SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dayuhan who wrote (14309)10/29/2003 3:20:49 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793731
 
I get the impression that he thinks religious freedom means freedom for Christians to do whatever they want – including killing Muslims.

Most of what you are telling me about Indonesia might as well be in Greek, as you probably know. I am clueless about the area.

Madame Chang died this week, age 105. That brings back a lot of memories. I had an aunt who was a Christian Missionary in Hong Kong for a Holy Roller Southern sect. Very sweet lady. She went over in the 20's and went totally native. Got imprisoned during WWII. By the 60s, she could pass for a Chinese. Every time she came back on a Sabbatical, She would make the rounds of her Churches, telling them how she was bringing God to the Heathen.

We had thousands of people like her going to the Far East, starting around 1800. Everybody knows about the ones here in the Islands, due to Michener, but most were in China and Southeast Asia. The Roosevelt family had a lot of relatives over there.

So our whole picture of the area is colored by the tales of the put upon Christians suffering under the lash of other Religions. Big reason Chiang married Madame Chiang was to get in with the Chinese Christians.

OTOH, Mohammadism is a "Barrack's Religion." It was founded and spread by a Warrior.



To: Dayuhan who wrote (14309)10/29/2003 4:35:59 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793731
 
I talked about China in a recent post. Good column by Derbyshire on the subject.
_________________________________________________

October 28, 2003, 8:20 a.m.
Wife to a Footnote
The passing of Madame Chiang Kaishek.

I imagine the death of Madame* Chiang Kaishek** barely registered with any non-Chinese person much under the age of 60. The lady was 105 years old, and had not been in the news in any interesting way since 1988, when she made an unsuccessful attempt to interfere in Taiwan politics. She had not had any real prominence in the minds of most Americans since the 1940s, when her husband ruled China. Chiang's rule ended in 1949, when he lost the Chinese civil war to Mao Tsetung's Communists. Chiang fled to Taiwan with his entourage and the remnants of his army. He became a footnote to history, and Madame Chiang the wife of a footnote.

Madame Chiang was born Soong Mayling, the fourth child of a Shanghai millionaire who had done most of his growing up in the U.S.A., under the care of missionaries. She herself came to the States at age ten. She spent five years at a private school in Georgia before going to Wellesley, where she was a student 1913-17. All her life she spoke flawless American English with a slight Scarlett O'Hara accent.

The accent was not the only resemblance. Mayling was a pretty, social, and strong-willed woman, with few scruples about method when she was determined to get her way. Though she was famous for saying that "The only thing oriental about me is my face," her destiny was always bound up with China's. This was true even before she married Chiang Kaishek in 1927; her father had helped finance Sun Yatsen's 1911 revolution, the one that brought down the last imperial dynasty. The story of her family has been very well told by Sterling Seagrave, in a book I reviewed some years ago for a London newspaper.

So far as Madame Chiang and her husband are remembered at all by Americans nowadays, it is with some distaste. Before explaining why, I had better include my standard disclaimer.

In writing about 20th-century Chinese history, one needs to proceed with great care. You can never be too skeptical about what you read. Neither of the two major regimes that held power in post-imperial China tolerated free inquiry; both employed very skilful propagandists; both had foreign shills working for them who were either well paid — Madame Chiang's brother Paul ("T.V. Soong") may have been the richest person in the world in the early 1940s — or ideologically committed to the viewpoint they were propagating, or both. Even after the mid-century shills had laid down their pens and more objective observers came along, the secondary sources were so corrupted that it needed a diligent scholar indeed to get to the bottom of things.

For example: One of the people who attempted to teach me Chinese was a lady named Anne Chang, whose husband had served on Chiang Kaishek's personal staff during the Chinese civil war of 1945-49. The first time I had dinner with the Changs, I prepped up by reading a biography of Chiang Kaishek I got from the local library. The biography — I forget the author's name — was unfriendly. To illustrate what a control freak Chiang was, the author noted that he made all the members of his staff practice calligraphy for an hour every day. I mentioned this at dinner with the Changs. "Nonsense," said Mr. Chang. "I was on the Generalissimo's staff for three years, and he never made me practice calligraphy." Was the biographer a liar? Or was he an honest man taken in by dishonest secondary sources? Or was Mr. Chang telling a fib out of loyalty to his old boss? I have no clue.

