that the Republicans also increased their hold on the Senate by four seats to 55.

But, more importantly, Dionne does not think that democratic principles and a republican form of government are adequate for governance. Note his fear that the Supreme Court is the "most powerful branch" of government. That tells you how Dionne sees politics. The Court has too much power, because the Legislative Branch is so disfunctional and so unwilling to exercise its constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of the Court (Article 2).

If I know Robert Bork (who Dionne quotes as an authority -- what an irony), Bork was not suggesting that the Court should be the most powerful. He was simply describing the way our politics have be working for the last 30 years. A self-govening peopl, govern themselves through deliberation by elected officials and reach compromise or, where compromises is not possible, live with the consequences of the process -- AND THEN SEEK REDRESS THROUGH THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

READ DIONNE'S ARTICLE

Journalistic Integrity

On the one hand one might admire Judith Miller's unwillingness to reveal her source and instead go to jail for civil contempt of court. On the other, however, this can do nothing but help her career. Four months in jail will make for a great book and unencumbered research time. No doubt it will be hard for any family she might have, but in the long view of things......... she will benefit.

Read this report about the prison where she is incarcerated. It ain't Alcatraz!

The London Attack and the needs of the poor

The G8 summit was supposed to focus on the needs of Africa and global warming. Thanks to Al queda (if Al Q was the perpetrator) the poorest of the poor in Africa might get short-changed because of the blood-thirsty grandstanding of radical Islam. Now the attention is on terrorism.

The mighty cowards (or pretenders?) speak

This post was on the Al Qayda Fortress Internet site, purportedly by a group calling themselves Secret Organisation Group of Al-Qa'ida of Jihad Organisation in Europe.

"In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and the dauntless fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.

"O nation of Islam and nation of Arabism: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge from the British Zionist Crusader Government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Here are the comments of London's Mayor, Ken Livingstone. (Hat Tip: The Corner)

"I want to say one thing, specifically to the world today - this was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful, it was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian ... young and old ... that isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted fate, it is an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder."

"They seek to divide London, they seek Londoners to turn against each other ... this city of London is the greatest in the world because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack."

(SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THE COWARDS OF AL QUEDA)
"I know that you personally do not fear to give your own life in exchange to taking others [that is why you are so dangerous] ... but I know you do fear you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society ... in the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our seaports and look at our railway stations ... you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world, will arrive in London to become Londoners, to fulfill their dream and achieve their potential ... whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."

Bully for Ken and for the English who follow his call.

Terrorism in London

Read these eyewitness reports

The big question is: What will the ultimate reaction of the English people be. One can only hope that it will be the reaction of those stalwart Anglo-Saxon, Gaelic, Scottish, Welsh types that was manifest during the Nazi bombing of London.

Perhaps Tony Blair might become less infatuated with pleasing the European nay-sayers and focused on the dangers inherent in a world where terrorism and terrorists are tolerated and catered to, even passively.

Interesting insights

University of Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt notes in his bestseller Freakonomics, after the Roe v Wade decision in 1973,

“Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent …”

It would seem that the most significant impact that Roe v Wade had on the American populace is that unrestricted abortion encouraged sexual promiscuity -- and unprotected sexual promiscuity at that. Of course, the real winners in Roe v Wade were the kind men of who wanted permission to view women as sexual objects to whom men have no responsibility.

Charles Schummer cell phone warrior

The Senator from New York, the one who is not "married" to Bill Clinton, was reported to be plotting for "war" against President Bush's Supreme Court nominees. Now his plot is a general one. He just wants to make sure the President cannot shape the make-up of the Supreme Court. In other words, he does not want the PResident to do what the Constitution empowers him to do. For Charles Schummer, "advice and consent of the Senate" means gamemanship and obstruction by minority Senators.

Read the Drudge Report here.

Protesters at the G8 Summit in Scotland reveal their violent ways

So, the protesters at the G8 summit are in favor of ...................What exactly? They want things to be different inthe world...................but how? They want ...........what .............peace?, justice?, equality?

No, these protesters want to complain like children who don't have any solutions, just tantrums.

Read here about their attacks on the police who last time I checked, were not members of the G8 cabal of leaders. From the protesters point of view, they should be considered victims of the G8 powers as much as anyone. But these protesters are not really protesters, they are anarchists who despise everything except themselves.

Food for thought about the origins of the universe and the human race

Read this article by Paul Johnson. It is quite good and thought provoking.

Barbara Boxer reveals the "litmus test" for the Supreme Court

And surprise -- its abortion

Demands to close Gitmo detention center

HERE is the report of protesters calling for the detention centers for terrorists to be closed.

NEW YORK - Feminist author Gloria Steinem on Monday joined about 200 protesters to demand the closure of the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, saying holding prisoners indefinitely without charging them violates the values upon which the United States was founded.

Now, a couple of questions. What are we to do with these persons? Do we put them into the general population of our current prisons, further taxing the resources there?

Do the protesters really understand that these persons are not criminals, but deadly enemies of our culture? Since prisoners at Gitmo have been released in the past, perhaps there is a different kind of due process that is at work.

Those who call for due process for terrorists are guilty of confusing the nature of the terror network. Terror is not a criminal act, simply. It is, instead, a political act of war declared by those who have no legal standing in the world.

Without being combatants of a legal country and without status as citizens or resident aliens, a terrorist has placed himself or herself into a murky category. They have human rights, but their legal status is quite suspect, because of the status they have placed themselves in.

