Discovery Blog

A close textual reading of the pundits and a careful survey of surveys on the 2008 presidential race has yielded the following surprising realization: Nobody can win.

It turns out, says The American Spectator, that even though Mike Huckabee is winning over evangelical voters and is surging ahead in Iowa (popular word these days, "surging"), he cannot get elected elsewhere. He is attacked by Bob Novak for supposedly being a big taxer when he was governor in Arkansas, defended on the same issue by Dick Morris, but attacked again by the press in Little Rock. He faces rocky going with fiscal conservatives in New Hampshire.

Fred Thompson looked for a while like the potential GOP savior. After all, Rush Limbaugh praised him in almost endorsement terms this past week. But Kimberley Strassel in The Wall Street Journal showed that Thompson has waited too long to organize a serious campaign, even though he has developed serious issues. He has trouble even keeping a staff together. He is not moving up in the polls, at least not yet.

John McCain was an early favorite, and he is about to be endorsed by The Manchester Union-Leader, not only the leading paper in the first real primary state, New Hampshire, but one of those vestiges of political pre-history, a Republican editorial outlet. He remains the one authentic war hero in the race and a candidate with cross-partisan credibility. But McCain has been hoisted on his own campaign finance reform petard, finding himself unable to raise enough money to compete effectively, largely because of donation caps. His campaign voice, therefore, is muted, and because he has dropped behind in the polls, his often-meaty speeches are being ignored by the media this year as much as they were ballyhooed in 2000.

Mitt Romney has executive background in business, civic enterprise and state government. He has a presidential physique and manner and a fetching family. But he can't get elected because he is a Mormon or because he is a flip-flopper, depending on which critic you listen to. The Social Conservative sage and traditional Catholic, Paul Weyerich, has endorsed him, but we are told he will fail in the South and Middle West states. And he is falling behind in Iowa now, which means his lead in New Hampshire is jeopardized, and hence his prospects.

Rudy Guiliani, despite a lead in many early polls and a winning record on fighting crime and terrorists, can't win the nomination or the election because he has considerable opposition from social conservatives who don't trust him and because he has had several controversial marriages and because he has potentially embarrassing friends. Even though Rudy is a fabulous speaker and infectious campaigner, his nomination would remove the Republican case against Hillary Clinton's political cronyism. It would be hard for a rather apostate Catholic to beat a Bible carrying Methodist like Hillary in the heartland (we hear).

Never mind the rest of the Republican field. It already has been plowed under.

Therefore, one is forced to conclude that the Republicans cannot nominate anyone with a hope to win in 2008 and are just wasting their time.

So, a Democrat definitely will be elected, right? Probably Hillary the Inevitable, it would seem. She is poised, she has stamina, she is adroit, and she is more experienced than most of her opponents in either party; maybe more so. But she has the highest negative reactions from the electorate, around 45 percent. Her supporters, meanwhile, lack passion. She may be the nominee, but much of her natural base is disappointed with her wishy-washy stands on Iraq. She is compared unfavorably to her husband as a campaigner, seeming mechanical taking positions Bill would make exciting. On health care, she threatens to bore the country to death long before next November. Meanwhile, a more pressing difficulty for her is the growing Obama support in Iowa.

So Barack Obama could go all the way, correct? He has Oprah, he has campaigner pizzaz, he is smart and articulate. He is amazingly competitive in raising money. But he tends to impress less on second and third hearing and is given to egregious mistakes that suggest even to the party faithful that he is not really ready for leadership of the Free World.

Does that put former Senator John Edwards into play? If you are poor or oppressed, he doesn't just feel your pain, as someone has said, he can even diagnose it. His wife, Elizabeth, is almost more popular and persuasive than he is. But Edwards is first, last and always a rich trial lawyer who lives a life so luxurious that it threatens to make his The Grapes of Wrath routine humorous. That image may not be fair, but it may account for Edwards' weak showing in the polls. He tells Democrats that he is the one candidate they could nominate who might carry the South. But Republicans would just love to meet him there (like that great Southerner, Al Gore), or anywhere else.

