Intelligent Design needs a Re-Branding

In this age of consumerism, everyone understands the importance of positive branding, and indeed, companies and individuals alike readily comprehend that if your “brand” has negative connotations attached to it, then there are a great many people that will pre-judge you on that basis alone rather than taking the time to survey your ideas in the detail that they deserve, and though this may not be fair, it is reality, and so in light of this fact, I contend that given the branding difficulties that now surround it, it is now time for the Intelligent Design (ID) movement to re-brand itself with a new and improved label, which I claim should be the label of “Agent Detection Science”, and the reasons for this proposition are as follows:

1. First, in making this change, there is the obvious benefit that some small part of the negative branding and prejudice associated with ID would be removed, and thus ID may gain some extra proponents from making such a minor change;

2. Second, at least to me, the label “Agent Detection Science” sounds more professional, academic, and intellectually rigorous than Intelligent Design, just as the term “Forensic Science” sounds more professional, academic, and intellectually rigorous rather “Scenes of Crime Investigation”, and so, such a labeling change will have a positive persuasive effect at an almost sub-conscious level, which, in turn, should give ID at least a change at more of a fair hearing by a greater number of people;

3. Third, by labeling itself as “Agent Detection Science”, the ID movement actually links itself much more closely to other ID-type fields like forensics, archaeology, and SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) given that all these other fields are in the business of detecting the hall-marks of agent causation rather than natural causation, and furthermore, since all these fields are, quite literally, agent detection sciences, then by directly labeling itself as “Agent Detection Science”, the ID movement would gain greater credibility not only through its clear connection to these other already-credible fields, but it would also make it the case that any objections brought against the methodology of Agent Detection Science / ID would also have to be objections against such disciplines as forensics, archaeology, SETI, and so on;

4. Fourth, the label “Agent Detection Science” is more precise than the ID moniker, for ID, as well as all the other ID-type sciences already mentioned (like archaeology) are in the very business of using certain methodologies to detect the presence and activity of agents rather than of natural causes, and so, by changing the name from ID to something like “Agent Detection Science”, the ID movement would, in its very title, be clearly stating what it actually strives to do, and since what ID strives to do is in no way shocking when you consider that SETI, archaeology, forensics, and other fields strive to do the exact same thing, then in providing this clarity in its very label the ID movement would be clear that it is little different than these other sciences are;

5. Fifth, “Agent Detection Science” has the term ‘science’ in its very name, which helps to immediately and directly assert that ID is a science, just like forensics and archaeology are considered to be, and so its status as a claimed science is put right into the open for all to see (and please note that if you truly deny that ID is a science, then it would be easy enough to change the name to “Agent Detection Methodology” or “Agent Detection Theory” or even “Agent Detection Analysis”);

…and so these, therefore, are a number of reasons why I believe that the ID movement should consider the idea of re-branding itself as I think that doing so would help to take ID to the next level of its development while simultaneously dropping some of the negative baggage that is, at the present time, directly attached to the ID label.

Advertisements

Preferring the Bronze Age over the Present Age

Unbelievers often scoff and mock that Christians follow, as these unbelievers say, Bronze or Iron Age beliefs written down by ignorant peasants and superstitious persons thousands of years ago in a no longer relevant book called the Bible, and by using these pejorative and chronologically-snobby labels for the foundational of Christian belief, the unbelievers are obviously trying to imply that Christians are fools for holding to these antiquated ideas, but, in fact, the truth, in many cases, is the exact opposite of what such unbelievers believe, for the fact of the matter is this:  in this present age, where 1) we have modern academics and “thinkers” telling us that men can become women by mere verbal fiat, and where 2) we have modern academics and “thinkers”, such as modern ethicists, endorsing infanticide and bestiality and incestuous marriage, and where 3) we have modern academic and “thinkers” telling us that something can come from nothing, or that language is meaningless, or that morality does not exist, or that consciousness and the self just illusions, or that there actually is such a thing as equality in the world between people, or any one of the other myriad of absurd and reality-denying claims made in the modern world today, then I tell you that, in many cases, I am more than happy, and I am more than rational, in preferring to believe the common-sense and time-tested wisdom of reality-hardened men from generations long past than I am in trusting some modern gender-studies professor or some “ethicist” who tells me that shagging sheep is A-OK; remember, truth does not respect chronology, and just because it is 2016 does not mean that we do not have many things insanely wrong, and it is for that reason that in many cases, I am more than happy and smart to embrace Bronze Age beliefs rather than wedding myself to the insanities of our present age.

