Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Illegal Immigration

In a TV interview Sunday morning, Chris Simcox of the Arizona Minuteman Project alleged that there were dozens of tunnels from Mexico into the United States and that the Mexican military, or rogue elements of the Mexican military are now actively involved in assisting drug cartels in smuggling anyone and anything if the money is right.

As long as this issue is framed in terms of poor Mexican immigrants seeking a better life, Americans and our politicians will continue to be complacent. After all, who wants to oppose poor families seeking a better life. According to Mr. Simcox (and others on the front lines of this issue), those coming across our boarders are not just poor families, but criminals, extremely violent gangs, and literally millions of people from all over the world—often bringing drugs, weapons and explosives.

I’m not against immigration and I’m certainly in favor of helping poor families, but the United States simply must have a way of separating poor families who want to work, from drug pushers, criminals, gangs and terrorists. The only way to do that is to get a handle on illegal immigration at all costs. It is an issue of national security. It is also one of the greatest failures of the Bush administration. I hope he addresses this issue in his State of the Union address.

Monday, January 30, 2006

A woman in the White House

Hillary Clinton recently said that the 21st century is the time for a woman in the White House. I agree. Condoleezza Rice for President!!!

Friday, January 27, 2006

Foreign aid Hamas

Below are excerpts of a January 26, 2006 letter by Gary Bauer on the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews website:

“The stunning victory by the terrorist group Hamas in this week’s Palestinian election has sent shock waves from the White House here in Washington, D.C., to Tel Aviv and the capitals of Europe. Some observers are trying to put the best face possible on the horrifying election returns by pointing out that Fatah, the main alternative to Hamas in the election, has a history of corruption and incompetence. But that argument just won’t fly…As election day approached, Hamas left no doubt that it would not moderate its positions nor lay down its arms. It remains committed to a “one state solution,” the creation of essentially a “Hamastan,” run by fundamentalist Islamic law that would occupy all of the territory from “the river to the sea.” In other words, Hamas’ agenda is the destruction of the State of Israel, as well as the defeat of U.S. interests in the Middle East…As the votes rolled in, celebrations broke out all over the Palestinian territories... And there was cheering in other places too, including Tehran, Iran…My personal view is that the U.S. and Europe need to go much further than merely saying ‘we won’t talk with Hamas.’ It is immoral for the U.S. or the European Union to force its citizens to pay for the kind of hatred Hamas espouses. Now is the time to stop sending your hard-earned tax money into the Palestinian territories in the form of multi-million dollar subsidies.”

I agree. The 350-400 million in government foreign aid we send to the Palestinians should stop immediately until Hamas changes its position on the existence of Israel.

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Palestinians and Hamas

On Wednesday, Palestinians voted for members of their parliament for the first time in a decade. The Palestinians had to choose between members of the corrupt Fatah party which is now in power, and Hamas which provides education, health care and food to poor Palestinians—Oh, they also call for the destruction of Israel and are responsible for the slaughter hundreds of innocent Jews.

This morning, CNN is reporting that Hamas is claiming victory, winning 80 of the 132 seats. The Washington Post cited unconfirmed reports that Prime Minister Qureia and his cabinet have conceded defeat and have resigned.

I’d like to think that Hamas won only because all the “peaceful” Muslims stayed away from the polls, but indications are that 77% of eligible voters turned out to vote. It seems that Israel and the West will now be contending with a democratically elected terrorist government.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Congress releases documents on Katrina

According to ABC News, Congress released documents yesterday showing “that two days before Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, the White House received detailed damage forecasts from Homeland Security officials predicting that the city's levees might be overtopped or breached. Yet in the days after the storm struck on Aug. 29, federal officials, including President Bush, said the levee breaches could not have been foreseen.”

