There was an error in this gadget

Friday, August 24, 2012

Is “Progressive” Economics Based on Sound Science?

Very minor editing for punctuation and clarity of an article by Gary DeMar, with [my comments inserted in context]





For about a decade Liberals have described Conservatives as “anti-science.” If you question global warning theorists, you are anti-science. If you question the evolutionary religion that argues for [inexplicable, mysterious] spontaneous generation, you are anti-science. Start with nothing . . . absolutely nothing. No air. No matter . . . not even an atom. No energy. No space. No thought. No time. Just a long, dead silence. This is the evolutionist’s reality before the dawn of something becoming everything. At some infinitesimal moment in time all the stuff that makes up our world popped into existence. To doubt this theory (not empirical science) makes you anti-science. [ … Actually, it makes you a heretic against an undefined, but infallible, “Progressive” religion – a proper target for “Progressive” Jihad (IOW, intellectual terrorism).]

Even some atheists find the view incredible. Consider the latest book by Thomas Nagel: Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False.

“The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value. This failure to account for something so integral to nature as mind, argues philosopher Thomas Nagel, is a major problem, threatening to unravel the entire naturalistic world picture, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.”

Former Newsweek editor Howard Fineman said that the Republican Party has become

“... a ‘faith-based,’ ‘Bible-based’ political organization. Fineman also derided Paul Ryan as untrustworthy when it comes to considering science: [Ryan] starts every consideration of public policy, not from the standpoint of science, but from the standpoint of faith.’”

[LOL! And yet, virtually ALL “Progressive” assertions about “the right thing to do” are demonstrably gratuitous. That makes them based on faith – and an undisciplined faith at that!]


There is no human dignity in the evolutionary worldview. It’s dog-eat-dog, “nature red in tooth and claw,” survival of the fittest. The further political regimes get away from a “faith-based” worldview that has the personal God at its core, the closer they get to tyranny and dehumanization. A materialistic, science-based worldview is like setting the sails of a ship “for the island of nihilism. This is the darkest continent of the darkened mind — the ultimate paradise of the fool.”[1]

Science as it’s taught today cannot make moral judgments. [Indeed!  Authentic science comes from honest people, disciplined by the Empirical method.  When done correctly, it is based on objective facts.  By their very nature, real facts are morally neutral.] Science can only conclude how atoms line up, how hot or cold something is, or how fast something travels. Science can’t say if genocide is morally right or wrong or whether taxing the rich is good or bad for the economy. Science can only publish the body count of the dead and the amount of money that’s collected from tax payers. [ ... assuming the books are not being cooked -- another huge leap of faith!]

The only thing keeping America from going over the cliff is a faith-based, Bible-based worldview. Our founders understood this, even those who had strong objections to some of the Bible’s doctrines. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that “rights” were an endowment from the Creator and not a gift from the State.
[Indeed!  If government is the source of Rights, then they are not Rights, they are privileges.  A privilege can be withheld.  The harmless exercise of a Right, cannot be justly denied or unduly encumbered.  Furthermore, the Bill of Rights merely acknowledges a short list of particularly critical rights that are commonly trampled by government and that existed eons before government of any kind.  In reality, adults were born with the immutable right to do any harmless thing.  This means that we all possess literally billions of rights!]




The Declaration states that “the Representatives of the United States of America, in general Congress assembled,” appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of [their] intentions.” This was a faith-based worldview. Science doesn’t know a thing about rights.

Where is the science in the economic policies of the Democrats? [Hint:  there is none.  All "Progressive" economic ideas are based entirely on adolescent emotion.]  How does taking money from some people and passing [some of] it along to other people, pass for moral rectitude and sound public policy? How does Mr. Fineman imagine that science can make this determination? He can’t.
[However, science can objectively identify sound methods for accounting and economic analysis.  That's called rational, non-political accounting.  Such science is the only way to manage finances for world's largest government.  THIS is the kind of responsible accounting that "Progressives have made all but impossible!]





Notes:
R. C. Sproul, The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts That Shaped Our World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 171.