A Matter of Faith

To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.

- Jon Huntsman

In just one of the latest statements that echoes those made by the American political Left. (I know, Huntsman is running for the GOP nomination, but for reasons that escape me.)

The key phrase so often repeated is "I believe".

It seems to me everybody believes in something. Even atheists.

According to Hebrews 11:1,

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

So faith or belief is a personal assurance that something is true, even though that something cannot be scientifically proven. Ergo, Jon Huntsman has faith in the theories of evolution and anthropogenic global warming.

When Huntsman or Gore or Chris Matthews/Rachel Maddow or any other person you care to name on the atheist Left heap scorn on superstitious believers in God who are also skeptics about claims that each of us is descended from ancient primates that descended from more ancient amphibians that descended from unimaginably ancient single-celled organisms, isn't their faith in the origin of life springing up all by itself from nothing at all requisite of just as firm a faith in the unprovable as that faith others of us hold that there was a designer involved?

When there is a very large and growing crowd of climate scientists presenting cogent arguments that "global warming" is wildly overblown and more attributable to cyclical climate patterns than to human behavior, isn't a closed-minded commitment to the climate change theory more about faith than science?

I admit that science was my worst subject in school. But I do remember the fundamental mission of science is to gather knowledge about the nature of the universe through observation and experimentation without bias.

When there is no evidence of evolution of one species into another new species through gradual mutation, science cannot claim it as fact. But those who desperately wish to erase God from the human experience do so because of their own biases and indeed a sort of anti-faith that closes off completely from even a possibility of a creator and designer that might be greater than they.

Democrats put their faith in an all-powerful government, led by themselves. The foundation of their faith is that if only the world would put them in charge, they'd do a better job than anyone else in creating a utopian society by making most of the important decisions for the rest of us, resulting in their fantasy of having heaven on earth. But history shows that that heaven is realized only by and for that ruling class, who only succeed in creating a heaven on earth for themselves while imposing something closer to hell for everyone they keep out of their politburo clicque. They think they're the "cool" people from high school who form an exclusive club to rule the school, demeaning and belittling everyone else who fails to live up to their artificial standards of what constitutes coolness.

Conservatives put their faith in God and the moral code He gave us. The government should limit itself to protecting us from the barbarians, building roads, and locking up our criminal deviants, but otherwise keeping their noses out of our business.

Science requires evidence. My faith does as well, but faith in general does not. I would say there is more than enough evidence to satisfy my faith in God and his earthly son, the Christ. Jesus' life has more documentary evidence than most other famous historical figures, and his resurrection affirmed by hundreds of eyewitnesses. His Church has thrived for over 2,000 years. That's faith that is far from pure superstition.

Who's more superstitious, Huntsman or me?

Debate Night Impressions

Chris Wallace is quite the provocateur as the main questioner in tonight's GOP debate. He asked questions designed to create newsworthy responses, and certainly should be loved by Rupert Murdoch for creating an entertaining evening.

I'm just looking for a candidate.

Strictly based on debate performance, I'm ready to go with my personal rankings from tonight:

1. Santorum

2. Gingerich

3. Bachmann

4. Cain

5. Paul

6. Pawlenty

7. Romney

8. Huntsman

I admit to having a positive predisposition toward Rick Santorum, but even so, his sincere fealty to social conservatism mixed with economic conservatism are closest to my own perspectives. But even though the panel relegated him to the background by assuming he's destined to be an "also-ran", when he did get his chances, I thought he communicated very well.

Gingerich was also strong and brought down the house with his challenge to Chris Wallace to get away from "gotcha" questions and bring serious questions. He also did his best to bring in specific solutions to the conversation, even though it's nearly impossible to communicate anything specific in this format.

I like both Bachmann and Cain, and could very easily have flipped their positions. Even though I thought some of the Wallace-bating negative comments from her fellow Minnesotan were rather petty, I also thought they still stung her a bit. It was interesting to see her get a bit uncomfortable with the question about wives submitting to their husbands.