And the rest of the Democratic field: Richardson, Dodd, Biden? Vice Presidential material, all.

This, by a process of elimination, brings an informed consensus to the shocking conclusion that as of one month before the Iowa caucuses and eleven months before the presidential election no one stands a chance of being elected.

George W. Bush is term limited, and couldn't get re-elected now, anyhow.

What are we going to do?

You would gather from much of the media today that the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program somehow shows either 1) a Bush failure to understand what is going on in Iran, or 2) Bush's desire to mislead the public heretofore about the seriousness of Iran's nuclear plans.

All of this is bizarre. It is getting to the point that you can't trust a news account unless you do your own reading and research.

The NIE was sent to Bush to provide him information. (It is contrary, by the way, to earlier NIE reports.) Then the Administration released it. The only thing remarkable about this process is that someone in the spook world with an axe to grind didn't leak the report ahead of time.

Anyhow, the White House late today published a list of reactions from other countries and multi-lateral organizations that is far more representative of reality. Here they are:

"What They're Saying…"

International Response To The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) On Iran


Spokesperson For British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: The report "confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons (and) shows that the sanctions program and international pressure were having an effect in that they seem to have abandoned the weaponisation element." "It also shows the intent is there and the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious issue." (Zahra Hosseinian, "France And UK Urge Pressure On Iran Despite U.S. Report," Reuters, 12/4/07; "Bush Says Iran A 'Danger' Despite Intelligence Report," Agence France-Presse, 12/4/07)

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier: "The NIE report confirmed 'the double approach chosen by the international community of incentives and measures from the United Nations Security Council was right,' German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said in a statement released Monday, Nov. 3." ("EU To Keep Up Pressure On Iran After US Report," Deutsche Welle [Germany], 12/4/07)

French Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Pascale Andreani: "It appears that Iran is not respecting its international obligations. … We must keep up the pressure on Iran ... we will continue to work on the introduction of restrictive measures in the framework of the United Nations." (Zahra Hosseinian, "Bush, Allies Urge Pressure On Iran Despite U.S. Report," Reuters, 12/4/07)

Russian President Vladimir Putin: "Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday told Iran's top nuclear negotiator that the country's nuclear program should be transparent and remain under control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. 'We welcome the extension of your cooperation with the IAEA. We expect that your programs in the nuclear sphere will be open, transparent and be conducted under control of the authoritative international organization,' Putin said at the start of a meeting with Saeed Jalili at the presidential residence on Moscow's outskirts." (Vladimir Isachenkov, "Putin Tells Iran To Keep Nuclear Program Under IAEA Control," The Associated Press, 12/4/07)

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert: "It is vital to pursue efforts to prevent Iran from developing a capability like this and we will continue doing so along with our friends the United States." (Zahra Hosseinian, "Bush Allies Urge Pressure On Iran Despite U.S. Report," Reuters, 12/4/07)

Spokesperson For EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, Cristina Gallach: "Solana's spokeswoman, Cristina Gallach, said the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report 'proves that transparency about (Iran's) nuclear activities and its intentions are fundamental.'" ("EU To Keep Up Pressure On Iran After US Report," Deutsche Welle [Germany], 12/4/07)

Over the coming days I’ll recommend some promising books for that difficult certain someone on your gift list—the know-it-all son-in-law, the besieged college student, the intellectually deprived expat in Mexico. Maybe it’s even a stealth purchase for yourself!

Let’s start with “Mike Gene’s” book, The Design Matrix.

One of the most interesting figures in the intelligent design debate is the maverick theorist "Mike Gene," who runs the webpage www.idthink.net, and contributes commentaries at the group blog Telic Thoughts.