Even allowing for the fog of propaganda and misrepresentation that shrouds China's recent history, however, and giving the benefit of all possible doubt, it is clear that Chiang Kaishek was a nasty piece of work, and his wife very little better. China was desperately unlucky in her rulers during the 20th century. Possibly there was some systemic reason for this, and sinologists are not shy about coming up with theories. Whatever the case, the post-imperial rulers are a depressing lot. A thumbnail sketch of 20th-century Chinese leadership looks like this:

1900-08 — Corrupt, disintegrating imperial dynasty under reactionary old Empress. Widening chaos.
1908-12 — Corrupt, disintegrating imperial dynasty under infant emperor, unprincipled eunuchs, and incompetent bureaucrats. Chaos widens further.
1912 (for two months) — Sun Yatsen, a brave, intelligent, and sincere man, out-maneuvered by more ruthless operators. Major chaos.
1912-16 — Yuan Shikai, unscrupulous warlord with imperial ambitions. Total chaos.
1916-28 — The Warlord Era, in which the country was only theoretically under central control. In practice it was divided among powerful military bosses, some of them mere gangsters, some quite sophisticated ideologues. Utter chaos, spasmodic civil war.
1928-49 — Chiang Kaishek, a dictator on the fascist model, who, in addition to his own failings as a ruler, had to cope with the Japanese invasion (from 1931 on), and with the rise of powerful communist warlord Mao Tsetung. Major chaos, invasion, recalcitrant warlords, world war, civil war.
1949-76 — Mao Tsetung's Leninist dictatorship. Spells of chaos alternating with secret-police terror.
1976-99 — Leninism Lite under Deng Xiaoping and a succession of his lackluster appointees. Chaos abates, prosperity rises, but all without law, liberty or justice, and garnished with sensational levels of corruption.

It is an interesting and much-debated question to what degree the Chiangs were patriots who actually wished to do something for their poor storm-tossed nation. "To no degree at all," many people will tell you, with good justification. The Chiangs certainly regarded the enriching of themselves, their relatives, and their business associates to be a very high priority — higher than the welfare of low-class Chinese people, to which they seem to have been stonily indifferent. Joe Stilwell referred to Chiang as "Generalissimo Cash My Check." (Patrick Hurley preferred "Chancre Jack." The two men's pet names for Mao Tsetung were, respectively, "Mouse Tongue" and "Moose Dung.")

Chiang did not even bother much with advertising his regime to the peasantry. His main propaganda efforts were addressed to the urban middle classes and foreign sources of finance and military aid. He seems to have thought of the peasants, in his own mind, as a kind of livestock. His wife shows little sign of having thought about them at all.

The idea that the Chiangs were motivated by nothing more than avarice seems to me an oversimplification, though. Patriotism is an odd thing, no more than half of which dwells in the conscious mind. Chinese patriotism is a particularly knotty variety, all tangled up with racial pride and historical resentments. The very concept of a nation, as it has been understood in the West since the Middle Ages, did not take hold in China until well into the 20th century. In imperial times, the common term used by the Chinese to refer to their country was tianxia — "all under heaven." The imperial Chinese were of course aware of the existence of foreigners, but under the official ideology, all non-Chinese were mere savages, whose proper relationship to the Dragon Throne was one of subservient admiration. This applied to the British and French just as much as to Tibetans or Mongolians; that is why Lord Macartney, sent by Britain as an ambassador in 1793, was expected to kowtow to the Emperor. (He refused, and after much diplomatic wrangling, a compromise was struck.)

Chiang Kaishek had had a disgraceful early career in the Shanghai underworld, well-attested by British police records from the International Settlement in that city. Foreigners all found him impossible to work with. He was secretive, rude, and cruel, and had a vicious temper. His writings, though — including his private diaries, captured in the ludicrous Xi'an Incident of 1936 — were often passionately patriotic. I have met several Chinese people who worked for Chiang, and all spoke well of him, as a sincere patriot. The relatives of the tens of thousands murdered by his secret police, or of those soldiers who died in his ill-executed military campaigns, or of the peasants who starved to death while Chiang's own relatives looted the nation's wealth, cannot be expected to agree; but I am inclined to credit the Chiangs with a few non-selfish motives in spite of it all.