One Way to Minimize Both the Mass of Migrants and Their Progressive Enablers

There is no doubt that Europe is presently in the throes of a serious struggle with migrants, and there is also no doubt that this issue is being exasperated by the many individuals of a liberal and progressive and even anarchist persuasion who are encouraging the migrants and the mass quantities of immigration into their European lands, and since the wave of migration into Europe is, in my view, something that is seriously undesirable and will cause massive problems in the near future–problems which are eminently avoidable through a sane migration policy–but also given that we do not necessarily wish to restrict the desires and freedoms of those European progressives wishing to have migrants enter their country, then one way that I propose to both solve the migrant crisis and to make the pro-migrant cheerleaders put their money where their mouth is, is to offer the simple solution that migrants are welcome into a European country, but they are only welcome so long as a European person or family is willing to sponsor them and have them live in the same residence as the person or family for a set period of time, such as one-to-two year; by doing this, we would achieve two things, the first of which would be exposing, once again, the utter hypocrisy of the leftist liberal progressive given that no doubt few of them would actually offer their own homes to house migrants even though they are more than ready to “compassionately” offer other people’s towns and neighborhoods for the migrants so long as the progressive himself is not personally affected by his own “benevolent” policies, and the second outcome, derived from the first, would be a massive drop in the amount of migrants flooding into the country given the lack of progressives who actually would be willing to personally do what they demand so many other people do, namely house the migrants in their own towns, neighborhoods, and homes…and so, in this way, we could, so to speak, kill two birds with our one stone, for we would expose the progressives for the hypocrites that we all know that they are and drive immigration down to a trickle, and yet because this idea would be so effective, it is obviously the reason it won’t be done in Europe today (and note that I in no way think that we should not help refugees in their own country, but that is a different issue).

Never Mistake Christian Meekness for Weakness

Our Lord, the Second Person of the Most Blessed and Holy Trinity, tells us, in His scriptures, that the “meek shall inherit the Earth”, and though this idea many be wrongly perceived by many today as promoting human weakness and craven submissiveness, this is, in fact, completely wrong, for the Lord Himself, who inherits the Earth and all of creation from His Father, shows us what meekness means, and that meekness is not weakness, but rather it is serious strength wrapped in submissiveness to an appropriate and moral authority who is worthy of obedience, and indeed, we see this in Christ Himself who, though powerful enough to easily prevent His own death–in fact, powerful enough to utterly annihilate those wishing to destroy Him–nevertheless willing and freely withheld that strength from expression on Earth given that doing so was the desire of God the Father, and thus Christ was meek and submissive to the Father in order for the Father to be able to fulfill His will through Christ, but in no way was this meek Christ weak, and so it is for us, for we must be strong against the sins of men and yet meek, and thus submissive, to the will of God, and in doing so, we, the meek towards God, but not towards men, shall inherit the Earth; and note that if history is any guide, it certainly seems that Christ was correct, for the Christian faith has now touched all corners of the Earth and is the numerically strongest faith on this Earth, and furthermore today, in the parts of the world where Christians are meek towards God and faithful to Him–in places such as Africa and China–Christianity is growing and thus literally inheriting more and more of the Earth, but in places were Christian have been meek towards the rules of men and rebellious against the rules of God, they are arguable losing their Earthly inheritance, both demographically and culturally…which is what would be expected if the “meek are to inherit the Earth”.

 

Meek to God, not meek man

Is It Time for the West to Peacefully Fracture and Fragment?

In this current time and age, with its extreme divides in politics, cultural outlook, and civilizational desires, a question which we in the West can no longer avoid, and one which we thus must muse about seriously, is the question of whether or not it is time for Western Civilization, and the individual countries that make up that civilization, to consider dividing itself into essentially two separate and distinct entities, with one group espousing and maintaining views traditionally associated with orthodox Christian religion, conservatism, individualism, nationalism, and natural law morality (essentially, Christendom), and with the other group being composed of the secularists, leftists, collectivists, globalists, and moral relativists (essentially, the modern progressive welfare state), and the reason to suggest that such a separation is needed is due to the fact that when you have massive chunks of a population so divided about the most fundamental issues in existence–God, religion, morality, the concept of the human person, immigration and national identity, the right to life, sexual mores, and so on and so forth–then in one country, you actually no longer have a nation or a society or a culture, but rather you have numerous different “nations” and societies and cultures simply placed together on one land mass with borders around it, and as history can attest (with the former Yugoslavia being put one recent example), when tensions rise, these separate-but-in-one-country societies and cultural / ethnic groups, if not allowed to fracture peacefully, will do so by force, for force, in such a divided country, will be the only option left for one side or the other, for indeed, when a country is so divided concerning the most foundational issues, then the only way that one side or the other can achieve its aims against the other cultural group that totally opposes it is through the coercion and legal power of the state, which is what we are presently starting to see occur against Christians and conservatives, by leftist progressives, in the West today, and which is what we saw the reverse of only a few generations ago, and so indeed, the potential need to separate the West into a “progressive” area and a “conservative / traditionalist” one (to use these terms as commonly understood) may be the only way to avoid a fate that could potentially be much worse than mere separation; after all, just imagine that if any married couple were as divided about the most core cultural and social and moral issues as many countries in the West are divided today–and especially the United States–then such a couple would have been divorced long ago, and if they did not divorce peacefully, then the pressure and tension and hatred of one for the other would only grow, until such a time as arguably only force or the threat of force (or blackmail / intimidation) could cause one spouse to do what the other wanted, and also until either one spouse either became totally submissive or else the whole situation exploded, and this, I contend, might very well be what will happen to the West if the real possibly of amicable separation is not at least seriously considered in the future….let the progressives live among themselves and rule themselves as they like, and let the conservatives do the same, for, in the end, both groups would no doubt be happier with such an arrangement.