Mike Gene is a pseudonym, used by its author to focus the attention of his readers on the content of his arguments, and the scientific evidence -- and not on the
personality, academic training, or background of "Mike Gene" himself. That's a healthy attitude to have in a debate all too often dominated by ad hominem attacks and motive-mongering. It also presumably protects Mike Gene from attacks by Darwinist colleagues. We have seen what they can do to dissenters, haven’t we? For the record, I don’t know who “Mike” is.

The Design Matrix, regardless, is Mike’s long-awaited book, released in time for the shopping season by Arbor Vitae Press. As befits his independent nature, Gene's approach in the book cannot be placed in any familiar category -- and that makes the work deeply fascinating and refreshing.

For those who have grown weary of apparently entrenched arguments, The Design Matrix is full of surprising insights and examples. Might the process of evolution itself, for instance, have been designed to bring about novelty and complexity? Mike Gene's answer to that question is loaded with potentially fruitful
(scientific) implications. Why has the frequency of the term "molecular machines" increased so dramatically in the scientific literature over the past few years? And so on.

Treat your gift-recipient (and yourself) to an intellectual journey along new and largely unexplored paths, in The Design Matrix.

NPR News refers to the War on Terror as the "so-called War on Terror." Do you think that might represent just a bit of hidden news editorializing? Are they now "the So-Called National Public Radio"?

Meanwhile, the New Amsterdam Times (or the "So-called New York Times," if you prefer) persits in describing Al Qaida in Iraq ad "Al Qaida in Mesopotamia." As long as they were going to try to spin the reality of Al Qaida as some kind of antiquity, why don't they go all the way back and call it "Al Qaida of the Ur of the Chaledeans''?

A whole new volume on Orwellian newsspeak needs writing about modern Western media.

Another book I want to recommend for your Christmas list is A Meaningful World by Drs. Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt. This is an affordable paperback and would gracefully stuff the stockings of your most cherished reading friends and family. As the quotation below from the great Catholic evangelist Scott Hahn suggests, it would make the very best gift for your parish priest or minister. Give it to your rabbi for Hanukkah! This book is sheer exploration and discovery; that is, joy.

If you are feeling especially expansive, buy some copies for your local church leaders and others who like the idea of design in the abstract but just can’t see how it applies to the real world of science and sensory experience. They might learn something from you for a change!

Oh, of course, you also should buy it for yourself!

This is from Dr. Hahn:

A Meaningful World is astounding, breathtaking! This is a book about both the beauty of science and the beauty of creation, a book I wish I had as an undergraduate taking science courses. Wiker and Witt draw us beyond design, to the sheer grandeur, elegance, and deep intelligibility of nature, all of which bespeak a creative Genius. It will help overcome the residual fear of science that plagues all too many devout believers, and instill a sense of childlike wonder at the splendor of our world. A Meaningful World admirably answers the call of Pope Benedict XVI to see the glory of God’s wisdom, God’s Logos, permeating creation. I can’t wait to get this into the hands of my own teenagers, and even my college grads.

You undoubtedly know some people who think they understand all about the issue of evolution and don't need to know more to have an informed opinion. That would include all the presidential candidates, 90 percent of the editorial writers (the majors, anyhow) and columnists (start with George Will), vast numbers of teachers in various fields and, strangest of all, a large number of pastors. A few of the latter even hold "Darwin Sunday" services at their churches in February to show fearlessly that they are more in sync with the New Atheists than they are with scientists and philosophers who question the Great Man. No need to find out what the critics actually are saying; just read The New York Times and it'll tell them all about the subject. Besides, they studied this in high school or college, right?

Indeed, you may have people with such attitudes in the bossom of your own family and the closest circle of your wassailing friends this festival season. You may even be such a person yourself, God (or Natural Selection) forbid!

There are a number of scholarly antidotes for such cases of smugness. Some deal with physics or cosmology, some with biology, some with mathematics and philosophy of science, some with the devastating legacy of Darwinism for our times.

