posted August 31, 2011 11:14 PM            

Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.

After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, "Evolution, I think, is correct!"

That's the most extended discussion of Darwin's theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.

There's a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.

Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.

The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.

Otherwise, the mutations aren't random, they are deliberate -- and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about "intelligent design" and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.

We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.")

If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.

Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

But far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing novel characteristics and eventually becoming another species, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing.

Darwin's response was to say: Start looking! He blamed a fossil record that contradicted his theory on the "extreme imperfection of the geological record."

One hundred and fifty years later, that record is a lot more complete. We now have fossils for about a quarter of a million species.

But things have only gotten worse for Darwin.

Thirty years ago (before it was illegal to question Darwinism), Dr. David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, said that despite the vast expansion of the fossil record: "The situation hasn't changed much."

To the contrary, fossil discoveries since Darwin's time have forced paleontologists to take back evidence of evolution. "Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record," Raup said, "such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

The scant fossil record in Darwin's time had simply been arranged to show a Darwinian progression, but as more fossils were discovered, the true sequence turned out not to be Darwinian at all.

And yet, more than a century later, Darwin's groupies haven't evolved a better argument for the lack of fossil evidence.

To explain away the explosion of plants and animals during the Cambrian Period more than 500 million years ago, Darwiniacs asserted -- without evidence -- that there must have been soft-bodied creatures evolving like mad before then, but left no fossil record because of their squishy little microscopic bodies.

Then in 1984, "the dog ate our fossils" excuse collapsed, too. In a discovery The New York Times called "among the most spectacular in this century," Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils just preceding the Cambrian era.

Despite being soft-bodied microscopic creatures -- precisely the sort of animal the evolution cult claimed wouldn't fossilize and therefore deprived them of crucial evidence -- it turned out fossilization was not merely possible in the pre-Cambrian era, but positively ideal.

And yet the only thing paleontologists found there were a few worms. For 3 billion years, nothing but bacteria and worms, and then suddenly nearly all the phyla of animal life appeared within a narrow band of five million to 10 million years.

Even the eye simply materializes, fully formed, in the pre-Cambrian fossil record.

Jan Bergstrom, a paleontologist who examined the Chinese fossils, said the Cambrian Period was not "evolution," it was "a revolution."

So the Darwiniacs pretended they missed the newspaper that day.

Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.

These aren't scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It's an accident!)

posted September 01, 2011 03:52 PM            

but neither does the fact that it can be questioned COMPLETELY negate darwin's theory,

OR prove that science teachers (most of whom believe in evolution as per darwin) have been LYING to their students all these years.

posted September 02, 2011 11:25 AM            

though there are plenty of people who DO question the "authorities" it is true that once something is accepted people feel more comfortable sticking with the current "what is" than having to alter the basis of their life-view AGAIN.

posted September 03, 2011 07:17 PM            

There's no excuse for scientists polluting science with lies, fraud and hoaxes...as in the man made global warming hoax.

posted September 03, 2011 09:51 PM            

hehe, I AM so bored...'

We did not evolve from Apes..
other-Wise, Apes would not be here. ...

We are individual snowflakes,
all humans unique...
No Matter how close the DNA,
we did not evolve from there...

funny how a pig's heart, can
replace a human heart!?

we didn't evolve from pigs either, lol

posted September 04, 2011 11:54 AM            

No figure in modern history has received as much religiously based criticism as Charles Darwin. He is seen as worse than an atheist; his work has been attacked as a threat to the belief that the universe and mankind are God's creations.

Charles Darwin was not the first person to write about evolution. In his book Origin of Species he gives credit to 24 naturalists[i] who discussed the idea before he did. Since Darwin did the most work to research and promulgate the topic, the concept of evolution has been identified with him.

Many who are angrily anti-Darwin have not read the Origin or examined Darwin's personal life. At Cambridge University he studied to be a minister. However, he felt that science should be objective in nature, and was careful to keep any reference to God or a creator out of his work, particularly in his two major works On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. For example, he states in the Origin, "They [creationists] believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion)"[ii].