Oddly, the older generation of Chinese Communists — people like my father-in-law, who joined the party in 1953 — agree, and it is unusual to hear them speak harshly of Chiang. When he died in 1975, the communists offered to make a suitable burial plot available for him in his home district. (The offer was refused.) The Chinese can be disarmingly amoral about the pursuit of power. "If you win, you're the emperor; if you lose, you're a bandit," goes the old saying. Just a matter of luck, really.

The Chiangs lost. They retreated to Taiwan, where, with an ill grace, at the point of a U.S. military-aid budget, and after some salutary massacres to show the Taiwanese — formerly a contented Japanese colony — who was boss, they carried out the kinds of reforms that might have saved their regime on the mainland, thus laying the foundations of Taiwan's modern prosperity. The Generalissimo*** died in 1975 and his stepson took over, Chiang and Mayling having had no children. (Nor any sex life at all, according to some Chinese gossip. It was a frank marriage of convenience, Chiang getting access to the Soong family ATM and American connections, the Soongs plugging in to the power of a solidifying military dictatorship. The main passion of Chiang's life was his second wife, Chen Jieru, who was shipped off to America so Chiang could marry Mayling, but who soon found her way back, and seems to have borne Chiang's child in 1944. She died in Hong Kong while I was living there, in 1972. Chiang also had a long succession of mistresses, though.)

Relations between Chiang Junior and Mayling had always been tense, so after Junior got power in Taiwan, Mayling took herself off to live in New York. There was a house here on Long Island and an apartment in Manhattan. The Long Island house, a couple of miles from my own, was given up in 1998 and briefly opened to public viewing — it was full of Chinese art objects — before being sold. My wife and I drove over to join the viewing, but the entire Chinese population of the greater New York area had got there before us and we didn't even get close.

Soong Mayling died at her Manhattan apartment last Thursday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Why "Madame," not "Mrs"? The English-language convention used to be that foreigners from a few familiar nations — France, Germany, Spain, Italy — were referred to using the appropriate title in their own language: Herr Wagner, Signora Rossini, and so on. Other foreigners defaulted to their title in French, the language of diplomacy. This convention seems now to have been dropped, except in one or two self-consciously punctilious newspapers.
** "Chiang" is the surname. Chinese is one of those languages, like Hungarian and Romanian, in which the surname is placed first.
*** Here is another Stilwell-ism: "The problem here is, the communists got the General, we got the Issimo."

nationalreview.com



To: Dayuhan who wrote (14309)10/29/2003 6:26:30 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793731
 
St Thomas Aquinas’ "Argument from Design" is still with us. I am sure this will stir some discussion.
_____________________________________________
THE SPECTATOR UK

The mystery of the missing links
It is becoming fashionable to question Darwinism, but few people understand either the arguments for evolution or the arguments against it. Mary Wakefield explains the thinking on both sides



A few weeks ago I was talking to a friend, a man who has more postgraduate degrees than I have GCSEs. The subject of Darwinism came up. ‘Actually,’ he said, raising his eyebrows, ‘I don’t believe in evolution.’

I reacted with incredulity: ‘Don’t be so bloody daft.’

‘I’m not,’ he said. ‘Many scientists admit that the theory of evolution is in trouble these days. There are too many things it can’t explain.’

‘Like what?’

‘The gap in the fossil record.’

‘Oh, that old chestnut!’ My desire to scorn was impeded only by a gap in my knowledge more glaring than that in the fossil record itself.

Last Saturday at breakfast with my flatmates, there was a pause in conversation. ‘Hands up anyone who has doubts about Darwinism,’ I said. To my surprise all three — a teacher, a music agent and a playwright — slowly raised their arms. One had read a book about the inadequacies of Darwin — Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis; another, a Christian, thought that Genesis was still the best explanation for the universe. The playwright blamed the doctrine of survival of the fittest for ‘capitalist misery and the oppression of the people’. Nearly 150 years after the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, a taboo seems to be lifting.

