The Multi-Fronted Bluster Campaign - Evolution, Global Warming, And Political Candidates Like Mike Huckabee

There are still things I have read and written about Christopher Hitchens’ “god Is Not Great…,” and somewhat relatedly, scientists generally and the philosophy of naturalism. Briefly, philosophical naturalism makes metaphysical assertions about all of reality while what we could call, “scientific naturalism” is analytically true or “true by definition”: the definition of science is the study of nature. Conversely, all metaphysical claims, natural or otherwise, are metaphysical and beyond the ken of science. No, metaphysical statements about nature are not strictly incongruous. Most simply, “All of reality is natural” is a metaphysical assertion. It is no more scientifically verifiable or falsifiable than how you are feeling, today. Theoretically speaking, a test might determine that the neurons in your brain are firing at a relatively high or low level, and even in what area of the brain such firings are most concentrated. But, it cannot read your thoughts or feelings.

I am not a Cartesian dualist: I don’t tend to think that in this world, matter and spirit are separate. Rather, I believe that they are intimately linked, probably to the extent that physical and spiritual events are coincident: a unified creation. They are distinguished more by perspective and definition than they are by time and place. So actually worse than coincident, the affirmation in the realms of physics and metaphysics are categorically exclusive, literally by definition! But anyway, I am not satisfied yet, with my preparation for these discussions.

So, all that is to say that more pressing, today, is the matter of the misplacement of confessional coercion in media clamor, or as I have called it, “bluster”: that being intimidation by volume, rather than substance. I have for many years contested the emptiness of assertion that evolution is the explanation for all of life, is “fact.” First of all, my reading on the matter is becoming dated by 5 or 10 years, and that question is part of what I’m studying now on naturalism and contemporary scientists. But, whatever your final conclusion on the matter, the immediate point is that the shallow mocking about being “anti-scientific,” “Neanderthal,” ignorant,” or sometimes just “stupid,” is itself ignorant and ill-informed, and most commonly proceeds from people who are demonstrably unequipped not only to make such charges but to make much of any comment on the matter. Most recently, there was great media, blog, and YouTube vacuous scorn about candidates in a Republican debate who simply expressed a disbelief in evolution. Of course, peple have every right to say whatever they want, but we also have every right to say that such speech should be at best, lightly regarded: certainly not intellectually imposing.

A more present example of the noise-over-thought phenomenon (we now have de facto broadcast brawn over brains), is the proclamation so crystallized in Al Gore and his silly film, that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is a manifest and looming threat and that it is urgent for survival that government impose drastic constraints on emissions of CO², mostly from the utilization of fossil fuels. And, it is boosted by the claim that all reputable scientists are agreed and there is no real debate about the threat. As with ardent proponents of evolution, the designation of who is reputable appears to be primarily exclusive to those who will register some agreement with the claims. Disagree? Obviously, not “reputable.”

Talk show hosts like Glenn Beck, Dennis Prager, and Michael Medved have often highlighted the emptiness behind the claims of these global warming Chicken Littles There is plenty of information on the web available on both sides. There are questions about specific claims of Gore’s “docu-ganda” film available even from government agencies. A year old article by the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS is at: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba561/ . There are very extensive text and video analyses available on the web. But, acolytes of the “pop” (popular but shallow) account of the global warming threat, call Prager and Medved, certain that they are apologists on the payroll of large corporations, most ominously, the dreaded “big oil” companies. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. hectored Glenn Beck, who had an accomplished climatologist on his program questioning anthropogenic global warming to “get some real scientists” on his program: that is, scientists who agree with Kennedy.

Now, honestly, though I hardly see him as an intellectual giant, it’s pretty hard for me to believe that Al Gore is as silly as the invulnerability and professed unchallenged state of the available data suggests, and that his claims are genuine more than political. But still, I’m obviously in an inadequate position to pass judgment on Al Gore. But, I suspect that Robert F. Kennedy believes what he’s saying about the danger and the scientific consensus. And, I know that these talk show callers, like the bloggers and blogflies, are serious. But regardless, my conclusion is that they are at best mistaken in their conclusions. A lot of people are mistaken, regardless of who is correct. Most every assertion has dissenters. I would suggest that you diligently study the matter and reach your own conclusion. But, the point here is that regurgitating “pop” myth is not due diligence. Diligent study reveals that plenty of, some say most, well-established scientists are skeptical or critical of the idea of anthropogenic global warming, Wisconsin University Professor Emeritus, Reid Bryson, who called anthropogenic global warming “hooey.” Bryson has been called, “the father of modern climatology.” Many disagree with him, even at his own university.

