YES, this is another political rant, but it’s very much related to The Controversy between evolution and creationism. We’re writing in reaction to two articles we found this morning in publications that have great appeal to and influence upon the American conservative movement.
The first article is in Human Events. It’s titled The Atheist-Dominated National Academy of Sciences . The author begins with a rant against the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) over the issue of global warming. Then his mind somehow makes the “connection” between that and Darwin’s theory of evolution. We’ll jump in at that point, and we’ve added the bold font:
In 2008, NAS published Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a book sent to every public school board member and science teacher in America. The book’s message: Darwinian evolution is the only acceptable explanation for human origins. The book treats the intelligent-design hypothesis as invalid without presenting a shred of empirical evidence to contradict it.
The pseudo-scientific method of the NAS begins, not with a valid hypothesis or empirical evidence, but rather with the arbitrary rejection of a Creator/Designer and atheist materialism deduced as a fact.
We’ve seen that kind of “thinking” before — in the most primitive ravings of the most ignorant creationist websites. Let’s read on a little more:
The beauty of the NAS’s atheist/materialist approach is that no empirical evidence is needed to “prove” that mankind evolved over hundreds of millions of years from slime and worms. Once our Creator is denied, all that is left to explain our existence is time and chance.
Okay, we’ve heard enough from him. If that were just another letter-to-the-editor written by a maniac in a shack, we probably wouldn’t bother with it. We’ve posted more than a hundred of those, and this one lacks sufficient originality to make our list — but it’s in Human Events.
The second article we noticed this morning comes from WorldNetDaily (WND), a worthless rag at the very center of the swirling vortex of conspiracy theories and theocratic lunacy, so that all the crud in the universe gets concentrated there before it’s flushed down into the abyss. Today’s article is by Joseph Farah, the “founder, editor and CEO of WND,” and it’s titled The conservative crackup. Here’s a bit of it, with our bold font:
What does it mean to be a “conservative”?
That is a question that is getting thornier and thornier. In recent years, some of the “conservative” movement’s heavyweight personalities have distanced themselves from the Republican Party leadership because of efforts to move left and to create a “big tent.”
Moving left? We haven’t noticed any of that, but let’s read on:
For instance, a group that supports same-sex marriage and openly homosexual activity in the U.S. military ranks was permitted to be a sponsor of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington this year.
Why are these people so obsessed with what Barney Frank does in his free time? Our concern is what he’s doing as a member of Congress. The other meaning of “member” and what he does with that is his business, not ours. Here’s more:
Why are more “conservative” leaders accepting positions – even embracing them – that were once considered anathema? It all has to do with how and where we get our definitions of right and wrong.
Are the worldviews of conservatives based on nothing more than the principles espoused in Barry Goldwater’s 1960 book, “The Conscience of a Conservative”?
Barry Goldwater’s political thinking was pretty good in your Curmudgeon’s view of things — but he’s obviously not conservative enough for WND. Let’s see if we can figure out why:
Or, are there more transcendent values that “conservatives” are beholden to defend?
We’ve been offering our own answer to that question since we started this blog. Note our motto in the header: “Conserving the Enlightenment values of reason, liberty, the scientific method, and free enterprise.”
But that’s just your Curmudgeon’s thinking, so it doesn’t matter. Let’s read a bit more from the WND piece:
To me, “conservatism,” along with any other “ism,” is worthless unless it has a moral core based on God’s revelation to humanity in the Bible. My only interest is in defending and conserving God’s eternal values and principles, not Barry Goldwater’s.
For years the Republican Party has debated whether so-called “social issues” should be a part of its platform. “Big tent” Republicans said no. “Conservatives” said yes. Now this debate is being reignited within the “conservative” movement.
We’ve previously expressed ourselves on those “social issues.” See our Open Letter to the Republican Party. We think those issues belong where the sun don’t shine, and we suspect that Goldwater would agree. Anyway, here’s the end of the WND rant:
If it is not a biblical morality, if it’s not God’s morality, then it is man’s. And that is a very shaky foundation for any political movement.
That’s just crazy. The American Constitution is man’s work, and it’s the one essential foundation of a sane political movement. If some whacko political party wants to be guided by mullahs, swamis, creationists, and other assorted gurus, all babbling about their wonderful spiritual insights, that’s up to them — but to us it’s repulsive.
No, your Curmudgeon isn’t leaving the Republican party to join up with the Dems. We abominate the Dems’ Marxism even more than the GOP’s theocracy, if that’s possible. We’ve been staying with the GOP in the hope that they could be a counter-weight to the madness that currently dominates Washington city. If the two articles we found this morning are typical of the new Republican party, then it looks like we’re out of luck.
Barry Goldwater, where are you?
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.