The Rants of a Bitter Man

Just a  note today in support of my previous post…   and no, I did not watch the pageant. A co-worker sent me a link to the news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html

The allegation is that the Miss USA pageant  was ’soiled’ by political controversy..
“the big story to come out of the normally politics-free telecast was Miss California’s comments regarding gay marriage.”

The question and the answer?
“When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”"

What did Miss California’s answer tell us about her character? Closed mindedness? Hate? unacceptable? Un-American? Ugly? Wrong?

Where I was raised, it was a well known fact that if someone did something they knew would raise a stink, they placed the blame on someone else as soon as possible.  There is a saying for that. “You smelt it, you dealt it.”

Wow, does this stink.

So, a gossip blogger, Parez Hilton, is allowed to ask a politically charged question, but the answer is the condemned item?

What was Miss California supposed to say?
‘I support gay marriage so much that I wish my parents had been gay instead of having me.’

‘I think that gay marriage is the wave of the future, except that ‘the future’ will only last one generation.’

‘I think that homosexuals should be allowed to legally redefine an existing term and contract, that affects millions of Americans and their beliefs, to satisfy whatever agenda the homosexual movement wishes to advance.’

Or perhaps the politically expedient answer:

‘Forty-five of the fifty American states already have laws or constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and if I were to assume to become Miss America and represent them, how could I tell 90% of America that they are wrong?’

“Miss California’s answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show. “It’s ugly,” said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. “I think it’s ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are.”"

I guess that I am just not gay enough to watch the Miss America Pageant. But then again, if the female beauty pageat of the nation is now decided by what gay men think is attractive and good, I promise to never, ever, watch it. I guess it is not enough that these women are reduced to objects: a sex-symbol, that struts around a stage in skimpy clothes and babbles about world peace… now they must also be pro-gay. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose?

…pardon me, but the hangman is hitting me in the face with that golden noose…

I have debated about publishing this post… but it is late and I am feeling foolish

…so, why not?

The condemned, yet innocent, captives fitted with a hangman’s noose have to wonder if the sudden drop will break the neck, quickly ending all pain, or if they will slowly suffocate as the unyielding braided cord of the noose strangles them by the force of their own weight.

They are far past considering which fate they deserve, and have moved on to which they desire.

One wonders, however, of the man who wears the noose as a fashion statement, and then strains against it, attempting to grasp a fashionable egg, just out of reach, all the while the executioner watches.

I couldn’t keep this image from coming to mind, as I noticed that the voices crying the loudest for ‘tolerance’ come through crushed throats and blue lips.  I reached a point where I said, ‘No more.” to the executioners’ voices crying; ‘You almost have it, just a little further’. I noticed they are still saying that to my neighbor with the blue lips.

Who made the noose? why do I have to wear it again? And what is it about that egg that makes it so important?

Strangely enough, as soon as I give up stretching for the egg, the noose is tightened for me. And as soon as I take the noose off, that oh-so-precious egg is thrown in my face, and I am made to understand.

Well, it must be one big joke and the egg on my face for not seeing it sooner, it is so clear, I missed it for so long. Let me explain with a true-life situation:

There is a ‘huge’, well publicized riot, and angry protest going on in cities  and around capitols across the world and in the United States, where the people march, carry witty and sharp banners, and angrily shout slogans demanding more love, peace, understanding, and tolerance.

…I’ll attend that protest just as soon as I finish organizing my million-man march  calling for inaction.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that everyone should conform to me. But those calling for tolerance, sadly, cannot honestly say the same thing. I am not advocating violence, angst, or resentment. I am not even crying ‘injustice’; no one is hanging me but myself. Am I crying out ‘hypocrite’?  Um… Yeah. As a matter of fact, I am. I strongly doubt that those I prominently point my finger at are even aware of this possibility.  If they are, we could add ‘liar’ to the list.