Disparate Jihadists and the Motivation of Islam

In the West one of the things that we hear about from many sides of the political spectrum when discussing the issue of ‘terror jihad’ that is presently emanating from numerous Muslims across the world is that these murderous jihadists, while claiming to be Muslim, are actually inspired to commit violence not due to Islam itself, but rather due to such factors as poverty, and/or disenfranchisement, and/or oppression, and/or unemployment, and/or marginalization, etc., for essentially, what is contended is that it is nearly everything but Islam which is the motivating force for these violent Islamists, and that their Islam is almost incidental to their motivations, and yet, the problem with this claim is that the very fact that the “Islamist-excusers” appeal to such an utterly wide and disparate range of other motivating factors literally undermines their point and shows that the only connecting factor is Islam itself, for when 1) you have jihadists and Islamist suicide bombers who come from all sorts of economic backgrounds and ranges, and 2) who come from all sorts of different countries across the world, and 3) who come from all sorts of different ethnicities and cultural groups, and 4) who are both converts and life-long Muslims, and 5) who come from both main groups of Islam (Shia and Sunni), and 6) who come from varying education levels, and 7) who come from both relatively open societies to repressive societies, and 8) who come from Muslim majority countries to countries with barely any Muslims, and 9) who come from countries with no history of non-question-begging grievances against the West to countries with such grievances, and yet whose one main and cleared shared trait among these violent jihadists is a strict and literal interpretation of the Koran and other foundational Muslim texts, as well as the emulation and copying of Muslim jihadists, right down to Muhammad himself, who have been attacking the West since the origin of Islam, then those two just mentioned facts are, in and of themselves, a strong and rational reason to believe that maybe, just maybe, the main problem and the primary driver of these jihadists is indeed Islam itself, not some outside factor like “poverty” (or, more specifically, the main motivator are the commands in the Koran and other Muslim texts, as well as the life of Muhammad); so do not be fooled by the attempts to push the problem away from Islam itself, for if the motivating factor of the jihadists were some outside force or forces, we would expect that factor to be shared across the board by most jihadists, and yet the only factor that we really see shared by all violent Islamists is a strict and literal understanding of the Koran and a desire to follow the commands therein to the letter, and this fact is rather telling about their main motivation, is it not?

Jesus was a Tough Son-of-a-^%&$#

In our society and culture, where Jesus is often portrayed in a relatively weak and unmanly way–often shown as embracing young children, or displayed with almost effeminate mannerisms, and thereby being, in a way, not really displayed in a manner that is overly attractive to men given men’s propensity to follow strength and courage–one of the things that our modern society, and especially men in our modern society, and especially non-Christian men in our modern society not exactly impressed by the modern portrayals of Jesus, all too often forget is that Jesus was actually a “man’s man”, so to speak, and He was one tough son-of-a-&$%^* as well, for we must remember that this is the same Jesus who, on His own accord, fashioned up a weapon, kicked ass, and single-handedly drove the money-changers out of a temple, and He is a man who made the Devil himself leave in anger, and Jesus is the man who even girded up His loins and willingly went to be tortured and killed in order to achieve His aims, not even lifting a finger to stop what He could have stopped in a second; now that is power, and that is will, and that is strength, and that is a type of manliness rarely seen today, and so when we think of Jesus, and when we seek to emulate Him, we must not only be emulating ‘Jesus the meek and mild’, but we must also remember to follow the Jesus of an iron-will who willingly embraced his own horrid death with more courage than Socrates and as much strength as a gladiator…and to any non-Christian or even Christian men who are turned off of the Christ due to His alleged weakness and timidity, I suggest that you truly think about the strength and courage o Christ, and you should remember not to mistake willing submission to pain and death for the purpose of accomplishing one’s mission as a weakness, but rather as the ultimate strength, for the accomplishment of one’s mission, even on pain of death, is what every true man seeks to do in this life, and since Jesus accomplished His mission even though doing so meant willingly and freely embracing pain unimaginable by any mortal man (all the sin and pain of the world in one moment in time), then, men, please realize that Jesus is not only a God-man, but He is actually the ultimate man’s man as well, and He is someone that all men should follow.