Toward the end of his life Darwin's reluctance to discuss God diminished. It is in the sixth edition of the Origin where this shift is most noticeable. The sixth edition was the last edition edited by Darwin. It was released in 1872 -- some thirteen years after the first edition was published. The word "evolution" appears for the first time in the last edition.

Darwin used the word "Creator" nine times, and the word "God" twice in the sixth edition [iii]. Of greater importance is what he said about life and the Creator's role in it. Darwin never said that evolution was Godless or directionless. In fact, a reading of the sixth edition of Origin proves that both of these assertions are factually incorrect. The second page of the Origin prominently displays this quote:

To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both. - Bacon: "Advancement of Learning"[iv]

Darwin addressed several objections to evolution in the sixth edition. (He added a Chapter Seven titled "Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection.") One of best-known criticisms of natural selection was that nothing as complicated as an eye could have evolved purely by chance. Darwin's response was that we can observe many examples of the evolution of light-sensitive cells in nature. The most intriguing thought Darwin had on this subject was that just because we don't understand how something can evolve does not mean that the Creator wasn't behind it. His exact words in the sixth edition of Origin were "Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?"[v]. Using the telescope as an example of a man-made optical instrument, he added: "May we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass, as the works of the Creator are to man?"[vi].

Two more quotes by Darwin in the sixth edition mention the Creator, and these give the Creator credit for starting the "laws" of evolution. The first passage reads:

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.[vii]

Addressing objections to evolutionary theory, Darwin commented: "He who believes that each equine [horse] species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication[.]" He criticized this view: "It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception[.]" This was clearly a reference to the "works of God" [viii].

In the last sentence of the sixth, edition Darwin placed the Creator at the beginning of life on earth:

There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.[ix]

Darwin was arguing that the Creator's input into a few life forms was not life, but the laws of natural selection. So it remains an open question whether or not and how God created life. It should be noted that Origin is called The Origin of Species, not The Origin of Life.

While Darwin, in the passages where he referred to the Creator, did not state that God created life [x], he did state that the Creator was there at the beginning, and "breathed" the laws of natural selection into early forms of life, to enable them to adapt to changing climates, etc. Why did Darwin leave the question of whether God created life open? A plausible explanation is that Darwin wanted to leave the specific correlation between God and the beginning of life unanswered so that those who believe in God could follow their beliefs, and those who did not could follow theirs. This leaves the laws of natural selection as a research field to be pursued by the naturalist, which is what Darwin felt the theory of natural selection should be.

The argument over whether or not God exists is hotly debated today, and perhaps always will be. Darwin did not want to make his biologically based arguments dependent upon a person's belief in God. (But it should be added that by placing the "Creator" at the start of life, Darwin did take a somewhat ambiguous stand on the issue).

Darwin did mention a Creator and God in the last edition of The Origin of Species. But he did not say that God created life or specifically created man. Those who oppose Darwin do not want to allow for the possibility that Darwin brought a Creator (with a capital C) into the picture. But he clearly did.

Perhaps Darwin was being more liberal in allowing others to choose to believe in God or not. Perhaps he had more respect for believers and atheists than they have for him. As a scientist, he felt that a priority should be placed on describing the changes to life we see in the natural world as proceeding along natural "law" which, in his time, was the a topic for the investigations of the naturalist. For example, Newton describes the "laws" of motion. Darwin sought to find those laws in the early forms of life.

In the final view, Darwin's work is like a Rorschach inkblot test: people will see what they want to see, what is consistent with their beliefs. However, as readers of his work we must factually report what he actually said, not what we want to believe he said. Critics of Darwin's work are then attacking him for not believing the same thing they believe, rather than for what he actually wrote.

posted September 04, 2011 05:59 PM            

where it starts out as an ape and evolves,
and evolves, and evolves until it's a Man...

lol

posted September 04, 2011 06:54 PM            

but ego and one's comfort and the security of one's family SHOULD have no place in pretty much any vocation. that doesn't stop people keeping an eye to keeping their jobs.

nor was i being serious in the first place!

but scientists DO have to eat. and that means they have to make like good employees just like most people.