So what am I advocating?  Simple really; dig your heels in like a stubborn mule, ignore the name calling, tugging, and slapping, then return to your roots.   There are values, beliefs, dreams, ambitions, and aspirations that make up the culture we are quickly loosing. ‘Tolerance’ is not being peddled or even suggested; it is force-fed with a razor-studded glove. With every swallow, every concession, we loose our ability to be what we are.  Strange, I thought diversity and the consideration of culture were central to the message of tolerance. Well, what about mine? Who will come to ’save’ the culture of the majority as it starts to die?

I think of this, as the executioner replaces the noose, explaining how golden tolerance is, and why I need it.

And that egg on my face, well, it tastes like cough syrup; bad-imitation cherry with that chemical after-taste. The executioner says it cures hate-speech. I don’t even know what that is, but he insists that I have the disease, and everyone with the disease is either cured, or must die

…Apparently I am sick. The man in the black hood is here to make it all better, and there’s nothing I can do about it.

Brice Bitter

The grey artillery squad with the rusty cannon

argue which spiked bullet will slay the young

beasts that rear their heads;

“Milton causes them all to flee…

Rushdie? Wait, wait, who is he?

Use Hemmingway; they’ll kill themselves.

Fire, Virgil, Cicero, Horace, and James,

Plutarch, and Melville, we know the names,

all sure to Bohr them deathly still.”

Long they argue, high and shrill, not knowing what

they seek to kill.

All the while the breach lays empty.

But if a new sound, new text, new speech,

rears a young head, the grey crew cries;

     “Take aim!

Marx the range! Swift to the gun!

We see this face is far too young!

Locke and load, with Sterne inside,

a new upstart we Kant abide!

To Dante’s hell, we’ll Hume him Twain!

Re-Joyce, Re-Joyce, the head is slain!

Let none remain! Take Pope!

Take aim!”

The world sits with father time, waiting

for grey crews to fade and canon replace

with guns that inquire before they shoot

a new face.

Brice Bitter

I missed a call from a telemarketing computer today; the number was identified as belonging to a group called “Choice America”.  Others on the internet identified this same call as asking for permission to place a pro-gay marriage sign in my yard.

Surprisingly, I found myself sad that I had missed the call…   and the chance to tie up a line that will be used to try and contact others.  I would like to talk to a live person, in support of the Homosexual movement that is evidenced so vehemently in California right now, driving for ‘gay marriage’. I have a few questions to ask them.

First, Why the term “Marriage”?  Second, Why is the Government required to mandate this change? And finally, What does the Homosexual movement really want?

I have asked these questions of homosexuals I have met, and I have been given two different reactions. Either they rant and rave about civil rights, shouting me down as an intolerant and homophobic hypocrite Christian, or they mutter one thing or another ending with ‘maybe you should ask someone involved in that movement’.

So I guess this is my way of stating what I feel, because I don’t think I would get a straight answer from anyone involved in the movement, because I think they are so emotionally invested that they probably can’t remember why they are supporting it.  So… here are my thoughts on the matter. I did try to listen to the shouting of those who did talk to me, but I disagree with that as the reason, because it has been rejected by the homosexual movement at large. Those thoughts do factor into my response, though they may not be apparent.  

First, Why the term “Marriage”?  

“Marriage” existed before the government did. In fact, it is arguable that the current idea of ‘marriage’ predates any written records. In none of the written records of mankind, does the term ‘marriage’ refer to same sex unions, before the modern homosexual movement.  “Marriage” is a religious term which is recognized by the Government as a civil union and contract between two individuals of the opposite sex. The United States federal government has, to this point, avoided the homosexual marriage movement issue, but there have been several states which have taken up the challenge and have, in a nod to the federal Equal Rights Amendment, have granted civil union contracts that grant the same civil rights as married heterosexual couples.  California is one of those states, but apparently, the same legal standing as granted by the government, is not enough.

Second, Why is the Government required to mandate this change?

