A Different Take On Franklin

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This is one of those quotes that has been making the rounds for quite some time now. I seem to hear it most when arguments are raised about civil liberties, wire taps, right to trial, etc. These are all valid points, and I hope to get in to some or all of them at a later date. Right now, though, I would like to consider the quote in a different context.

Essential liberties come in many varieties, most of which are so easily granted in the U.S. that we can take them for granted, or even treat them with disdain. We can proceed to a polling station without threat of violence. We can elect or defeat a candidate and not be killed for it. We can go to our jobs or the market with little worry that the car on the side of the road will explode as we drive by or that the downtown bus will be riddled with gunshot. There are some criminals about, to be sure, but the risk is so low that most of us do not even consider the danger. Sadly, some must. But for the most part, we are "Secure." Not so in Iraq.

There are many who consider the violence over there a civil war. Perhaps. I am not convinced, at least not that it is only a "civil" affair. There have been too many instances of foriegn involvement in weapons and personnel. And perhaps I'm romanticizing the military a bit (I was in the service for a time), but most "soldiers" that I've known are a little more discriminating in their targets and methods.

We need to figure this out though. If it really is a civil war, we would do well to leave as soon as possible. The result would be painful, but in the end it would be more merciful than continuing a futile political solution. If, however, this is not a civil war but the plan of evil men within Iraq and without, then we dare not leave. In that case, the test is not of arms, but of will. We have had such tests in the past, and we have failed. The rules are changing now, however. In a very short time, men who thrive on death will have access to all of the power they need to spread their terror throughout the globe. If they will not negotiate in Iraq, will the negotiate in Spain? In England? In America? How much would we give up to not live with the threat of someone crossing the border at night with a suitcase that could level several city blocks? Would we give up our laws? Our rights? Our God? Think about the possible consequences, and make the decision you can live with. To paraphrase Mr. Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty in Iraq, to purchase a little temporary Safety in America or Europe, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

And temporary is never long enough.

The Dachshund and the Alien Darwinist

Picture a time in the distant future when man has passed away and all of his works are dust. (Pick your favorite reason - Global warming, bird flu, sky falling, whatever) A group of alien anthropologists and palientologists land on what's left of Earth and set up an excavation. As luck would have it, they unearth a skeleton that is marvelously preserved. The skeleton shows an animal that had four legs, rather short, with a long, slender body. The ends of the feet show paws that were well adapted for digging, a long snout with sharp teeth. The lines are smooth.

After analyzing the remains, they begin to theorize what the animal's environment was. The animal was a hunter, they can tell. It is well adapted for tight areas. From this they surmize that the animal was a predator whose major prey was small burroughing animals. It's surroundings might have been a forest type environment with many smaller animals around.

The analysis is proper and scientific. The conclusions are logical. The problem is that they are wrong. The animal was the house pet of a family in Wisconsin, and never chased anything more lively than a squeaky ball or ate a meal that didn't come out of a can. Nature may or may not have eventually developed the Dachshund, but the fact is that human breeders did. They were the result of selective breeding for a particular effect. They were essentially the results of intelligent design. The failure of Evolutionary theory in this case is not a matter of method, but rather one of assumptions. A huge part of evolutionary science is based on the assumption that things proceed along predictable lines without any particular guidance. Species advance and change based on the environment and in turn the environment can be deduced from the species.

In the past, this assumption has been considered necessary, either because it was considered impractical to determine what outside forces might have existed or because the possibility of a guiding force was dismissed out of hand. That doesn't make Evolution science wrong, but it certainly leaves it vulnerable to wrong conclusions. If there is an active, guiding force, even one that acts intermittantly or in very small ways, evolution science is not going to find it. It can't. It's entire foundation is built on denying the question.

Proponents of Intelligent Design want to ask that question, using scientific techniques and analysis. They correctly identify that if the assumptions of Evolution are wrong, then the conclusions are suspect as well. I don't know what they'll find, but I consider the questions are worth asking. The next time someone tells you how ignorant proponents of ID are, at least take a moment to consider all of the questions won't even ask.