As frustrating as this is, it is hardly a surprise. Most of us who followed the news in the days before Hurricane Katrina hit knew that the levies might be breached and that the result could be disaster. The real question now is, what planning have the federal, state and local governments done since then to insure relatively quick and organized evacuations of our major cities in the event of other disasters or even terrorist attacks? What evidence do we have the President Bush, Michael Chertoff or state governors learned a thing from Hurricane Katrina?

Monday, January 23, 2006

The ACLU and religion

In The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, the authors quote “Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute” who “summed up the ACLU’s goals”:

“The sweet air of liberty must be replaced must be replaced with an invisible gas that detects, exterminates and suffocates any breath that would expel a religious word in public life. Publicly, religion must be totally repressed, so that soon only atheists will find the public atmosphere comfortable. The accommodation this nation long ago reached between believers and non-believes must be abandoned. Religion shall be banned from all public appearances under government auspices, until it is totally squeezed down into private life, underground. There, harmless, it can survive as long as it may. To save the world from intolerance, the ACLU must be rigorously intolerant. Public life in the United States must be religion-free.” (Michael Novak, “The Atheist—Civil Liberty Union?” National Review online, July 12, 2002 as quoted in The ACLU vs. America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten, 2005, 126-127).

Friday, January 20, 2006

Marxism and the left

“One of the great twentieth-century historians of the American South, Eugene D. Genovese was an open Marxist for much of his career…By the 1990’s he was having second thoughts. In 1994 article in Dissent, he discussed left-wing cover-ups of Communist crimes and explored the relationship between leftism and the totalitarian horrors to which Marxism had given birth.”

“Having…scoffed at the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount,’ said Genovese, ‘we ended a seventy-year experiment with socialism with little more to our credit than tens of millions of corpses.”

“According to Genovese, mainstream liberalism had provided indispensable support to people like himself: ‘[H]ow could we have survived politically were it not for the countless liberals who, to one extent or anther, supported us….’ ‘The horrors,’ Genovese explained, ‘did not arise from perversions of radical ideology but from the ideology itself. We were led into complicity with mass murder and the desecration of our professed ideals not by Stalinist or other corruptions of high ideals…but by a deep flaw in our understanding of human nature—its frailty and its possibilities—and by our inability to replace the moral and ethical baseline provided by the religion we have dismissed with indifference, not to say contempt.” (Thomas Woods. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, 161).

Under the pretense of church-state separation, the ACLU is now leading America down the same path of dismissing religion from all aspects of public life.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Mass starvation and the Left

“Stalin began issuing delivery quotas for grain that the Ukrainians could not meet without themselves dying of starvation. Failure to meet the requirements was chalked up as deliberate sabotage.... The result was predictable enough. The people began to starve in greater and greater numbers….At least five million people perished in Ukraine alone, a count which does not include Stalin’s atrocities against peasants elsewhere in the Soviet Union. Robert Conquest’s book The Harvest of Sorrow, which tells the story of the terror-famine, reads like a novel. But the story is real. It should be read by everyone, not only as an example of man’s inhumanity to man, but also to see the kind of crime that considerable segments of the political Left in the United States and throughout the West were willing to cover up or ignore in order not to cast Communism in a bad light” (Thomas Woods. The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, 163-165).

The American Left hasn’t changed much. Many on the Left are just as blind toward the danger of Islam as they were about Stalin and Communism. I’m sure many Communists had good intentions, just as there are many good and peaceful Muslims, but Islam as a whole—especially in some non-American forms— is just as dangerous to freedom as Communism.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Hillary and the plantation

The more I think about Hillary Clinton’s statement about Congress being run like a plantation the more incensed I become (see my post earlier today). Maybe I need a history lesson so please refresh my memory. Weren’t plantations places where slaves often worked backbreaking manual labor jobs from sun up to sun down? Weren’t most plantation owners generally rich and privileged white people who bought and sold human beings like cattle? Didn’t some plantation owners sometimes beat their slaves mercilessly for little reason—or maybe for no real reason at all? Didn’t some plantation owners brand their slaves with searing hot branding irons? Didn’t some plantation owners actually rape some of their female slaves while the husbands were totally helpless to protect their wives? Didn’t some plantation owners break families apart by selling husbands, wives, or children to different owners?