I think this is simple. From what I can tell, the first question lends the answer to this one. The term ‘marriage’ is required because, as the California State Supreme Court said, it carries the positive connotation in society.  In other words, people look down on civil unions because they have the stigma of being not endorsed by any religion. The U.S. society is based on religion, and therefore the moral structure and laws are formulated around the same ideals. But, the United States drew line in the dirt with the Constitution, prohibiting the government from endorsing or legislating against any particular religion. This line has been ‘fudged’ several times. One in particular is centered on marriage. Polygamy has been specifically decried as illegal and not recognized as ‘marriage’ by the government because it strays from the standard definition of marriage.  So… to answer the question, the Government is required to mandate this, because general society will not grant positive social standing. 

I fundamentally disagree with a Governmental mandate and redefinition because I find that going way beyond the tenets of, and a possible violation of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Government should never guarantee the social standing of any social group or ideal. I do not know how the California Supreme Court decided that equal rights equated to equal social perception. I also don’t know how they dare concluded that just because they ‘said so’, that greater social acceptance would follow. We already have problems with the government telling us how much we have to pay in taxes, we completely reject the idea that the government can tell us where we can and can’t go,  let’s see how the greater social America responds when the Government tells us how we can and cannot think.

So, finally, What does the homosexual movement really want?

I have really pondered this one, and I am not sure that the homosexual movement knows what it wants. As I postulated earlier, the homosexual movement could be looking for social acceptance through Government edict. I don’t believe that social acceptance can be gained through such a process.  I give the intellectual prowess of the movement more credence than to think that this would grant them the acceptance that they desire, though I can believe that they see this as a step on that path.

Yet, I can’t help but think that the movement is motivated by a deeper need, deeper than physical or social desires. I believe that it is motivated by the hollow emptiness that one finds inside when they know they are doing something that goes against their own morals.  I believe this is about religion. By insisting on a religious term, is it any wonder that the larger American populace is responding as it is? It is a strange idea that a Governmental edict could change God’s mind on what is acceptable, especially since most religions believe that deity is unchanging and perfect in its current state. The majority of religious America has already rejected the homosexual movement, and this move to use the religious term could be a vindictive strike from the homosexual movement against those who have ‘thrown them out’, and if it is, it will only escalate the confrontation.  If this is simply an effort by the homosexual community to find ‘affirmation’ in the religious sector, or the social sector, or not, I think it is time for them to really evaluate what they want, because I can only see this move of force backfiring. If this is not about forcing religious or social acceptance, then why then, the religious term ‘marriage’, especially when civil and legal acceptance has already been achieved?

The final option is that this goal of gay ‘marriage’ is simply a goal set by the leadership of the homosexual movement, which could explain why I have had such a hard time getting a clear answer. Could this simply be a drive toward a goal because they can? Or is ‘acceptance’ truly what they want? If it is, it will take a complete realignment of American morals, which, (even if possible), is not something to be taken lightly. In the reforming of American (Government mandated) morals, what else will we be brought to ‘accept’ or decry? This is something that the Government should not embark in, as I believe it to be unconstitutional. How can dictated moral structures and ‘accepted conduct’ not be repression of, and favoritism for certain ‘religions’?  This push is a form of minority tyranny. No other way around it.  Where one can argue that resistance to this movement is a form of majority tyranny, the majority is not denying any civil rights, or dictating public perception. So, I ask, where is the tyranny?

Russians like strong, authoritarian leaders. They have a long and honored history of throwing off the suffocating oppression of one despotic ruler, only to embrace another under the auspices of strength and prosperity.  In the last 60 years, this has all been tied to the riches of oil.  Control and high prices of oil bring money, money allows the leader to consolidate and create military and social power, and then the leader, in true Russian style, embarks on conquest.  From before Cathrine the Great, to the Soviet states, and now to Putin and his puppet, the pattern has stayed true throughout history.
Is it any wonder that Russia is not trusted by the west? 