In the latter category, I uncategorically recommend John West's authoritative and new work (from ISI Books), Darwin Day in America. The subtitle, "How our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of science," and the chapter headings are an indication of the breadth and depth of influence worked on the modern mind by Darwin's seemingly harmless little theory, from criminology to mental illness to economics to education--literally from the cradle (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning) to the grave (euthanasia, assisted suicide).

Dr. West, a distinguished writer, former Chairman of the Political Science Department at Seattle Pacific University, and a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute, is scrupulous in his handling of history, even sometimes denying his position the benefit of the doubt if he cannot precisely footnote or otherwise account for a fact. As a result, criticism of his book has been reduced to whining, dodging and name calling.

For a fair minded reader, Darwin Day in America is a shocking mirror held up to our own unconscious prejudices and assumptions. All of us tend to use "evolve" in a bland way that lulls our mental discrimination. After reading this riveting and compelling story, you may wish to reconsider some those assumptions, even if you already are in the camp of the Darwin critics. In other words, the reality is even grimmer than you thought.

Well, I always like a bracing read for this time of year, even if it is a bit more suited for Advent than Christmas! In the end, in addition to everything else, Darwin Day in America is inspiring. It will straighten and harden your backbone.

My colleague, David Berlinski, is a profound and adroit writer on matters scientific. But he admits that he has no talent for the close plotting and realistic dialogue of a novel. Fortune, however, has given him two children who do: Claire (a sometime novelist living in Istanbul and working on a new non-fiction book on Margaret Thatcher) and a son, Mischa. A few weeks ago, David let it drop that Mischa had written a "wonderful" first novel called Fieldwork that was published by the grand house of Farrar, Straus and Giroux and had just been nominated for the National Book Award.

I read it. Now I recommend that you read it. In Fieldwork the youngest Berlinski has told a story of surpassing grace and compassion about the modern human person, set out in an unlikely place--northern Thailand, close to the dangerous Burmese border--and introducing characters that are at once familiar and exotic: a family of Christian missionaries, a Berkeley anthropologist and the droll and admirable hill tribes of a region now rife with change and intrigue. Berlinski got to know such people living in Thailand and, having visited there, I was delighted by the verisimilitude of his novel's descriptions of street life and modern bureaucracies as much as that of the legacy of primitive culture found in hamlets one has to walk to find. Shades of the estimable Graham Greene.

The story is memorably inventive. The "Dyalo," the hill tribe Berlinski has created, has its own language, customs, food, clothing and, of course, religion. I can't think of another writer (even Conrad) who shows such engaging artifice. These people not only are believable, but they also are identifiably cousins to the actual tribes of the Golden Triangle, such as the Hmong and the Karen.

Fieldwork is a murder mystery that is so enthralling that you will want to read it through in a few sittings. It is also almost satirical in its comic outlook, yet avoids cynicism. (The Washington Post reviewer called it "disturbing and entertaining.") Ultimately, you fall in love with practically everyone. All by itself that makes it worth your time, and the time of anyone real that you already love and wish to gift this season. They'll thank your for this novel when they get it and thank you again, with still greater sincerity, once they experience it.

I have been thinking lately about how hard it is for people with different world views to communicate with one another. Within our own culture the difficulties are almost equal to those of dealing with other cultures. Maybe one reason I resonated so much to Fieldwork is that David Berlinski seems to have this very subject on his finely tuned and intuitive mind.

Do you want to spark a little spirited controversy around the Christmas dinner table?

Get a copy of David Klinghoffer's Shattered Tablets and pull out some of the provocative points our Senior Fellow makes about the Ten Commandments--applied to today. Another idea: share the provocation with your gift list!

You can read more about David's book, in which he argues the critical role that the Ten Commandments have in maintaining a morally healthy society, in an earlier post on Discovery Blog.

If you are anywhere near Tacoma, Washington you should find time over the holidays to visit the thoroughly engaging and satisfying exhibit, "Cecilia Beaux: American Figure Painter", running until January 6. For those on the East Coast, it will be in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts from February 2, 2008 to April 13.