A better approach is to keep insisting that the military continue to be accountable to the public for the treatment of the terrorists. But that does not mean recognizing them as having the same kind of legal status that we afford criminals.

New Report suggests "bi-sexuality" is not a real "orientation"

The New York Times reports that recent studies are raising doubts about the claims of many to be bixexual.

People who claim bisexuality, according to these critics, are usually homosexual, but are ambivalent about their homosexuality or simply closeted. "You're either gay, straight or lying," as some gay men have put it.

In the new study, a team of psychologists directly measured genital arousal patterns in response to images of men and women. The psychologists found that men who identified themselves as bisexual were in fact exclusively aroused by either one sex or the other, usually by other men.

The study is the largest of several small reports suggesting that the estimated 1.7 percent of men who identify themselves as bisexual show physical attraction patterns that differ substantially from their professed desires.

"Research on sexual orientation has been based almost entirely on self-reports, and this is one of the few good studies using physiological measures," said Dr. Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender identity at the University of Utah, who was not involved in the study.

The discrepancy between what is happening in people's minds and what is going on in their bodies, she said, presents a puzzle "that the field now has to crack, and it raises this question about what we mean when we talk about desire."

"We have assumed that everyone means the same thing," she added, "but here we have evidence that that is not the case."

Bisexual desires are sometimes transient and they are still poorly understood. Men and women also appear to differ in the frequency of bisexual attractions. "The last thing you want," said Dr. Randall Sell, an assistant professor of clinical socio-medical sciences at Columbia University, "is for some therapists to see this study and start telling bisexual people that they're wrong, that they're really on their way to homosexuality."

He added, "We don't know nearly enough about sexual orientation and identity" to jump to these conclusions.

In the experiment, psychologists at Northwestern University and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto used advertisements in gay and alternative newspapers to recruit 101 young adult men. Thirty-three of the men identified themselves as bisexual, 30 as straight and 38 as homosexual.

The researchers asked the men about their sexual desires and rated them on a scale from 0 to 6 on sexual orientation, with 0 to 1 indicating heterosexuality, and 5 to 6 indicating homosexuality. Bisexuality was measured by scores in the middle range.

Seated alone in a laboratory room, the men then watched a series of erotic movies, some involving only women, others involving only men.

Using a sensor to monitor sexual arousal, the researchers found what they expected: gay men showed arousal to images of men and little arousal to images of women, and heterosexual men showed arousal to women but not to men.

But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

"Regardless of whether the men were gay, straight or bisexual, they showed about four times more arousal" to one sex or the other, said Gerulf Rieger, a graduate psychology student at Northwestern and the study's lead author.

Although about a third of the men in each group showed no significant arousal watching the movies, their lack of response did not change the overall findings

The thing about the study that one must be careful about is the attitude expressed in the statement above:

The discrepancy between what is happening in people's minds and what is going on in their bodies, she said, presents a puzzle "that the field now has to crack, and it raises this question about what we mean when we talk about desire."

"We have assumed that everyone means the same thing," she added, "but here we have evidence that that is not the case."

Desire is not simply a biological reaction nor a mental phenomenon. Rather, sexuality is a profoundly difficult thing to understand, because human beings are difficult to understand. So, the questions about sexuality are not merely scientific, but moral and spiritual, as well. But, maybe this study can clear the air a bit and we can return to a better dialogue about the nature of sexual affection and activity. The whole "bi-sexuality" thing is simply a way of saying -- WHAT I WANT IS WHAT I WANT, SO SHUT-UP AND DON'T BOTHER ME WITH QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT OR APPROPRIATE OR NATURAL. When people take that attitude about sexuality, they have already adopted a moral position on the question. IT's the position that dismisses all other considerations.

The plan might be working.....?

We hear so much about how their is NO PLAN win the Iraq conflict. GWB keeps insisting that the plan is to establish democratic institutions, engender pluralism, and train an Iraqi security force. THIS REPORT suggest that even the last of those aims might be beginning to take shape.

It tells us how the Iraqi forces have captured a top Zarqawi aid. Some people will no doubt be nay-sayers and suggest that this is no progress at all. Yet, even if Zarqawi was himself captured the nay-sayers would be nay-sayers, because any good news is bad news for those who are opposed to the war on principle.


UPDATE: More good news.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Security forces killed Al Qaeda's leader in Saudi Arabia, who topped the nation's list of most-wanted militants, during a fierce gunbattle Sunday, an Interior Ministry official said.

Younis Mohammed Ibrahim al-Hayari, a Moroccan, was killed during a dawn raid by security forces on an area in the capital where suspected militants were hiding, the official was quoted by the official Saudi Press Agency as saying.

Three other unidentified suspects were arrested, and weapons, ammunition, computers and documents were seized, he said.

The clashes took place in the Rawdah district, an upscale neighborhood in eastern Riyadh, Interior Ministry spokesman Lt. Gen. Mansour al-Turki said.

The unidentified official quoted by SPA said al-Hayari headed Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network in the kingdom, which has been ravaged by terrorist attacks during more than two years of violence.

Live 8 --- RAising consciousness or moral preening?

I am very glad, personally, for the efforts by many of the Rock and Roll bands that performed in the Live 8 concerts. Anytime celebrities use their fame for a noble cause we ought to be glad. However, such "reviews" as these reveal that the end result may be less about the poor and more focus on the celebrites themselves.

Release the hounds.............. Let the games begin

Sandra O'Conner has announced her retirement.

Well, we shall see what PResident Bush is made of. Get ready for the blood to flow.