If we are doomed to repeat history, if history is forgotten, then the Russian people must be among the most forgetful, if not complacent, in the modern age. (Rivaled only by the west.)

I have read much on this lately, and I am sure that no one really knows the whole story.  But some things are fairly clear.   South Ossetia is a break-away province of Georgia, (civil war), which has not been resolved in nearly two decades.  Tensions started mounting higher, (several skirmishes -between separatists and Georgian soldiers - over the past few years, killing both Ossetians and Georgians ), and Russia posted 1200 “peace keeping” troops in South Ossetia to prevent Georgia from solidifying its own internationally recognized borders.  Georgia is considered for NATO membership. (I do not know which came first, Georgia’s courting of NATO, or the Russian troops, but they are around the same time.) Georgia then sent troops into South Ossetia to restore constitutional order, (reclaim South Ossetia),  and to stop alleged mortar shelling of Georgia from South Ossetia.

Russia sent heavily armed and ready soldiers into South Ossetia the next day, claiming that they need to protect the “Russian citizens” living there, and that Georgia was committing genocide. Russian soldiers then drove Georgian forces out of Ossetia, and further continued to invade Georgia to sack “military bases” and remove any arms the Georgian army had in the immediate area. Russia also bombed many military installations inside Georgia and blockaded Georgian ports and shipping.

Georgian cities and towns near the South Ossetian border, like Gory, were bombed and invaded by Russian troops, and looted by South Ossetian fighters. Georgian militias have also been witnessed “intimidating” ethnic Ossetians. (Reported by Human Rights Watch)
A ceasefire was brokered a few days ago, and Russia claims to be pulling back, though several combat groups remaing in Georgia have been reported, (still looking for Georgian weapons), including a column of Russian armor and troops camped an hour outside the Georgian capital. Those are the actions, as far as I know them.

Check Wikipedia and the news for more information.

As for the skepticism, I was surprised at how fast Russia was able to send troops into South Ossetia, almost like they were waiting for the signal. One day for the amount of armor and troops that were sent into South Ossetia seems quite short. It is possible, but seems like there was an attack plan ready.

Russia’s accusations of Genocide didn’t have enough time to blossom, and will be extremely hard to prove, because of the speed of the Russian response and invasion.  Casualties have yet to be accurately assessed, (civilian and otherwise).  Russia has crippled the military ability and invaded a sovereign and internationally recognized nation on the brink of being inducted into NATO. All of this, to interfere in an obvious civil war, in behalf of a territory, (there are technically two, but only one was initially involved in fighting… the second, Abkhazia, only started into hostilities when Russian soldiers were on the ground),  which wants to join the Russian federation.  Having a neighbor as a member of NATO is seen as a direct threat in Russia… though I don’t understand why or how - unless it is a holdover from the cold war era. Russia also has a vested monopoly interest in the only oil pipeline from the region which is not under their control.

This all happening at a time, when the US has its military hands tied in the Middle East, seems more than a bit coincidental. The skeptic in me finds the current situation between Georgia and Russia as manufactured. 

This looks bad on Russia. Any way you twist the details, they point to imperialist intentions and policy. Should Russia be allowed to attack a sovereign neighbor and cede willing territories to their borders? Should America?  If parts of Mexico were willing, and dissatisfied with their government, would it be alright, under any circumstance, for the US to destroy the military infrastructure of Mexico and cede territories to our borders?

Everyone needs minions, and we should take a simple queue from the comic world to find out that we should all surround ourselves with people who think that we are worthwhile, and take them at their word. I know society is much more complicated, (I have discussed many things with my sociology-major-brother), but it seems that social divisions, in general, are falling into three categories: those connected with reality, those who are disconnected with all reality but themselves, and those who hate and deny their own reality.