There is an abundance and joy in Beaux's painting that is cheering and uplifting. The content of her perspective is often, though not always, domesticity and grace, as the remarkable series on the Gilder family--especially the children--attests. In style she is representational in the very best way, emotionally evocative while technically precise. As a woman, she was a pioneer in her art and she remains, I believe, unexcelled.

The era of her painting is now a century behind us and she exemplifies its dignity and optimism as well as anyone. You will enjoy indulging your senses and your imagination in Miss Beaux' company.

Beaux was a personal friend of Richard Watson Gilder and his family, all of whose members she seems to have painted. Gilder, great-grandfather of Discovery Sr. Fellow George Gilder, was editor of Century magazine, an outpost of enlightened thinking on literary affairs and public policy. Gilder introduced Beaux to the Theodore Roosevelt family that ultimately commissioned several distinctive Beaux portraits. To me, Beaux exemplifies the way in which our too-compartmentalized lives--public life, home life, writing, art--can be fused into a creative whole.

I recommend the book, Cecilia Beaux: American Figure Painter, by art historian Sylvia Yount (University of California Press, 2007). It is based on the exhibit and aims to help raise Beaux back up to the heights of fame she enjoyed in the past. The book itself is an exciting success.

Americans and Europeans don't pay enough attention to the fact that the second largest body of Christians in the world, after the Roman Catholics, are the Eastern Orthodox, about 300 million souls, by some counts. If these two bodies ever get together, Christianity will heal a nearly thousand year rift and greatly enhance the authority of traditional understanding of Christain doctrine. Striving for such unity was a high priority for Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI has not slackened the Vatican's pace on this topic. Slowly, but surely, progress is being made.

Among the several Orthodox national groups, the Russian Orthodox have long been the most resistant to unity discussions. Even a high level meeting was unachievable. But now the Russians' past reluctance seems to be dissipating a bit. A story from a week ago illuminates a new milestone.

I was out of the country when this story first appeared, so I missed it. But the mainstream media seem to have missed it, too. Too bad.

Christianity is growing in the Global South, but, beset by secularism and an increasingly truculent and letigious atheism, it it seems to lack confidence in Europe and most of the rest of the Global North. But the fall of Soviet communism has unleashed something of a revival in Russia that could contribute to a general revival of Christianity elsewhere in the "North". Unexpected because of its geographical location, a Orthodox/Catholic demarche would be a true stimulus to broade revival.

The Orthodox have their own problems, including divisions, but on faith and morals they tend to be quite...well, orthodox. Therefore, the unity talks of Rome and Moscow bode well for all traditionalist Chrstians, and for those of other faith communities who wish them well.

Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism has pointed up the fact that there are now more Catholics than Anglicans regularly attending church in Britain, even though The Church of England is the established state religion. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/23/nchurch123.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

It is not hard to understand why the Anglicans are in trouble. The United Kingdom enjoys the trappings of its religious legacy without taking the content or practice very seriously. Recently, the Archbishop of Canterbury reportedly cast doubt on the Virgin Birth, which is a little like the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing that the pound sterling is not necessarily sound. Churches, like political parties, that have "wet" leaders, to use Margaret Thatcher's term, lose self-confidence and then they lose support. There are more enjoyable diversions on a Sunday morning than going to church services if you don't really subscribe to the traditional doctrines of the church. And why should you if the leadership doesn't?

Meanwhile, a mere 500 years after the Reformation, some religious scholars are starting to regard reunion as an achievable goal. With little or no fanfare, official committees of Catholic and Anglican theologians in the past decade have reached sweeping agreements, including on such dicey doctrines as salvation by faith, the nature of the Eucharist, the teaching authority of the pope and the place of the Virgin Mary. In the 16th century brave men were burned at the stake over these very matters that are now apparently being composed. Unfortunately, the next steps are not altogether clear. The parties to the old dispute may be reconciling their quarrels over substance, but it seems to be harder to change old sectarian behaviors, especially where property, titles and pensions are involved. Theology, meet ecclesiology.