On the other hand, aren’t most congresspersons—even those like Ms. Clinton who are not in the majority party—rich, privileged white people? Don’t many of them live in luxury suburban houses, condo’s or apartments? Don’t they often get wined and dined by various special interest groups, and sometimes get to attend luxury banquets fit for a king? Don’t they sometimes fly around in corporate jets and get chauffeured around in luxury cars or even limousines? Don’t they have assistants, aides and secretaries to assist them in their work? Don’t some congresspersons even have butlers’ and maids? Does Ms. Clinton ever get brutally whipped by a congressional leader for not getting a job done right? Doesn’t Ms. Clinton have to live under essentially the same congressional rules that Republicans had to live under when Democrats were in the majority?

For Ms. Clinton to make any comparison between Congress and a plantation is so clueless, so insensitive, and so far over the line that she couldn’t even see the line if she turned around and looked back with a pair of binoculars!

A plantation called Congress

On Martin Luther King Day, Senator Hillary Clinton told “a mostly black audience at Harlem church that Republican leaders have run the House ‘like a plantation…” (CNN). For someone as rich, powerful and privileged as Hillary Clinton to compare her work in the Senate to the treatment of slaves on a plantation is as clueless as it is outrageous. If a Republican had made such a statement the entire liberal democratic world would be up in arms.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Iran and U.N. sanctions

There is increasing pressure for the United Nations to apply sanctions against Iran for resuming its nuclear program. Even European nations seem to be on board with this. If U.N. sanctions are anything like those imposed on Iraq before the war, you know what that means—We can spend the next ten years in “negotiations” while economically strangling Iran. In the meantime, Iran can continue its program of developing nuclear weapons by bribing U.N officials and the leaders of countries like France, Russia and Germany. This, of course, will make a lot of powerful government and corporate leaders even more powerful and filthy rich than they already are (hmm, no wonder some European leaders are on board with this)—and while all this is going on, the people of Iran will slowly waste away or die from malnutrition and lack of medical supplies.

Somehow using sanctions to slowly starve millions of ordinary Iranians is seen as more civilized and acceptable than military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Welcome to the twilight zone.

Monday, January 16, 2006

The end of western civilization

According to Mark Steyn, “Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes” (“It’s the Demography Stupid,” Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2006). Steyn’s article is essential reading, but for those who don’t have time right now, the following are some selected excerpts:
“The Muslim faith, whatever its merits for the believers, is a problematic business for the rest of us. There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in ‘Palestine,’ Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally.”

“Yet while Islamism is the enemy, it's not what this thing's about. Radical Islam is an opportunistic infection, like AIDS: It's not the HIV that kills you, it's the pneumonia you get when your body's too weak to fight it off. When the jihadists engage with the U.S. military, they lose—as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq….They know they can never win on the battlefield, but they figure there's an excellent chance they can drag things out until Western civilization collapses in on itself and Islam inherits by default.”

“That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: ‘Civilizations die from suicide, not murder’—as can be seen throughout much of ‘the Western world’ right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism—is collectively the real suicide bomb. Take multiculturalism. The great thing about multiculturalism is that it doesn't involve knowing anything about other cultures—the capital of Bhutan, the principal exports of Malawi, who cares? All it requires is feeling good about other cultures. It's fundamentally a fraud…”

“The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens--from terrorism to tsunamis—can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, ‘Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.”

“Permanence is the illusion of every age. In 1913, no one thought the Russian, Austrian, German and Turkish empires would be gone within half a decade. Seventy years on, all those fellows who dismissed Reagan as an ‘amiable dunce’ (in Clark Clifford's phrase) assured us the Soviet Union was likewise here to stay. The CIA analysts’ position was that East Germany was the ninth biggest economic power in the world. In 1987 there was no rash of experts predicting the imminent fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact and the USSR itself.”