Teenage suicides are up, (preferred mode is hanging, apparently), emotional bankruptcy is rampant, and self-aggrandizing is growing even more ostentatious. What is going on? Well… there are some in the world who have taken the image and ideal of having minions way too far, and now are stuck in the world of head-bloating sycophantic minions and servile yes-men. There are also those who will reject anything that vindicates their existence, or accentuate any failure to the point that it invalidates any shred of self worth that still clings to them. All that is left are those who are grounded by reality, recognize self worth, and value and accept honest criticism as improvement, and humbly acknowledge compliments… but this ‘middle class’ is shrinking.
Honestly though, I can’t but help think that everyone needs some good minions, not sycophants, who give honest feedback; everyone needs someone to lead. My daughter is a good example of the perfect minion. She looks to me for leadership, knowledge, and protection. She has much to learn, but she also loves unconditionally. Whereas I don’t derive my self worth from my progeny, I can’t resist finding joy in the simple hugs, smiles, and general responsibility for my child. I know that she will be more than willing to tell me exactly what she thinks is wrong with me, (Dad, you didn’t give me enough fruit! Dad, you look ridiculous!), as well as laugh at my imperfections. And, hopefully, she will listen and obey my directions most, if not all, the time; the perfect minion. And who doesn’t need that at the end of every day?
There are those for which depression is real and is a serious physiological problem, and I am not trying to minimize this, but I think everyone could benefit from the perfect minion. I could probably use a few more.

I have heard a lot of talk lately about the expiration of the Brady bill as well as the Georgia State law allowing CCW (Conceal and Carry Weapons Permit) holders to carry their weapons into restaurants, on city transit, and in State Parks. Utah has similar laws that some educators are terrified about, allowing CCW permit holders to carry concealed weapons on state university campuses. (The Utah squabble is more over the rule of law than it is over guns. The University of Utah, Utah State University, and others, declared that they would ban all weapons on campus, even if State Law said they couldn’t. The Utah Supreme Court ruled that State law applied to any and every institution of higher learning that received public funding –go figure. I guess the State Universities are not above State law.)

The logic behind gun ‘control’ that I don’t understand, is why so many people find the thought of law abiding citizens carrying weapons for self defense so reprehensible. What is wrong with that? Are we so insecure with our own safety that we will deny the right of self defense to another citizen?

To obtain a CCW, a citizen must go through a background check, (and have a clean report), take a class and prove that they are aware of all firearm laws, demonstrate proficientcy in the use and care of a weapon, register with the police and have their fingerprints recorded, and pay a fee. Whenever they have an encounter with a Police Officer, they are supposed to immediately declare that they are CCW. The rules are different for every state, of course, but the fact remains that a CCW permit holder is actually held to a higher law, aka, more restricted, than the normal citizen – and they pay for that added restriction.

Let me get to the point; restricting CCW permit holders in a bid to ‘improve the safety’ of the general public is a farce. All you are doing is keeping the law abiding citizens from the right to defend themselves. People want to do this why? Because they think that it will keep anyone who is planning on breaking the law, or even inclined to break the law, from carrying a gun in public? The police carry guns in public all the time, should we remove their guns too?

If I am a criminal, or I don’t trust the government, or I feel that I need to take the law into my own hands, would the first thing that I do be to register with the police, get fingerprinted, register my weapon, take a class, then pay the several hundred dollars, (depending on state), to carry a weapon?

This illogical paranoia comes from the desperate hope that we can control the uncontrollable by restricting the controlled. All this will do is ensure that criminals will know that no law abiding citizen will be there to contend with them when they bring their unlicensed and unregistered weapon into public. Talk about empowering and emboldening the lawless.

Gun ‘control’; what a great idea.

I have been busy for a while, I will get back to ranting shortly. To satisfy the short attention spans of the readers that might end up here by mistake, I will leave you with a hiaku with some hidden meaning. …I think.

Salmon swim, leap, swim.

Dam, leap, swim, swim, seek to spawn.

Fight, dodge grizzly, damn.