Is Catholicism the immediate future in England? Well, it might be, except that Catholic church attendance among people born in the U.K.--as opposed to fresh immigrants from Poland and other EU countries--has been going down as fast as Anglican attendance. The old "dissenting" churches, such as the Methodists, who split from the Anglicans in the 18th century, also are not faring well. There is something of a Pentecostal surge of activity underway, but it can hardly be called deep or broad.

The problem is that Europe has had a crisis of faith. The region of the world that was once the heart of Christendom is more secularized and relativistic than it ever has been. Pope Benedict has identified the problem. But much of the difficulty has to do with failure of the Church herself to address adequately the root causes that are found in modern/post-modern philosophy and the philosophy of science. Christian authorities have not drawn deeply enough on their own and other, outside intellectual resources to mount an opposition to the agnostic spirit of the times.

As the traditional Christmas season begins for the liturgical churches, Christians may be coming together in merry old England, and in Europe-- but slowly. And the question is not only whether this new development is too late, but whether it also is too light-weight.

I have great respect, appreciation and affection for my demographer friends at the U.S. Census Bureau where I had the honor to serve as Director in the early years of the Reagan Administration. One number often discussed at the Bureau is "2.1", the number of live births per woman required to sustain a population. We in the U.S. have been under that number since the Baby Boom ended and the advent of The Pill. Now it seems we have reached it again. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002725_pf.html

That is good news for the obvious reason that it takes young people to keep the old people going, whether we are talking about jobs that need to be filled or Social Security that needs all the enrollees it can get. But it also is good news for the less obvious and immaterial reason that people are Earth's most wonderful and productive resource. Grouches like the Earth First crowd--the sort that think Nature would be better off without us--have little understanding of the true genius of humanity. It is that genius that has made it possible for literally billions of people to be added to the Earth since I was born and, simulataneously, for overall hunger, poverty and disease to decrease.

Among the babies being born right now are the future inventors, entrepreneurs, scientists, poets and philanthropists. They will help us all. Speaking personally, it was very satisfying at our recent Discovery Institute Open House to see all the families. I am only partly joking when I say that our employment policy is "pro-natalist". It seems that hardly a month goes by without the announcement of a new marriage or a new birth among our fellows, staff and members. That gives me hope because I know the fine quality of these people.

Darwinists, Malthusians, materialists of all stripes and dimensions don't get it. They also don't understand the reason Christians this night in the year are filled with joy to learn again of a newborn baby in a Bethlehem stable. It is because his birth is telling us that life is not finite, life is infinite.

How can one be angry with anyone today, even our adversaries? If they cannot accept a "Merry Christmas" greeting, may they still know that we wish them well.

Edward Powell, President of USO, reminds us that the holidays are an especially hard time for servicemen posted to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some are injured, many just want to know that they are remembered. It is a bonus for them to find out how grateful we are for their service to the cause of freedom.

I found some room in my checkbook for USO, and if you can do so, here is the address: USO, P.O. Box 96860, Washington, D.C. 20077-7677.

I also want to help persecuted Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere this year. It is shameful that Americans are kept unaware of how serious life is for the Christian minority in such places as the Palestine Authority, China and even and in countries with supposedly friendly governments, like Iraq or Egypt. If you'd like to help this Christmas season, consider a check to:

Barnabas Fund, 6729 Curran Street, McLean, VA 22101 (Tel., 703 288-1681)
http://www.barnabasfund.org/ Say to hello to our former Discovery colleague, Marshall Sana, when you call or write the Barnabas Fund!