that does not mean that the reason climate scientists stick to their guns is entirely mercenary. sometimes people refuse to trash their statements because they BELIEVE IN THEM. just because some scientists disagree with them doesn't mean they are charlatans and w_hores .

the aussie gentleman who stayed online with the global warming program for YEARS after he realized it was being funded by vested interests finally heeded his conscience ONLY when sufficient backlash had built up steam - and NOW he can take his stand and be paid for it....which makes him STILL keeping an eye out for the reward not the truth.

posted September 05, 2011 08:16 AM            

The news leaked out a while ago that Al Gore scored a D in natural science at Harvard. That would be the science introduction for Other Majors, not difficult chemistry or calculus. So Nobel Laureate Al Gore got a D in Science for Dummies.

But don't worry. Anybody can blow a college course and still bounce back. A lot of us get it wrong the first time. Unfortunately, Al Gore didn't fix his failure. He made it much worse by peddling monstrous pseudo-science and getting even richer from it. As well as repulsively fat -- a walking metaphor for his politics.

The more I think about it, the more it looks like global warming is a deliberate attack by the postmodern (anti-science) left on science. Global Frauding attacks all the core scientific values -- of truth-telling, empirical discipline, and skepticism. Our bulging Goracle gets a lifetime grade of F for setting real science back by decades.

My guess is that during the Clinton years, Al Gore planted his ideological allies in NASA and NOAA. It could have been done through his campaign to Make Government More Efficient. After all, he was saving the planet. Gore deserved his Nobel Prize just as much as Obama did for winning while black.

Phony science has a long and terrifying history on the left. Barack Obama was also officially credited by his Harvard Law professor Larry Tribe for inventing the Einstein Theory of the U.S. Constitution. Really. You can look it up. This is so bizarre it isn't even funny.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/barack_hussein_einstein_at_har.html

Nothing is as toxic as a really bad idea. Hundreds of millions of dollars are still being spent in "scientific" pursuit of disaster scenarios about the earth, fiddling with infinitely variable computer models. This isn't science; the burden of proof has flipped to the skeptics, which does not happen in real science. Albert Einstein had to predict observable outcomes before his ideas were accepted. Watson and Crick had to prove the helical structure of DNA before anybody took them seriously. But in Global Frauding it's the skeptics who are supposed to prove that the latest computer model is not true. If they manage that, the crooks just make up a new computer model. It's a sort of card sharper trick. A con artist can always move faster than the suckers.

No real scientist makes a deal with Al Gore and the New York Times to get rich by peddling end-of-the-world stories. No scientist is then allowed to call those planted lies "scientific truths" until somebody can prove they're wrong. If science worked like that, Galileo would still be a pariah and the Vatican would be telling us about Ptolemaic astronomy. In real science the burden of proof is on the proposer. There are good reasons for that standard.

Three decades ago, MIT Professor Edward Lorenz became famous for his discovery of "chaotic dynamics" in weather data. Scientific theorists are still building on that breakthrough. Complex systems like the earth's atmosphere have inherent unpredictability. They are not like Newton's theory of the solar system, which allows for precise predictions. The solar system is simple because everything rotates around the biggest center of gravity, the sun. Strip out the sun, and all the planets would dance around each other like a chaotic system.

As aeronautics engineer Burt Rutan has pointed out, so-called "climate modeling" is a computer game with too many unknowns. Real scientists keep discovering unexpected climate factors; but if you don't even know your biggest variables, how can you build a model at all? It's playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

Global warming racketeers end up doing science by press release. Their models are rigged, and any time they turn out wrong, they change the model. Then they send out more press releases to equally corrupt jourNOlists, who phone in more scary headlines to the New York Times. Millions of suckered voters end up believing that the sky is falling, and they vote for socialist politicians like Obama to Save the Planet. Obama's election would "stop the rising of the seas."

The super-corrupt left keeps funneling billions in taxpayer dollars to the modeling racketeers who crank out more press releases for even scarier headlines. Human gullibility is the only known perpetual motion machine in existence. It's what liberals are always looking for: an infinitely renewable source of energy.

