Gay marriage and all the other liberal initiatives got tromped around the country.
Only one so-called “progressive” initiative passed overwhelmingly in California. Embryonic stem cell research.
California is not typical. But this was lopsided. This was out of sight. Governor Schwarzenegger backed it big time because he had to, though I have no doubt he is for it.
When embryonic stem cell research is brought up, people are told to believe that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a someone’s child. If you asked most of those people, “Does life begin at conception?” they would say “Yes.”
If all men are truly created equal then that fertilized egg you can see only under a microscope is exactly the same as a child you see playing in the grass. If you had a choice between letting a child die or letting two ferilized ova be destroyed, you would save the fetuses.
Nobody believes that. Well, almost nobody. But anybody who REALLY believes that is regarded by others as a nut. It’s a fine theory but it doesn’t really mean a thing.
It’s like evolution. A lot of people see evolution has holes in it. If you say the earth and all the life on it came into being at once, everybody will say how much they respect your point of view.
They don’t.
They’re humoring you.
No one who would actually save two fertilized eggs over a child will ever be elected to national office. Bush says he takes that proposition seriously, but everybody knows he doesn’t.
Anti-evolutionists and pro-lifers will have to define themselves out of the nutcase category and distance themselves from the crazies before they can win any serious political battle.
#1 by Richard L. Hardison on 11/07/2004 - 12:44 pm
There are a goodly many non-“nut” cases who do not accept evolution. Evolution has been increasingly untenable since the work of Pasteur. Genetics and information science have basically beheaded the monster and the supporters simply have been unable to bring themselves to see the truth – their precious “theory” is dead and stinks.
I don’t accept inteligent design – the only competition these days,as a sound theory either. Like George Gilder, however, I agree the only people asking the right questions are those holding ID. The function of science is to find “how” not “who.” Science is supposed to find what happened and the mechanism by which it happened. Evolution itself depends on what amounts to miracle – spontaneous generation of life. As such it is simply an atheistic version of creation – or simply a lower form of religion.
#2 by Bob Whitaker on 11/07/2004 - 1:43 pm
Richard, I SAID plenty of people had legitimate questions about evolution. I very specifically separted them from the nut cases.
Do I have to put things like that in all-caps for anybody to see them?
#3 by Scott on 11/08/2004 - 12:17 pm
I don’t think I could stomach being on the side of the ‘progressives’ on anything.
#4 by Richard L. Hardison on 11/08/2004 - 7:31 pm
I saw that Bob. The primary problem is rather simple, however. People like George Gilder are classed as anti-evolution, and rightly so, as Gilder himself admits. That does not make him a nutcase. He’s backed several evolutionists into a corner and they are avoiding him like they avoid Duane Gish, like they avoid anyone who calls them on their religious faith.
Evolution doesn’t simply have problems, it is junk science.