“As things stand, Muslims are already the primary source of population growth in English cities. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?”

“This ought to be the left's issue. I'm a conservative—I'm not entirely on board with the Islamist program when it comes to beheading sodomites and so on, but I agree Britney Spears dresses like a slut: I'm with Mullah Omar on that one. Why then, if your big thing is feminism or abortion or gay marriage, are you so certain that the cult of tolerance will prevail once the biggest demographic in your society is cheerfully intolerant? Who, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West's collapsed birthrates? Even if one were to take the optimistic view that Europe will be able to resist the creeping imposition of Sharia currently engulfing Nigeria, it remains the case that the Muslim world is not notable for setting much store by ‘a woman's right to choose,’ in any sense.”
“By prioritizing a ‘woman's right to choose,’ Western women are delivering their societies into the hands of fellows far more patriarchal than a 1950s sitcom dad.”
“Since the president unveiled the so-called Bush Doctrine--the plan to promote liberty throughout the Arab world--innumerable ‘progressives’ have routinely asserted that there's no evidence Muslims want liberty and, indeed, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. If that's true, it's a problem not for the Middle East today but for Europe the day after tomorrow. According to a poll taken in 2004, over 60% of British Muslims want to live under Shariah—in the United Kingdom. If a population ‘at odds with the modern world’ is the fastest-breeding group on the planet—if there are more Muslim nations, more fundamentalist Muslims within those nations, more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations, and more and more Muslims represented in more and more transnational institutions--how safe a bet is the survival of the ‘modern world? Not good.”

Friday, January 13, 2006

Samuel Alito and the Constitution

Samuel Alito will soon be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Hopefully he will provide a balance to those justices who see the Constitution as a “living, breathing, document,” i.e. an interpretation of the Constitution that is flexible and can change as the culture changes. Although not addressing the Alito confirmation, historian Thomas Woods offers an important historical perspective:

“When modern-day liberals justify extremely broad readings of the Constitution on the grounds that we need a ‘living, breathing Constitution’ that ‘changes with the times,’ they are actually recommending the very system the colonists sought to escape. The British constitution was very flexible indeed—too flexible for the colonists, who were inflexibly committed to upholding their traditional rights. The ‘living, breathing’ British constitution was no safeguard of American liberties” (The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods, B.A. in history from Harvard, masters and Ph.D. from Columbia University, 13).

Thursday, January 12, 2006

The true purpose of the confirmation hearings

I was listening to Senator Biden’s recent monologue during the Alito confirmation hearings. The senator was going on and on about his kids and how he didn’t like Princeton University and other things that, as far as I could tell, had nothing to do with anything. I wanted to ask, “Senator, is there a question in our future?”

But then I got it! I finally figured out the Supreme Court confirmation process. I once thought it was about determining a judge’s qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. I was wrong. Then I thought it was about determining whether a judge’s views were compatible with a particular group’s ideological position. Wrong again. I’m now convinced that the entire process is just one big test to determine whether the candidate is mentally able to sit through endless, mind-numbing hours of arrogant grandstanding, self-promotion, condescension, harassment and often just plain mindless, incoherent drivel from one Senate lawyer after another. If the candidate can endure days of this torture without going absolutely stark raving mad, he or she will certainly be able to endure anything the lawyers coming before the Supreme Court have to offer.

In all seriousness, though, wouldn’t it be good if the Senate could adopt some rules that would give the chairperson the authority to cut a Senator off—like a trial judge can do to a grandstanding lawyer—when their “questions” are really nothing more than ideological propoganda designed to smear the candidate?

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Edward Cashman and child molestation

A few days ago, District Court Judge Edward Cashman handed down his sentence of a man who admitted to repeatedly molesting a young girl over the course of four years. The judge’s decision? A ten year to life sentence, with all but sixty days suspended, provided that the man get into a treatment program which was not available in prison. So the man gets a total of sixty days in jail. No, that’s not sixty years, which would have been more appropriate, but two months! Cushman said he would have given a longer sentence if this sex offender could have received treatment in jail.