Scientists and professors disagree about anthropogenic global warming, and about as there is disagreementabout evolution, just as there is disagreement in most disciplines. For myself, I would point out that in both cases, there is great professional incentive to side with consensus. Grants, projects, and positions are largely awarded in accordance with popular orthodoxy. No one disputes that the world has warmed (slightly: .7 degrees C. in the past century) nor can they dispute that global climate has always changed, long before carbon dioxide was generated from more than exhaling. And, few dispute that we ought to maintain the environment, or that fossil fuels pollute it, but that says nothing about anthropogenic global warming. Mike Huckabee advocates targeting energy independence within a decade, which is desirable from not just an environmental but also economic and security perspectives. I’m all for that and can’t see why anyone would oppose it. But, the point here is that popularity, largely generated by relatively ignorant forces in media, is no legitimate case for undisputed factuality.

But speaking of Mike Huckabee, this discussion can circle back to what has largely been the focus of this blog: the election of suitable candidates for political office: specifically, electing a President Mike Huckabee. This same process of media-driven popularity unfailingly tells us (claiming to report) who are the “frontrunners” and viable candidates, particularly for president. We should ask ourselves how it is that the Republican “frontrunners” in polls and fundraising are those who also are in one way or another unsatisfactory to the party base? Why are the undecided so numerous and why is the true poll leader, “None Of The Above?” In quite the same way as I have been discussing, recognition and celebrity are the consequence of media reporting and focus. Media focus produces the polls and funds that are reported to be the justification for reports about who “has a chance.” And similarly, by far most of the public passively digest what is spoon-fed to it by persons that they often ostensibly disagree with. So that, now you have the most noted and even strident conservative “experts” deliberating over which of the “favorites” they might be forced to support, even while they confess that they would prefer one of the other declared candidates. But, it is Republican activists, not the reporters of the “frontrunners, who will actually do the selecting. And, not a single vote has even been cast! Do you see the circle? Accepting what they are told, rather than choosing what they believe, is the public’s problem. Believing the reports of who “has a chance,” is a self-fulfilling process. Just as believing claims about “scientific fact” defines what is popular “fact,” the process of believing who are the “frontrunners,” makes them the frontrunners.

I played in this process for many years. But, I will play in it no more. The sooner that people stop believing it, the sooner it will no longer be true. Mike Huckabee is the true conservative that conservatives supposedly lament the lack of. And he is in the contest! In fact, most all of the other 5 candidates also represent that better than the media-anointed four, which is no coincidence. In 2000, of 14 who began the process, it eventually came down to the two most ambiguous conservatives, Bush and McCain. Why can’t people select the candidate they like? The fact is that they can. The problem is only if they are fooled and won’t. And for me more importantly, though I sometimes approach questions differently, Huckabee represents the character of honesty and sincerity that the nation needs. Compassionate conservatism is not a campaign slogan, but describes the commission of his life. He was a Christian pastor for over a decade who carries that same commission to politics that he did to pasturing. Loving and caring is not just a tactic, it is the duty of his faith that he takes to every task.

To me, polls or money have no force to compare with that. But Iowa is the site of the first high profile straw poll of the campaign,10 days from now. And Iowa Republicans are dominantly Christian conservatives. Polls and money aside, Huckabee should be the favorite. He has focused on campaigning in Iowa for over a month, and I believe, I would predict, that he will surprise the odds-makers. It is odd to make odds on a voluntary vote as though it were a gamble rather than a choice. Voters should act like responsible citizens rather than passive dice. Iowa is also the site of the first actual delegate selection in January. So, be bold enough to vote your conscience and if you can, go to the campaign web site http://mikehuckabee.com

and make a contribution to encourage others who might not be so bold.

The campaign site and the Internet in general, have all the information the public needs in every form: text, audio or video. I believe the Internet is breaking down the delusion of “pop” perception in all modes of thought. Perhaps some fortitude in an American election can encourage assertiveness in other areas?