-Brice Bitter

In Utah, Sen. Chris Buttars, a Senator in the state legislature has his head on the chopping-block because the NAACP has decided that he is not a decent individual who is worthy of representing the public that elected him because he said something that was interpreted as a racial comment.

The comment itself can easily be construed or understood as racial, (“…this baby is black, I’ll tell ya, this is a dark, ugly thing.”), but when taken in context, it is just as easily understood as a comment on the legislation they were talking about, NOT a comment about ‘black babies.’   

Sen. Buttars realized, along with his peers, that the statement could be ‘misinterpreted’ easily, and after a 10 min. recess in the same session, (with no pressure from the media), Sen. Buttars asked for, and was granted time to apologize:

“I made a comment that I think a lot of people could take racist. I certainly did not mean that in any way but it was wrong and certainly could easily have been taken that way. I apologize to anyone who took offense. . . . I ask for your forgiveness.” –Sen. Buttars.

I understand the desire to take offense at this statement, but I also believe in taking someone at their word. The NAACP did not see it this way, and immediately began calling for Sen. Buttars’ resignation. They set-up a meeting with Sen. Buttars, (to which they were told Sen. Buttars would not attend because they had no intention of reconciliation), and when the Senator did not attend, they crucified him at the televised ‘meeting’.  During this meeting, they declared that they had decided that he is unfit to hold office and would call for his resignation. They also stated that if he had attended the meeting, it would not have changed anything. They would still be calling for his job on a silver platter.

I don’t understand the point of this. Whether you believe Sen. Chris Buttars’ explanation or not, you have to admit that it is believable.  I, for one, want to give the man a chance.  What man/woman has not inadvertently insulted or offended someone with their comment on anything.

This situation is like a man who claims to have inadvertently insulted his wife, apologizes immediately, (No, I didn’t mean that, your mother is a wonderful woman. I am sorry sweetheart, what I meant to say…), but a feminist group shows up on his doorstep declaring him unfit to be married and demanding that he be divorced and never is allowed in the company of women again. I don’t know of any man who has not shoved his foot in his mouth so hard, so many times, that Dr. Scholl’s is his dentist.

If this was muttered by an African American, or if the ‘interpretation’ would have been pointed at another minority, then the NAACP would never have shown up or caused such a ruckus.  I think it is time that someone pulled the ‘racist’ card on the NAACP.  They are an organization that is only interested in the advancement of the African American, at the expense of all other races.  Racism is racism; it is evil in all forms. Racial discrimination needs to be understood in all areas. We cannot end racism and racial discrimination by endorsing the reverse discrimination. I challenge the NAACP to take a stand; either they are against all racism, or they are just a front for a different color of racism.

We have allowed a disease to fester in our Scientific culture. There are many different examples, but the most well known that I can draw on is the Natural Selection vs. Intelligent Design debate. Wait, wait, hear me out, I would love to hear someone more intelligent than I on this subject, and you will have your chance to add comments, but please, give me the respect of humanity and hear me out.

To understand my inquisitive argument, you must first understand my possibly flawed understanding of science and the scientific process in general. If you know of flaws to this understanding, let me know.

First of all, I would expect the current theories and ideals of science to be tested against the laws, processes, and accepted truths of science. I also expect the current accepted beliefs of science to be testable in the first place, and if there is a theory that is not testable, I expect scientists in general to decry the junk science for what it is. This though, brings up a question; does science ever prove anything correct, or does it just seek to disprove theories? What then does a theory which cannot be proved wrong by the logic structure alone mean? If a logical circle, for example, were theorized to be scientific fact, what would the scientific community do with it? Personally, I think they would accept it with open arms and hail the author as a scientific genius, lack of proof and all. Why do I believe this? They already have.

As I begin, let us not forget, as I fear mainstream science has, that the roots of modern science spring from philosophy and logic. This is why the logical circle has defeated modern scientists; they have forgotten and neglected their education in philosophy and reasoning.

