Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Why Do Muslim Women Gravitate to Islam?

Did you ever wonder why Muslim women prefer to be Muslim rather than Christian? The link below helps to explain the answer to that puzzling question. The link is from Aljazeera, the Islamic web site; and it certainly gives the Islamic side of that question. The article points out that ISIL is un-embarrassingly misogynist (i.e., oriented against equality for women). Muslim women are offended by the failure of Western feminism to elevate the role of women in the world; they see Western feminism as taking women out of the home and putting them in the office. They are offended by Western sexual display.  The article posits that Muslim women are motivated to join ISIL largely because they perceive that Muslim men have not taken a sufficiently strong stand against cultural and military incursions of the West into Muslim lands. The article also points out that Muslim women join ISIL because of their rebellion against western construction of the Muslim woman as the “lesser feminist.” In other words Westerners have stimulated Muslim women to react against negative stereotypes of Muslim women in the minds of Western peoples.


The underlying cause of ISIL membership for Muslim women is said, however, to be “a subversive and militant agenda that does not frown at destruction or the mass killing of innocents.”


This article does not lead me to an attitude of sympathy for Muslim women who join ISIL; but I recommend that you read it and form your own opinion.

ISIL’S Feminine Mystique

Friday, March 13, 2015

Following is an article published in Imprimis for 12 March 2015. I highly recommend this article to anyone who is interested in knowing the important facts about the present problem in immigration into the United States.
Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She received her B.A. from Yale University, and earned an M.A. in English from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She writes for several newspapers and journals, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The New Criterion, and Public Interest, and is the author of three books, including—with Victor Davis Hanson and Steven Malanga—The Immigration Solution: A Better Plan Than Today’s.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on February 18, 2015, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Naples, Florida.

The lesson from the last 20 years of immigration policy is that lawlessness breeds more lawlessness. Once a people or a government decides to normalize one form of lawbreaking, other forms of lawlessness will follow until finally the rule of law itself is in profound jeopardy. Today, we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. President Obama has decided that because Congress has not granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S., he will do so himself. Let us ponder for a moment just how shameless this assertion of power is.

Article 2, Section 3, of the Constitution mandates that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision assumes that there is a law for the president to execute. But in this case, the “problem” that Obama is purporting to fix is the absence of a law granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Rather than executing a law, Obama is making one up—arrogating to himself a function that the Constitution explicitly allocates to Congress. Should this unconstitutional power grab stand, we will have moved very far in the direction of rule by dictator. Pace Obama, the absence of a congressional law granting amnesty is not evidence of political failure that must somehow be corrected by unilateral executive action; it is evidence of the lack of popular consensus regarding amnesty. There has been no amnesty statute to date because the political will for such an amnesty is lacking.

On February 16, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen halted President Obama’s illegal amnesty with a temporary injunction. The proposed amnesty program, Judge Hanen found, went far beyond mere prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the law against individuals. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to confer on illegal aliens a new legal status known as “legal presence.” But Congress has not granted DHS the power to create and bestow legal status. The amnesty program represented a “complete abdication” of DHS’s responsibility to enforce the law, Judge Hanen declared. Indeed, DHS was actively thwarting the express will of Congress.

Pursuant to traditional canons of judicial interpretation, Judge Hanen ruled against the Obama administration on
the narrowest possible grounds in order to avoid reaching the constitutional
question. He based his decision on the law governing agency rulemaking, rather than on separation of powers grounds. But his rebuke was just
as scathing.

The administration will likely fight the ruling through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, all the way to the Supreme Court. Democrats should hope that the administration loses. They are assiduously pretending that Obama’s executive amnesty is merely an innocuous exercise of prosecutorial discretion. But if Obama’s power grab is upheld, they will rue the day that they acceded to this travesty when a Republican president decides, say, to privatize Social Security because Congress has failed to do so.

Obama’s executive amnesty is the most public and egregious example of immigration lawlessness to date. But beneath the radar screen has been an equally telling saga of cascading lawlessness that is arguably as consequential: an ongoing attack on the Secure Communities program and on deportation more generally. Because of this attack, the rallying cry of so many conservatives that we must “secure the borders” is a naïve and meaningless delusion.