Until recently, to question Darwinism was to admit to being either a religious nut or just plain thick. ‘Darwin’s theory is no longer a theory but a fact,’ said Julian Huxley in 1959. For most of the late 20th century Darwinism has seemed indubitable, even to those who have as little real understanding of the theory as they do of setting the video-timer. I remember a recent conversation with my mother: ‘Do you believe in evolution, Mum?’ ‘Of course I do, darling. If you use your thumbs a lot, you will have children with big thumbs. If they use their thumbs a lot, and so do their children, then eventually there will be a new sort of person with big thumbs.’

The whole point of natural selection is that it denies that acquired characteristics can be inherited. According to modern Darwinism, new species are created by a purposeless, random process of genetic mutation. If keen Darwinians such as my mother can get it wrong, it is perhaps not surprising that the theory is under attack.

The current confusion is the result of a decade of campaigning by a group of Christian academics who work for a think-tank called the Discovery Institute in Seattle. Their guiding principle — which they call Intelligent Design theory or ID — is a sophisticated version of St Thomas Aquinas’ Argument from Design.

Over the last few years they have had a staggering impact. Just a few weeks ago, they persuaded an American publisher of biology textbooks to add a paragraph encouraging students to analyse theories other than Darwinism. Over the past two years they have convinced the boards of education in Ohio, Michigan, West Virginia and Georgia to teach children about Intelligent Design. Indiana and Texas are keen to follow suit. They sponsor debates, set up research fellowships, publish books, distribute flyers and badges, and conduct polls, the latest of which shows that 71 per cent of adult Americans think that the evidence against Darwin should be taught in schools.

Unlike the swivel-eyed creationists, ID supporters are very keen on scientific evidence. They accept that the earth was not created in six days, and is billions of years old. They also concede Darwin’s theory of microevolution: that species may, over time, adapt to suit their environments. What Intelligent Design advocates deny is macroevolution: the idea that all life emerged from some common ancestor slowly wriggling around in primordial soup. If you study the biological world with an open mind, they say, you will see more evidence that each separate species was created by an Intelligent Designer. The most prominent members of the ID movement are Michael Behe the biochemist, and Phillip E. Johnson, professor of law at the University of California. They share a belief that it is impossible for small, incremental changes to have created the amazing diversity of life. There is no way that every organism could have been created by blind chance, they say. The ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe indicates a creator.

Behe attacks Darwinism in his 1996 book, Darwin’s Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. If you look inside cells, Behe says, you see that they are like wonderfully intricate little machines. Each part is so precisely engineered that if you were to remove or alter a single part, the whole thing would grind to a halt. The cell has irreducible complexity; we cannot conceive of it functioning in a less developed state. How then, asks Behe, could a cell have developed through a series of random adaptations?

Then there is the arsenal of arguments about the fossil record, of which the most forceful is that evolutionists have not found the fossils of any transitional species — half reptile and half bird, for instance. Similarly, there are no rich fossil deposits before the Cambrian era about 550 million years ago. If Darwin was right, what happened to the fossils of all their evolutionary predecessors?

Phillip E. Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, hopes that these arguments will serve as a ‘wedge’, opening up science teaching to discussions about God. Evolution is unscientific, he says, because it is not testable or falsifiable; it makes claims about events (such as the very beginning of life on earth) that can never be recreated. ‘In good time new theories will emerge and science will change,’ he writes. ‘Maybe there will be a new theory of evolution, but it is also possible that the basic concept will collapse and science will acknowledge that those elusive common ancestors of the major biological groups never existed.’

If Johnson is right, then God, or a designer, deposited each new species on the planet, fully formed and marked ‘made in heaven’. This is not a very modern-sounding idea, but one whose supporters write articles in respectable magazines and use phrases such as ‘Cambrian explosion’ and ‘irreducible complexity’. Few of us then (including, I suspect, the boards that approve American biology textbooks) would be confident enough to question it. Especially intimidating for scientific ignoramuses is the Discovery Institute’s list of 100 scientists, including Nobel prize nominees, who doubt that random mutation and natural selection can account for the complexity of life.