So we come to it. Natural Selection cannot be tested; it is a logical trap. Whether Charles Darwin knew it was untestable when he posited the idea or not, it does not matter. But ever since he published this idea, it has never been tested and all the opposing ideas since Natural Selections publication have been logically ‘tested’ against Evolution, not Natural Selection. Interestingly enough, Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather, was one of the forerunners and proclaimed Evolution. Charles Darwin did not discover Evolution. Evolution was already gaining wide acceptance in Charles’ day and is not what is at the heart of this current debate.

The factual support for the theory of evolution is impressive… the evidence against it is usually discounted, until one new discovery or another is found which ties the theory back together, or forces us to revamp the entire evolutionary tree. Yes, this has happened countless times, but it does not mean that evolution is bunk; it does mean that we don’t know everything yet. If you are surprised, relax and realize that even though mankind still isn’t the see-all, end-all of knowledge, you will be alright.

Over two hundred years later, enter Intelligent Design. ‘ID’ is, in one form of definition or another, the same mechanism that ‘powered’ evolution before Natural Selection, ‘NS’, came along, (the time when Evolution was gaining wide acceptance between Erasmus Darwin and his contemporaries, and Charles Darwin and the advent of ‘NS’). For my purposes, we will define Intelligent Design as the most rudimentary definition possible; that ‘something’ with intelligence ‘guided’, (or planned- depending on the amount of intelligence you grant this individual/group), the evolution of species through controlling the environmental pressures or by actually manipulating the genetic structure.

If you have followed this argument so far, you might have already made the logical leap of understanding that the only difference between NS and ID is that the proponents of ID believe there is ‘God’ behind the environmental pressures that so perfectly guided us to this point, while the proponents of NS believe that the environmental pressures simply were, and that ‘God’ had nothing to do with it. This, though others may dispute, is the base definition of each, when laid bare. Take the fluff away, this is where it starts and ends.

But neither is science. That is my argument. Neither one is provable, disprovable, or even testable. In fact, I don’t believe either has ever been properly tested. It is impossible to do so.

To test the theory of Natural Selection, one must control, view, and record all stimuli working in the test… but wait, isn’t that the definition of ID? If you ascribe to quantum physics, and believe that an experiment on NS would only require you to simply watch, it gets even better, because the simple act of observation forces a certain probability to be. Again, you have only proved ID.

By the same token, you cannot test ID without becoming ridiculously entwined in your own control scheme; for as a true test of NS would mean endless, currently unknown variables and require you to never see the results, a true test of ID would require you to remove all chance of failure, (are you ‘intelligent’ enough?), therefore there is no variable that would allow NS to break ID, thus invalidating any results for each. (Let’s not even touch the questions of time, or if quantum physics and probabilities are testable.)

So how did these circles get into science in the first place? Who let them in? Well, this is the problem. While NS, and ID, (and quantum physics with probabilities), all adequately explain what we currently are able to observe, without the ability to test them they leave us nowhere to go; writing on a brick wall, not a springboard.

The only function that NS performs that ID does not is atheism. While I believe that anyone should be able to believe what they want, and that people want to have an answer to at least one of the great questions of life, I don’t believe that an endorsement of a fundamentally flawed explanation should be allowed to survive or be accepted in modern science.

We can’t afford to ignore this problem. Though this is not the only logical trap in science, it is one of the most frustrating. If we (as a society) ignored all the things we could not explain, or attribute to God, with a blanket statement of ‘for what we know now, it doesn’t need to exist, therefore it doesn’t’, we would not have discovered the atom or radio waves or ac vs. dc electricity or plastics or DNA or whatever.

Am I the only one that is disappointed that we have not answered many of the questions of the origins and evolutions of life, and that the accepted and defended theory which is taught to everyone, seems to be a logical trap – and we have not tested this theory, or refined it, in over two hundred years? Every other facet of science has progressed infinitely in comparison during this time, because they were allowed to be questioned.

But who can question NS and not be banned from ‘Science’ and branded an apologetic religious nut?