The Secure Communities program is a commonsensical response to illegal alien criminality. Whenever an illegal alien is booked into a local jail on suspicion of a crime, an alert is automatically sent to federal authorities in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. ICE agents can then ask that the jail or prison briefly hold the illegal alien after he has served his time rather than releasing him, so that ICE can pick him up and start deportation proceedings. This is known as a detainer.

You would think that such a program would be wholly uncontroversial. An alien who crosses into our country illegally already has no claim to undisturbed presence here. He has voluntarily assumed the risk of deportation. But an illegal alien who goes on to break other laws has even less claim to protection from deportation. Yet Secure Communities has been the target of incessant protest from illegal alien advocates since its inception. Those advocates make the astonishing claim that it is unfair to remove an illegal alien who commits other crimes.

Even more astonishing, nearly 300 jurisdictions agree, including New York State, California, New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles. They have openly refused to honor ICE’s requests for detainers, but instead have released tens of thousands of criminals back on to the streets where they easily evade detection. Not that ICE would be likely to try to pick them up! Indeed, the irony regarding the agitation against Secure Communities is that ICE rarely uses its power under the program. In 2012—the last year for which we have complete figures—the agency was notified of over 400,000 illegal jail detainees, but removed only 19 percent of them. And about 50 percent of the criminal illegal aliens whom ICE chooses not to deport reoffend upon release.


There are two aspects of the campaign against Secure Communities that bear particular notice: the hypocrisy of the Obama administration and the campaign’s advocates, and the hypocrisy of big city police chiefs.

In 2012, Arizona became the target of universal contempt among the country’s elites for passing a law that encouraged local law enforcement officers to assist ICE with immigration enforcement. According to illegal alien advocates and the Obama administration, this law, known as SB 1070, was an unconstitutional state usurpation of the federal government’s plenary power over immigration matters. The Obama administration sued Arizona for allegedly interfering with federal authority over immigration and won an injunction against SB 1070. Yet now these same advocates are urging states and localities to defy the federal government’s requests for immigration assistance, resulting in the creation of local sanctuary zones where federal immigration authority cannot reach.

If ever there were a lawless usurpation of the federal government’s power over immigration, the open revolt against Secure Communities is it. Yet the Obama administration, rather than hauling these recalcitrant jurisdictions to court, has lain supine and chastely looked the other way. And late last year, it threw in the towel completely. It dismantled the Secure Communities program except in a few narrow instances, agreeing with the activists that it was unfair to worry illegal alien criminals about deportation.

There is another aspect of the campaign against Secure Communities that shows the corrosiveness of our tolerance of lawlessness. Major police chiefs in high immigration jurisdictions are under enormous political pressure to protect illegal aliens. And that has meant tossing aside everything that they know about public safety and policing. One of the great insights of policing in the last two decades was the realization that low level misdemeanor offenses like graffiti, turnstile jumping, drunk driving, and drug sales have an outsized impact on a community’s perceptions of public safety and on the actual reality of crime. Enforcing misdemeanor offenses is an effective way of incapacitating more serious criminals. And even when an offender does not go on to commit more violent felonies, such allegedly minor offenses as shoplifting and illegal street vending create a sense of lawlessness and disorder that breaks down the fabric of a community. Police chiefs like New York’s William Bratton and Los Angeles’s Charlie Beck know this. Yet they have fiercely opposed cooperating with the federal government on Secure Communities, on the ground that misdemeanor offenses are too trivial to worry about and should not subject illegal aliens to deportation. This is pure hypocrisy—the result of the enormous pressure of demographic change on our principles.

The ultimate goal of the campaign against Secure Communities is to delegitimate deportation entirely as a response to illegal immigration. If it is morally unacceptable to repatriate even a convicted illegal alien criminal, then it is all the more unacceptable to repatriate someone who has “merely” crossed the border illegally. This undermining of alien-removals is behind the constant protests demanding to “stop deportations now.” It is behind the claim that it is Americans who are to blame for separating families, rather than the alien who knowingly came into the country in violation of our laws and assumed the risk of being sent home.