The sectarian violence in Iraq is finally beginning to abate, thank God, but the ancient Christian communities are nowhere close to recovering. Perversely, they get little political attention or development help from the United States government because they don't cause trouble! Yet they certainly have been made subjects of attacks and persecution, especially by Al Qaeda. Would you like to help Iraqi Christians in need? Consider:

Iraqi Christians In Need
http://www.icin.org.uk/

At only age 60, William Strauss has died. Most people will recognize him as the founder of the political satirists, "The Capitol Steps," a jaunty set of singing Republicans (and some Democrats) who have celebrated the shenanigans of Washington, D.C. for over a generation now. So score one for Bill: he showed that Republicans have a sharp sense of humor.

Score two: he pioneered on the second stage of the draft issue. I know this field because I was in it a few years earlier (the transition to a volunteer military). But what he did was to help heal the hurt from Vietnam era draft dodging.

I met him first in 1981 when he was the legislative assistant to Sen. Charles Percy of Illinois; he had to vet my appointment to the U.S. Census Bureau. It was clear that there not only were no political problems, but he just wanted to wave my nomination through. That was surely all right with me.

Even then he was preparing to launch the Steps.

Later he would take up several other causes, in all of which he innovated and distinguished himself in a way one wishes was more common in Washington. For example, he was a major figure in thinking through the nature of generational change and wrote several books on the topic. Recently he found a way to reward enterprising high school students.

It was almost as if, unlike most of us, he knew his time was short and he wanted to accomplish as much as possible for the world before he left it. In 1999 he learned that he had cancer, but managed to hold on for nearly eight years.

He leaves a fine family and a many friends and admirers. Please see this good article from The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802158.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Please spare us any more dopey questions about "creationism" and "evolution". Creationism is not on the agenda; in its political context it's primarily a propaganda term used by the Left to forestall any legitimate criticism of Darwin's theory.

When Barack Obama assures us that he "believes in evolution," one is tempted to say, so what? Tell us what kind of evolution (micro? macro?). When Gov. Romney says he doesn't want intelligent design taught in science class, but instead proposes it for religion class, I am inclined to ask, "And what religion classes would those be, Governor? Do your public schools in Massachusetts have religion classes?" And what do you mean by "intelligent design", Governor? Can you even define the term the way its proponents do?

And when Mike Huckabee assures us that he believes that God made the world, one way or another, and he nonetheless is disinclined to challenge current textbooks on evolution (something I didn't know constituted a responsibility of the President of the United States anyhow), I want to inquire, why don't you answer the real questions?

Which are:

Do you support academic freedom for scientists (such as Iowa State astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez) who have been denied tenure and otherwise attacked for suggesting that science can detect design in the universe? Lots of the money for science departments do come from the federal government, by the way, so the question is pertinent.

Second, do you believe that when high school students learn the scientific evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution they also should be allowed to learn the scientific evidence against it? That question is derived directly from report language attached to the No Child Left Behind Act and it was specifically and overwhelmingly approved in a Senate resolution. The supporters included such worthies as Sen. Clinton of New York and Sen. McCain of Arizona. So it is a public policy question that is both realistic and pertinent.

Can the media just ask candidates these relevant poliicy questions and stop trying to make evolution a religious issue? Can the politicos, in turn, answer such simple, clear questions? Or do both groups need a few more focus groups and talk show panels to make it all irreducibly complex?

The terrible assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan already has created crisis and widespread violence. It is too soon to know how stable that country can remain under the pressures now developing.

What is clear is that the issue of terrorism is going back to the top of the presidential race in the United States. Candidates stopped talking about it much in recent months; voters seemed bored. Anyone who follows the news knows that things are going better in Iraq, but it seemed until now that people had grown tired of the whole terrorism problem.

But, to paraphrase Trotsky, the terrorism problem apparently is not tired of them. Assassinations have to be on many minds as candidates whiz around the country in only semi-secure conditions. Moreover, the headlines in Pakistan will remind the electorate that we have been spared another Al Qaeda attack but we cannot be sure for the future.

You can figure out who will benefit politically. It has to be mature candidates with anti-terrorism credentials.