Professor Richard Dawkins sent me his rather different opinion of the ID movement: ‘Imagine,’ he wrote, ‘that there is a well-organised and well-financed group of nutters, implacably convinced that the Roman Empire never existed. Hadrian’s Wall, Verulamium, Pompeii — Rome itself — are all planted fakes. The Latin language, for all its rich literature and its Romance language grandchildren, is a Victorian fabrication. The Rome deniers are, no doubt, harmless wingnuts, more harmless than the Holocaust deniers whom they resemble. Smile and be tolerant, just as we smile at the Flat Earth Society. But your tolerance might wear thin if you happen to be a lifelong scholar and teacher of Roman history, language or literature. You suddenly find yourself obliged to interrupt your magnum opus on the Odes of Horace in order to devote time and effort to rebutting a well-financed propaganda campaign claiming that the entire classical world that you love never existed.’

So are all Intelligent Design supporters fantasists and idiots, just wasting the time of proper scientists and deluding the general public? If Dawkins is to be believed, the neo-Darwinists have come up with satisfactory answers to all the conundrums posed by ID proponents.

In response to Michael Behe, the Darwinists point out that although an organism may look essential and irreducible, many of its component parts can serve multiple functions. For instance, the blood-clotting mechanism that Behe cites as an example of an irreducibly complex system seems, on close inspection, to involve the modification of proteins that were originally used in digestion.

Matt Ridley, the science writer, kindly explained the lack of fossils before the Cambrian explosion: ‘Easy. There were no hard body parts before then. Why? Probably because there were few mobile predators, and so few jaws and few eyes. There are in fact lots of Precambrian fossils, but they are mostly microbial fossils, which are microscopic and boring.’

Likewise, palaeontologists say that they do know of some examples of fossils intermediate in form between the various taxonomic groups. The half-dinosaur, half-bird archaeopteryx, for instance, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs.

‘Huh,’ say the Intelligent Designers, who do not accept poor old archaeopteryx as a transitory species at all. For them, he is just an extinct sort of bird that happened to look a bit like a reptile.

It would be fair to say that the ID lobby has done us a favour in drawing attention to some serious problems, and perhaps breaking the stranglehold of atheistic neo-Darwinism; but their credibility is damaged by the fact that scientists are finding new evidence every day to support the theory of macroevolution. There is also something a little unnerving about the way in which the ID movement is funded. Most of the Discovery Institute’s $4 million annual budget comes from evangelical Christian organisations. One important donor is the Ahmanson family, who have a long-standing affiliation to Christian Reconstructionism, an extreme faction of the religious Right that wants to replace American democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.

There is a more metaphysical problem for Intelligent Design. If we accept a lack of scientific evidence as proof of a creator’s existence, then surely we must regard every subsequent relevant scientific discovery, each new Precambrian fossil, as an argument against the existence of God.

The debate has anyway been confused by the vitriol each side pours on the other. Phillip Johnson calls Dawkins a ‘blusterer’ who has been ‘highly honoured by scientific establishments for promoting materialism in the name of science’. Dawkins retorts that religion ‘is a kind of organised misconception. It is millions of people being systematically educated in error, told falsehoods by people who command respect.’

Perhaps the answer is that the whole battle could have been avoided if Darwinism had not been put forward as proof of the non-existence of God. As Kenneth Miller, a Darwinian scientist and a Christian, says in his book Finding Darwin’s God, ‘Evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them.... Those who ask from science a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided will always be disappointed. As a scientist I claim no new proofs, no revolutionary data, no stunning insight into nature that can tip the balance in one direction or another. But I do claim that to a believer, even in the most traditional sense, evolutionary biology is not at all the obstacle we often believe it to be. In many respects evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God.’

St Basil, the 4th century Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, said much the same thing: ‘Why do the waters give birth also to birds?’ he asked, writing about Genesis. ‘Because there is, so to say, a family link between the creatures that fly and those that swim. In the same way that fish cut the waters, using their fins to carry them forward, so we see the birds float in the air by the help of their wings.’ If an Archbishop living 1,400 years before Darwin can reconcile God with evolution, then perhaps Dawkins and the ID lobby should be persuaded to do so as well.
spectator.co.uk