The campaign against deportation does not name itself as such, but it has been highly successful. Despite the false rhetoric of the Obama administration, deportation has basically disappeared from the interior of the country. The removal rate in 2014 for illegal aliens who were not explicit ICE priorities was one-half of one percent. If aliens cannot be removed for illegal entry, then there is no more immigration law. Deportation is the only remedy for illegal entry that corrects and deters the original lawbreaking. That is why Mexico, along with virtually every other country, practices it unapologetically. Lose deportation, as we are doing, and the U.S. will have formally ceded control of its immigration policy to people living outside its borders. National sovereignty will have become meaningless.

The delegitimizing of deportation makes the conservative rallying cry to secure the borders sadly naïve. An utterly secure border is impossible; people will always find a way to cross. But if, once they cross, nothing can be done to them, then we may as well not have borders. That’s why the advocates have spent all their energy fighting deportation rather than fighting increased border security—because they know that eradicating the former is far more important.


The erosion of the rule of law is bad enough. But the social consequences of mass illegal immigration are equally troubling. We are importing poverty and educational failure. If you want to see America’s future, look no further than my home state of California, which is a generation ahead of the rest of the country in experiencing the effects of unchecked low-skilled immigration.

Nearly 50 percent of all California births are now Hispanic, and the state’s Hispanic population is now almost equal to the white population. The consequences of this demographic shift have been profound. In the 1950s and ’60s, California led in educational achievement. Today, with a majority Hispanic K-12 population and the largest concentration of English language learners in the country, California is at the bottom of the educational heap. Over a third of California eighth graders lack even the most rudimentary math skills; 28 percent are equally deficient in reading. The mathematics performance gap between Hispanic and white eighth-graders has not budged since 1990; the reading gap has narrowed only slightly since 1998.

California is at the epicenter of the disturbing phenomenon of “long-term English learners.” You would think that an English learner would be someone who grew up in a foreign country speaking a foreign language, and who came to the U.S. only later in life. In fact, the vast majority of English learners are born here, but their cognitive and language skills are so low that they are deemed non-native English speakers. Nationally, 30 percent of all English learner students are third-generation Americans.

In 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown pushed through a controversial law to try to close the achievement gap between California’s growing Hispanic population and its Anglo and Asian populations. That law redistributes tax dollars from successful schools to those with high proportions of English learners and low-income students. It remains to be seen whether this latest effort to raise the education outcomes of the children of low-skilled immigrants will prove more effective than its predecessors. Working against that possibility is Hispanics’ high dropout rate—the highest in the state and the nation—and their equally unmatched teen pregnancy rate.

To be sure, many illegal Hispanic aliens possess an admirable work ethic and have stabilized some moribund inner-city areas like South Central Los Angeles. But thanks to their lack of social capital, many of their children and grandchildren are getting sucked into underclass culture. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate in California and the U.S. is 53 percent—twice what it was in the black population in 1965 when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote his prescient warning about the catastrophe of black family breakdown. The incarceration rate of Mexican-Americans in California shoots up eight-fold between the first and second generations, to equal the black incarceration rate. Gang involvement is endemic in barrio schools, giving rise to a vast taxpayer-supported army of anti-gang counselors serving the children of single mothers.

This social service bureaucracy in barrio schools is just the tip of the iceberg. Welfare use among immigrants and their progeny is stubbornly high, because their poverty rates are stubbornly high. Hispanics are the biggest users of government health care and the biggest supporters of Obamacare. They favor big government and the higher taxes necessary to pay for it. The claim that low-skilled immigration is an economic boon to the country as a whole is false. It fails to take into account the government services consumed by low-skilled immigrants and their children, such as schools, hospitals, and prisons.


So what should be done? First of all, we must reassert the primacy of the rule of law. At the very least, that means rehabilitating deportation and ceasing to normalize illegal immigration with our huge array of sanctuary policies. Liberals appear indifferent to the erosion of law, and even too many conservatives are willing to excuse immigration law-breaking in order to placate what they imagine to be a conservative voting bloc in waiting. But let us hope the rule of law is not lost.