What’s wrong with this decision? First, whether the State of Vermont should provide treatment for sex offenders in prison is a decision for the voters of Vermont to decide. It should not be a reason for a judge to deny justice for the victim. Second, what kind of message does this decision send? Sixty days in jail and a treatment program? That doesn’t even rise to the level of a slap on the wrist! It’s like declaring open season on children for child molesters! Third, what about the victim? It’s like she just got raped all over again by the legal system! Why would other victims come forward if this is the only “justice” they might hope for? And finally, speaking of justice—whatever happened to justice? Child molestation is often life-destroying for the victims. To give a child molester only sixty days in jail is not only outrageous, but sick!

Monday, January 09, 2006

SETI and Intelligent Design

SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is a scientific organization that searches for signs of intelligent life in outer space. SETI has received support from such reputable agencies as NASA, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, US Geological Survey, Jet Propulsion laboratory, et al. In an essay on the SETI Institute website, Senior Astronomer Seth Shostak attempts to distance SETI from Intelligent Design research.
According to Shostak, “When ID advocates posit that DNA – which is a complicated, molecular blueprint – is solid evidence for a designer, most scientists are unconvinced. They counter that the structure of this biological building block is the result of self-organization via evolution, and not a proof of deliberate engineering. DNA, the researchers will protest, is no more a consciously constructed system than Jupiter’s Great Red Spot. Organized complexity, in other words, is not enough to infer design.”

What planet is this guy from? How could a scientist seriously compare the complexity of DNA with the Red Spot storm on Jupiter? And is he serous about organized complexity not being enough to infer design? It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in English, for example, to tell the difference between random letters on a paper, and an essay that was designed by an author. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in geology to tell the difference between natural geological formations, and designed monuments like those on Easter Island. It is apparently just in biology where organized complexity doesn’t count.

Shostak continues, “But the adherents of Intelligent Design protest the protest. They point to SETI and say, ‘upon receiving a complex radio signal from space, SETI researchers will claim it as proof that intelligent life resides in the neighborhood of a distant star. Thus, isn’t their search completely analogous to our own line of reasoning – a clear case of complexity implying intelligence and deliberate design?’ And SETI, they would note, enjoys widespread scientific acceptance.”

Shostak’s answer is that SETI looks for artificial signals, not for complex signals. He says, “Our sought-after signal is hardly complex, and yet we’re still going to say that we’ve found extraterrestrials. If we can get away with that, why can’t they? Well, it’s because the credibility of the evidence is not predicated on its complexity. If SETI were to announce that we’re not alone because it had detected a signal, it would be on the basis of artificiality.”

This argument is just smoke and mirrors. First, although the artificial is not always, complex, complexity is often the hallmark of artificiality. For example, when the Rosetta Stone was first discovered, no one mistook the complex scripts for erosion or natural scratches.

Second, if SETI did find highly complex signals from outer space for which natural explanations proved to be statistically improbable, you can bet your last dollar that they would claim to have found signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence.

Third, the point of comparison is the fact that both Intelligent Design and SETI scientifically study evidence for design. The fact that the evidence for design in biology may be different than the evidence for design in astrophysics does not make either one less scientific than the other.

Friday, January 06, 2006

Gay rights and tolerance

A church in Boston recently held a conference holding out hope for those do not want to continue in a gay lifestyle. Far from being a gay bashing seminar, some of the speakers were former gays themselves who were just reaching out to help other gays. Unfortunately, the true colors of many gay rights activists came out when a huge crowd of protestors shouted obscenities and had to be restrained by the police. The activists were protesting illegally and those in the church feared for their own safety.