I hesitated to rank Ron Paul as high as I did, because some of his libertarian ideas are beyond the pale for me. There are lots of attractive ideas from Paul, but also some very uncomfortable ones. Even a bit frightening when he tosses aside Iran's nuke program as inconsequential and scoffs at the notion they might use them against Israel.

Pawlenty I've honestly wanted to like, but find that I don't. He took Wallace's bait to go after Bachmann but was a bit softer when later offered the chance to go after Romney. It made him look petty. He never showed the slightest personal appeal over the course of the evening, and to me increasingly seemed the generic shallow, pandering politician. Ron Paul may scare me at times, but at least I know he's genuine.

Romney remains too smooth and tries so hard to stay above the fray that he doesn't seem like a real person. There's no connection, no identifiable personality, and I just don't feel I can trust him.

Huntsman is the worst of the bunch and deserves his last-place ranking.

If Romney's indeed the party's choice and they foist him on the rest of us, I'll vote for him. Although more enthusiastically than when I pulled the lever last time for McCain, not because I think he's that much better than McCain, but that Obama's that much worse.

My ranking is about my perception of the debate performance. It certainly doesn't mean I've picked my candidate. This post I made sure to write without seeing or hearing anything from anyone else, just to make sure my impressions aren't influenced by anybody.

Then again, if we could move the election up to tomorrow, I'll gladly pull the lever for any one of these 8 just to get a merciful and much-needed end to the awful reign of Obama.

When the Argument Loses Me

Flowing from the argument over raising the debt ceiling to the argument over downgrading the country's credit rating, it's reaching the stage that is not about losing the argument, but where the argument is losing me.

The DOW crashes today about 635 points. So Obama goes on TV, supposedly to calm everyone down and says ... nothing. All he had to say was, let's see:

S&P was just wrong.

It's the Tea Party's fault.

We still need the rich to chip in more to save us.

Nothing new. Nothing specific. So the DOW plummeted even faster with his silly talking points.

I try to be fair whenever there's an argument, and at least try to understand the other side of the argument. OK, on the debt ceiling, the other side said everything the government is spending is necessary - there is nothing to cut, in fact they think the government should be spending more. As far as the debt problem, they just deny it exists and say fix it by raising taxes on rich folks.

OK, that I can understand. I think they're terribly and obviously wrong, but I also know that party consists mainly of government employees and government dependents, and understand they won't stand for any attempted solution that involves cutting or eliminating their salary (or benefit checks).

But with the new, seemingly obvious consequence of the failure of the government to do anything serious to solve the problem, the other side seems to be just burying their head in the sand and pointing at the Tea Party.

It has been so bizarre to watch how Democrats have united together to brand the Tea Party as the enemy. Interestingly, they're never specific about what's exactly wrong with the Tea Party, because if they actually tell the truth about them, more people would probably flock to Tea Party rallies.

The only common goals of the Tea Party are focused on helping elect candidates who will shrink the size of the Federal government, get spending and debt under control, keep taxes low, and return to founding Constitutional principles. What's so sinister about that? If you don't agree with those principles, then exactly what principles would you proposed to replace them?

Where can we find a single lawmaker or even candidate who has put forward a proposal that even starts to roll back the excesses of this era? Ryan's budget was no more than a down-payment, and he was attacked viciously and unfairly by even some in his own party. Boehner sold the plan that Obama signed to trigger the downgrade which had only pretend spending cuts. Did Boehner, Reid, Obama, and Biden actually believe they could trick the country into believing they even tried to solve the problem? If so, every citizen who realizes the whole thing was a trick should express their frustration at the polls to turn them all out (too bad it's another 6 years before Nevada gets a chance to turn out Reid).

I experienced Jimmy Carter. Until the last few months, I was noticing that, policy-wise, Barack Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Now it seems that Obama has succeeded in leaving his pal from Plains, GA in the dust as the most hopelessly inept and destructive president of the last 50 years, perhaps even in the country's history.

The only hope is for the second coming of Ronald Reagan to win through in November 2012. Nobody seems fit to wear that mantle among the current crop of candidates, but perhaps one will step forward in time.