I would not at present offer an amnesty to those who have voluntarily chosen to violate the law, since every amnesty, both in the U.S. and Europe, has had one effect and one effect only: more illegal immigration. People who come into the country illegally or overstay their visas do so knowingly. They assume the risk of illegal status; it is not our moral responsibility to wipe it away. Their children, if they are born here, are already American citizens, thanks to the misguided policy of birthright citizenship. The illegal status of their parents is a problem that will eventually fade away as that first generation dies out. The Obama amnesty, however, actually incentivizes the use of birthright citizenship, since it rewards with legal status illegal aliens who have American citizen children.
I would also radically reorient our legal immigration system towards high skilled immigrants like the parents of Google’s founder, Sergey Brin. Canada, Australia, and other countries are already benefiting from placing a priority on skilled immigrants.

Immigration policy should be forged with one consideration in mind: America’s economic self-interest. Immigration is not a service we provide to the rest of the world. Yes, we are a nation of immigrants and will continue to be one. No other country welcomes as many newcomers. But rewarding illegal immigration does an injustice to the many legal immigrants who played by the rules to get here. We owe it to them and to ourselves to adhere to the law.

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST.

Monday, March 2, 2015

Are Progressives Anti-American?

I posit that they are; and there is ample evidence that I am right.

 At a recent dinner meeting, Rudy Giuliani made the charge that “President Obama does not love America.” Scott Walker, the front-running Republican candidate for President, was sitting near him, and Mr. Walker would not refute Giuliani’s claim. Walker has since been attacked by the liberal press for not denying that Giuliani’s claim is legitimate. It seems that some in prominent positions in America share my opinion.

 Progressivism developed in the 19th Century as a broad philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancement in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to improve the human condition. Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of scientific knowledge as the foundation of society. A factor in the development of Progressivism in America was the obvious abuses of power that were developed by unbridled capitalism in the Industrial Revolution of America. Original principles of Progressivism included the value of the past, nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, and the intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth. However, the noble principles of Progressivism have eventually morphed into the ideology of the far left in American politics and economic policy.

 American Presidents who have claimed the mantra of Progressivism in their own times have been Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Obama.

 In his well-known book, “Culture Wars,” (published in 1991) author James Hunter points out some enlightening results of public surveys measuring the attitudes of Americans toward our nation. Although the data are old, they still point to truth, which few can legitimately refute. These surveys were aimed at finding the differences between orthodox Americans and Progressives in our nation. For instance:

  1. When asked, “How much confidence do you have in the ability of the United States to deal wisely with present world problems?” Progressives were twice as likely as their orthodox counterparts to say, “not very much” or “none at all.”
  2. When asked if the United States “acts as a force for good in the world, 81% of the orthodox answered “yes,” while 51% of Progressives answered that the United States was “neutral” or “a force for evil.”
  3. When asked if they agree with the statement, “America treats the people of the Third World unfairly,” 85% of Progressives answered “yes.” A majority of orthodox respondents disagreed with that statement.
    The divide between people oriented on conservative (orthodox) political viewpoints and people oriented along progressive (liberal) viewpoints defines itself in their attitude about what is freedom and what is justice. Cultural conservatives, i.e., the “orthodox” believers in Hunter’s book, define freedom economically (freedom of economic opportunity) and justice as righteous living (treating one another with dignity and respect). On the other hand, Progressives look at freedom socially (as individual rights) and justice economically (as equity in income and social services).
    Progressives look at our American polity with great suspicion, tending to confirm the beliefs of many conservatives that they actually belong to the “Blame America first bunch.” On the other hand, Conservatives still cling to the belief that America is a “City on a hill,” an America that still has a “manifest destiny,” to save the world for freedom, civil rights, and free market entrepreneurism.
     Two vignettes serve to illustrate my points:
     We all remember the famous comment made by Michelle Obama when her husband was first nominated for President in 2008—“This is the first time I have ever been proud to be an American.” I guess she had been ashamed of America before the nomination.
     The other vignette was something that happened to me in a Denver store after I had been attending a Republican meeting. I was wearing a necktie, which had on it an image of the American flag. A young man came up to me and said, “I see you are a Republican.” I asked him how he knew that; and he told me he was a political science student at the University of Denver. He attended many political meetings around the city, and he noticed that at Democrat meetings, he saw symbols of loyalty to China, Tibet, and Somalia, but very few references to America. When he visited Republican meetings, he saw only symbols of American flags and references to the United States.
     Yes, I still believe that Progressives in America deserve to be called the “Blame America first bunch.” I believe that America still holds the moral high ground in both domestic and international politics. I still believe that America is a “City on a hill.” And…I believe that Progressives have a very opposite belief about America.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