All this happened back in October. Missed this story in the media? So did I. Other than a tiny blurb in the Boston Globe, the media pretty much ignored it. At least three lessons come from this story: 1) You can’t always count on the media to report stories that put certain groups in a less than positive light, 2) Many of the gay rights activists who scream most loudly for “tolerance” really only want tolerance for their views and 3) The idea of “gay rights” apparently does not include the right for some gay people to try to escape a lifestyle that could kill them—not even if they want help!

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Kitzmiller v Dover and the First Amendment

“In the late 1870’s Congressman James G. Blaine introduced…the Blaine Amendment, by which the First Amendment’s restrictions on the federal government would be extended to the states. Introduced again and again in subsequent sessions of Congress, it never garnered enough votes. But the very fact that it was introduced tells us something important. If the Fourteenth Amendment had really been intended to apply First Amendment restrictions to the states, why would the Blaine Amendment, which sought to do the very same thing, have been introduced in the first place? But less than a century later, the Supreme Court would declare in Engel v. Vitale (1962) that local school boards were prohibited from approving even nonsectarian prayers for use in schools. Americans…would be surprised to learn that [this decision] runs exactly contrary to the Framer’s intent. Not only Jefferson but the entire founding generation as well would have considered such a ruling to be a stupefying departure from traditional American principles and an intolerable encroachment on communities rights to self-government”
(The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods, B.A. in history from Harvard, masters and Ph.D. from Columbia University, 21-22).

Engel v. Vitale dealt with nonsectarian prayers in public schools but Kitzmiller v. Dover goes even further by prohibiting a school district from even reading a 30 second statement informing students of a book in the library! Our founding fathers would have been shocked and appalled by the kind of tyrannical government encroachment on the people’s right to self-government exhibited by Kitzmiller v Dover.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Intelligent Design and religious motivation

A major factor in the Kitzmiller v Dover decision against Intelligent Design was that the school board was religiously, rather than scientifically, motivated. Unfortunately, this confuses motivation with subject matter. Whether or not Intelligent Design is religiously motivated is irrelevant as long as the subject matter is scientific and serves a secular purpose.

It is important to understand what is going on here. By making motivation the key element in deciding that a statement on Intelligent Design could not even be read in the classroom (censorship!), this court takes one more step toward eliminating all religious discussion in the public forum. What’s next? Should we declare abstinence programs unconstitutional if they are motivated by religious morality? Should a class promoting the protection of the environment be declared unconstitutional if it is taught by someone with a religious concern for the environment (and would the exact same class be legal if taught by someone unmotivated by religious concerns)? Should we declare hurricane aid legislation unconstitutional if it was proposed by a Christian congressperson motivated by religious love?

Although Intelligent Design has a secular purpose—“advancing science, enriching the science curriculum, preventing viewpoint discrimination, promoting academic freedom” (Dembski. Design Revolution, 56), the government has declared it unconstitutional simply because some democratically elected school board members were religiously motivated. Our forefathers would roll over in their graves at the thought of such a perversion of our Constitution!

Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Intelligent Design vs. Creationism

Critics of Intelligent Design Theory sometimes confuse Intelligent Design with Scientific Creationism. The two are not the same. Scientific Creationism teaches 1) that there was a sudden creation of the universe out of nothing, 2) that natural selection is insufficient to account for “all living kinds from a single organism” 3) Changes in plants and animals “occur only within fixed limits,” 4) humans did not descend from apes, 5) the earth’s geology is largely explained by a worldwide flood, 6) the earth and life began relatively recently.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, teaches that 1) “Specified complexity and irreducible complexity are reliable indicators or hallmarks of design, 2) “Biological systems exhibit specified complexity and employ irreducibly complex subsystems 3) “Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of specified complexity or irreducible complexity,” 4) “Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of specified complexity and irreducible complexity in biological systems.” (William Dembski. The Design Revolution, 41-44).

Intelligent Design never argues on the basis of biblical texts. Those who argue that Intelligent Design is simply theology or Creationism in disguise may be arguing out of their ignorance of Intelligent Design Theory or they may be deliberately engaging in a smear campaign designed to discredit Intelligent Design.