Sequencing DNA and Combinatorics Yield Intelligent Design

I don’t see much conflict anymore between intelligent design and natural selection.  Now that we are sequencing DNA we know that the genetic possibilities are not infinite and they are not random.  Applying a field of mathematics called combinatorics to DNA sequences, gives us a very, very large but finite number of genetic combinations that are mathematically possible. Of those, there are likely a lot smaller but still very large number of combinations that are biologically viable. At this point, if you want to consider the biologically viable genetic combinations intelligently designed I don’t think the science is changed at all.  The natural selection of Darwin chooses which of the biologically viable designs survive and which don't. There's no scientific conflict between intelligent design and survival of the fittest, but there is also no evolution driven by random events. The laws of genetics were all baked in the cake before the natural selection began with the original set of biologically viable designs.

The open questions have to do with the exploration of which of the mathematical genetic combinations are biologically viable. At the moment, we are in the early stages of genetics and can only glimpse that these questions will exist once we get further information. However, I would expect that eventually we will have models that will be able to explore the biologically viable combinations for clues as to hidden aspects of extinct lifeforms. If you want to dwell in the past conflicts of pre-genetic Darwinism versus creationism, enjoy yourself.

The creationists believe G_d designed man. The Darwinists believed man evolved through natural selection. At this point, our knowledge of genetics is leading us towards the position that both are right. So from a scientific point of view, we can stop arguing and get on with more interesting questions.  The only reasons left to argue this are political, not scientific. The argument allows Liberals to feel superior to Conservatives for being "scientific." But the science involved has moved on from the original argument.

Evolution is in the news lately, because Scott Walker refused to answer a question about it.  I think somebody should ask if belief in Darwin is a religious test for holding office in the US. Because any religious test for holding office is unconstitutional. Since Scott Walker refused to answer the question, I think they are assuming he has to answer the question and demonstrate a religious belief in Darwin in order to hold the office of president. They are saying failure to answer the question is disqualifying.

Netanyahu's Speech: Diplomatic Niceties or Nuclear War?

There is a lot of shocked reaction to Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give a speech to Congress and Netanyu accepting without either of them notifying the White house in advance.  Diplomatic niceties were not observed.  I think we need to put this in perspective.

Our Dear Leader’s deal at all costs behavior with the Iranians is paving the way for a general war in the Middle East, a nuclear war. Only the US Air Force has the capability to deliver a non-nuclear 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb capable of knocking out Iran's centrifuges in their deep underground bunkers. The Smartest President Ever is not going to order that attack even if the Iranians test several nuclear devices. The only Israeli weapons that have a chance at doing the job are nuclear weapons. The absolutely brilliant diplomacy of Barry the Magnificent is leaving Netanyahu with a preemptive nuclear strike as the only way to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

It seems to me that the existence of Israel is threatened. Iranian leaders have called Israel a "one bomb country."  It also seems to me that the White House has decided that a good relationship Israel is surplus to requirements and that our relationship with Iran is more important. The White House believes that an agreement with Iran which will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is very close. I believe that they have spent too much time in Colorado weed parlors, and that the administration's legacy in this area is going to be widespread nuclear proliferation and a general, nuclear, war in the Middle East. At that point, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu giving a speech to Congress without Obama's permission is a nice alternative to an Israeli preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. It seems to me that diplomatic protocol is a lot less important than preventing a nuclear war in the Middle East.

Also, let’s get real. The Chicago Machine Prodigy treats Congress like the Chicago City Council and Prime Minister Netanyahu like the head of the Republican Party in Cook County. Our Dear Leader is arrogant and rude early and often. Nobody should be shocked when his behavior is returned in kind.

If our Dear Leader punishes Israel for this breach of protocol, it will cost Democrats votes. People have started to figure out that the jump from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism is very short. Voters are also noticing that the friends of Israel tend to be those right wing Republicans that liberal voters have been taught to hate, while Israel's enemies tend to be liberals with a narrative of Palestinian entitlement. The solidity of the liberal Jewish vote is cracking. My Jewish friends are asking me to explain my politics where before they just tried to avoid talking about politics. They have noticed who Israel's friends are. It's early yet, but the Chicago Machine Prodigy is alienating a lot of his former supporters with his antagonism against Israel.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397436/can-israel-survive-victor-davis-hanson#comment-1823847462

Big Government and War, Not Swearing Women, Hukabee

Women swearing is not important enough to be talking about. The fact that we are talking about it means that Huckabee is not presidential material. My grandmother, a Methodist minister's daughter born in 1898 who grew up in Rifle, Colorado, swore like a sailor, smoked, drank and taught me how to play poker when I was an 8 year old kid. As far as I know, none of this was a threat to the Republic.

The crises the country faces are big expensive government at home and war overseas. Social issues are irrelevant to our national survival. Worse emphasizing social issues costs us votes. Some of the most conservative gun nuts I know are gay. Generally they vote Republican, but they don't vote for social conservatives. Huckabee has nothing to offer on anything that's important either to the economy or foreign policy. Therefore, he should go back to work as a TV personality. In his spare time he should watch Free to Choose TV and learn some economics.

As an Air Force veteran, I am familiar with a concept called target servicing. Basically, you shoot first at the most threatening targets. To me, the most threatening targets are Iran with nuclear weapons, Jihadist terrorists and economic collapse brought on by overspending. None of these is a social issue.

Huckabee’s view of the family is nice but perhaps reverses cause and effect. The reason for the collapse of the family is a welfare system that subsidizes family collapse. It pays more if daddy ain't in the house. It pays more if nobody works. Once work requirements were added, the welfare expense went down. If we restructure entitlements and quit subsidizing idleness, we'll get less of it as well as prevent economic collapse.

I don’t see how gay couples threaten the family structure at all.  All my gay friends seem to want is middle class respectability and the rights and privileges granted to married couples.  If anything, their desire for admittance to the structure of marriage shows their admiration of it, not any desire to tear it down.

http://www.freetochoose.tv/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397421/any-other-women-feel-swearing-huckabee-katherine-timpf

Jihadists Don't Have to Be Popular

I think it doesn't matter how popular Jihadists are. While I generally detest Mao Tse Tung, his saying that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" is generally an accurate description of how Jihadist groups influence politics. Jihadists threaten not only opponents, but also their entire families with torture and death. Very few people have the courage of Anwar Sadat, who made peace with Israel, or the members of the plot to kill Hitler. Win or lose, the results are usually fatal. Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood. The members of the plot to kill Hitler were tortured to death, executed slowly or, in the case of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the Desert Fox, forced to commit suicide. Egyptian President Abdel el Sisi knowingly took an increased risk of assassination when he gave a speech against Jihadist terrorism at Al Azhar University on January 1, 2015. While such efforts to change Islam from the inside deserve our sympathy and support, there is very little we can do to influence the internal conversation. The only way the West has of stopping Jihadist terror is to kill as many as we can as fast as we can. Jihadists kill men, women and children indiscriminately if they don't worship in an approved manner. Jihadists are rabid dogs, and rigor mortis is the only cure for their ideology. If the casualty rate is high enough that the futility of Jihadist terror is obvious, recruitment will fail to keep up with the losses. I think the reason Osama Bin Laden is no longer popular is because he's dead. We should be reducing the popularity of other Jihadist figures in the same way

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396697/muslims-and-islamists-victor-davis-hanson