What ISIS Really Wants

  “Man is a witness unto his deeds.” Qur’an 75:14
There is a very illuminating article recently published in the National Journal, explaining the motives, the problems of, and the probable solutions to the uproar in the Middle East. The article is headed with the title of this post. I strongly recommend this article to anyone who really wants to understand the radical Muslim attitude in its fullness.
Readers of the article will quickly become aware of the intricate and highly organized structure of ISIS, its threats to Western culture, and its inherent weaknesses. The article clearly shows the probable trajectory of this malignant political and military organization. There are, indeed, weaknesses of ISIS manifested within the Islamic religion, itself, which may be its undoing, yet.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Where Is Victory Over ISIL?

Our government does not recognize that we are in a shooting war with ISIL. We need LEADERSHIP to confront this violent regime. Our government needs do something meaningful militarily to confront the violence. All the President does is make ridiculous statements of how we are "standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies." Nobody believes that.

Both President Wilson and FDR led the country effectively into war aimed at victory; President Obama is not doing anything like that.

I am frustrated with our government!!

Saturday, February 14, 2015

What Trumps Freedom of Speech?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech….” First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

These days we are facing a challenge to one of our most sacred Bill of Rights freedoms, i.e., the freedom of speech. Mob rule and the sacrosanct procedure of being “politically correct” seem to be overtaking this American freedom cornerstone. Will we, Americans tolerate speech that challenges our basic worldviews? Will we allow open debate on issues that we consider unassailable? Will we allow promotion in the public square of subjects such as racism, sexism, homosexuality, creationism, anti-Americanism, Christian theology, and anti-Islamic protests?

It is common belief that some of the above subjects are beyond the pale of acceptable public discourse, and they should be suppressed. But…just how far should our society go in suppressing these disturbing subjects?

An essential freedom-of-speech paradigm was established in 1949 by the Supreme Court in Terminiello v. Chicago. In that case a vitriolic, racist speaker spoke to an auditorium packed with supporters. Outside the auditorium was what was described as “a surging, howling mob hurling epithets’ at those who would enter.” The police blamed the mob’s action on the speaker, Arthur Terminiello, a Catholic priest under suspension by his bishop. He was convicted of disturbing the peace and fined.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the conviction and ruled that Terminiello’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. The court said that the police, instead of taking action against the speaker should have protected him and controlled the crowd, including making arrests if necessary.

University of Chicago law professor Harry Kalven Jr. would later coin the term “heckler’s veto” to describe what would have happened had the court decided otherwise. First Amendment rights could be “vetoed” by others who create a public disturbance that forces the silencing of the speaker. I wonder…do we exercise a “heckler’s veto” these days against speech that we consider offensive or unacceptable to our predetermined viewpoint?

I do not think there is any question about subjects such as slavery and racism, as in the Terminiello decision; those are subjects that society does not have to tolerate; but nevertheless, the Terminiello decision indicated that it is not acceptable in America to shout down a dissenting opinion.

I would speak, specifically, about speech aimed at silencing opposition to one of society’s sacred cows—the evolution argument. Ever since the mid-1990s general opinion in the scientific community has deemed it stupid and irrational to even question the “fact” of evolution. Everyone who attempts to do that is considered irrational, because the question has been finally settled in the minds of scientists and those in institutions of higher learning. Even the population, as a whole, considers the question solved, i.e., the scientific methods have answered the question once and for all. These scientific methods are often referred to as methodological naturalism.
Even though methodological naturalism is widely accepted as a way of getting at some forms of truth, its principles, themselves, have not been proven conclusive in all kinds of truth determinations. Specifically, methodological naturalism has not been able to disprove the existence of a Creator God. Other questions unanswered by scientific methods are, these: Does science prove naturalism, or does it merely assume it? Has the metaphysical basis for traditional biblical morality been destroyed by scientific discoveries?

The media and the court systems of America are busy shutting the doors on anyone who would promote ideas of faith and religious certainty into academic and public discourse. Teachers are prohibited from entering their religious beliefs into their classrooms. The subject seems to be closed. I would posit that this kind of prohibition is a form of “heckler veto” of discordant and controversial idea sharing; and, as such, it represents an erosion of freedom of speech.

More on this subject can be found in Phillip E. Johnson’s book, Reason In The Balance.

Saturday, January 31, 2015

People Do Not Believe in Science, Anymore. Really?

...the aim of exact science is to reduce the problems of nature to the determination of quantities by operations with numbers. James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879

I have been in a conversation with one of our daughters lately; she tells me that people are losing confidence in science, generally. This lack of confidence in scientific belief is causing them to do some bad things. For instance, they are not giving their children immunizations because they think that adverse side effects of vaccines cause all sorts of bad things, such as autism.

I will admit that scientific reasoning does not hold the high ground in the thinking of many people that it did 100 years ago, when Enlightenment philosophy was the predominant pattern of belief. However, science has been a huge benefit to humankind in the last 200 years or more. No thinking person can really deny that. Just think of how science has impacted your life whenever you get in a car or airplane, turn on the electricity, or use the internet.

The problem with general belief which our daughter notes is caused by the fact that scientific thinking has invaded areas where it does not belong. To summarize the problem, scientists answer the question of “what” in the puzzled human mind; but it does not answer the question of “why.” Scientists can examine our universe and find out many things about how it works; but they cannot tell us why the universe is here in the first place. And…try as they may, they cannot tell us how and why life exists. The question of life gets even more complicated when they try to explain such things as consciousness, imagination, art, morality, kindness, and many other things.

The “incredibility” of scientific understanding comes when scientists try to extrapolate their bench research findings into philosophical and less objective fields of understanding.

Some scientists fail to understand that there are several ways to get at truth. For instance:

1)   Experimental truth is obtained in laboratories of one kind or another. Making hypotheses, testing them against collected data, drawing conclusions, and relying on replicability to confirm findings. This is the home ground of scientific understanding; and it is the area where science shines as an expounder of truth.

2)   Historical truth is obtained by consulting historical records. For instance, if one wants to know how many Irish immigrants lived in Detroit in 1910, one consults historical records.

3)   Mathematical truth is obtained by deducing facts from previously confirmed formulas.

4)   Psychological truth is determined by interviewing people. For instance if one wants to know what is going wrong in a marriage conflict, one must interview the two people in the marriage.

5)   Philosophical truth is obtained by logic and reasoning with words. This truth relies on history and common sense.

6)   Sociological truth is obtained by interviewing a randomly chosen group of people and applying statistical models to the collected data.

7)   Theological truth relies on historical records and reliance on the only one who was there in the beginning, God, Himself, as expressed in the Bible.

When scientists push their naturalistic disciplines to their logical extreme, they logically come to the conclusion that God does not exist as a real actor—they see Him as a construct of human imagination.  Whenever scientists step out of their area of competence, they draw down doubt on their competence and believability. Their system of thought, when applied to areas outside of their area of competence invariably brings them to a belief in a purposeless evolution of molecules to life and, furthermore, to a belief in purposeless life evolution. Common sense contradicts this purposeless process. A person who looks at the internal workings of a human cell can tell with just a bit of common sense that all the “random change, natural selection, and passage of time” rhetoric we hear from scientists is nonsense; and it makes their arguments silly. The scientific method does not translate well into many areas of truth searching.

It seems that some scientists deny data that does not fit with their naturalistic, atheistic, presuppositions. Data of that kind shows the common observation that the various parts of our universe are extremely well coordinated to work together to produce the livable planet, which is our home. Scientists do not have an explanation for that in their paradigm of a “purposeless” creation.

No reasonable person is going to denigrate the reputation of science unless the purveyors of that discipline begin to jump the limits of their discipline and claim the right to determine things outside their area of competency. Scientists deserve to be disbelieved when their beliefs erode into areas only served by non-objective facts regarding ultimate truths.

It must be added that distrust in science has resulted from the terrible wars and mass killing that has taken place in the 20th Century mediated by ingenious scientific killing devices. This kind of skepticism should not negate the many beneficial effects of scientific advances in medicine, public health, and other fields.