Global Frauding works like a huge criminal racket, and it should be subject to criminal prosecution, like Bernie Madoff. No wonder George Soros keeps funding the left out of the goodness of his heart. For him it has to be a big profit center. According to Center for Media Research, Soros has spent 48 million dollars funding media. Similar amounts of Soros money are funding all the usual fronts for the radical left, from Moveon.org to The Nation. This is going on while the major media like the New York Times are staggering toward bankruptcy. Soros and friends are buying influence on a huge scale.

For a hedge fund manipulator, that means immense clout to make and break news stories. It's a dirt-cheap investment for huge potential returns. Is Soros using his tame regiments of lefties to make more money? Do bunny rabbits make babies in the woods?

Bad ideas are toxic. It took decades for 19th-century doctors to start washing their hands, because they couldn't believe that microscopic germs might be passing on disease. It was normal for women to die in childbirth. It had been that way for centuries. Washing your hands with soap and boiled water was so laughable it wasn't worth trying. Those doctors might have had humane intentions, but they were fixated on false ideas. Any half-decent scientist knows dozens of cases like that.

Arthur C. Clarke pointed out that major scientific advances are often disputed by world-famous scientists just a few years before they are proven to be right. Wrong ideas are common among honest scientists, but it takes a very nasty mind to peddle science fraud on purpose.

Global Frauding is an assault by the postmodern left on modern science, one of the crown jewels of Western civilization. The po-mo left attacks all Western values -- which is why our museums are proud to feature works of "art" like **** Christ.

Most of all, the postmodern left has assaulted the very concept of truth, the foremost value in science. Without honest science we would not have useful technology, and without 200 years of accumulated technology our lives would still be nasty, brutish, and short.

Global Frauding isn't science; it belongs in the long history of human folly and delusion. The Great South Sea Bubble, Florida swampland, Bernie Madoff, animal magnetism, global warming. They're all popular delusions stoked by greedy demagogues.

Scientists are not immune to greed and corruption.

The prequel to Global Frauding was yet another gift from the delusional left: Jozef Stalin's phony genetics. Led by science fraud Trofim Lysenko, Uncle Joe ordered millions of peasants to force potatoes to get bigger. Once a generation of potatoes was forced to be bigger, the mad notion was that the next generation of potatoes would inherit the genes for bigness. It was forcible labor for plants, a green version of the Siberian labor camps.

The Soviet Union lost the Cold War because it became an ant heap of lies. Everybody had to lie to survive, and the ruling class never knew who was telling the truth. Ever try to run a lemonade stand that way? How about an auto factory?

Lenin and Stalin (and Mao and all the rest) tried the same "Great Leap Forward" fantasy on human beings. Early on, the "New Soviet Man" program tried Pavlovian conditioning to transform millions of ordinary people into Heroes of Soviet Labor. And to their everlasting shame, the Western left celebrated those miraculous achievements.

The left is still delusional. Satellite photos just revealed the size of North Korean concentration camps, estimated at 200,000 prisoners. Even NPR says they are set up to work prisoners to death. So how long does it take NPR to figure out that they've been on the wrong side for all these years?

Obama's greatest intellectual flaw is his failure to understand that the radical left always leads to the abuse of force. In the process of ratcheting up statist control, human beings will start to rebel. The left keeps grasping for more and more power, and the whole story of 100 million innocent victims of Marxism has nothing to do with them.

And yet, the evidence is there, right in front of their eyes. This is not irrelevant to science, because all good science begins and ends with the truth. That's the whole point. Those who cannot face the plain truth of their own historic criminality also want to torpedo honest science. Facing the truth is the last thing the left wants to do. It would crumble of its own inner contradictions, like the Soviet Union.

Marxism itself was supposed to be "scientific." But all of its predictions turned out wrong. Normal people might learn from that experience, but the left never learns. Today, Marxism is again a slyly celebrated subject on college campuses. It makes kids and professors feel grandiose and historic.

Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and Benjamin Rush were world-class scientific minds. Franklin made important strides in the study of electricity. Benjamin Rush was a pioneer in scientific medicine. Jefferson was an all-round innovator and inventor. Can any politician today stand up in that company? The United States has become the world superpower, but the quality of our leaders hasn't kept up.

Obama's attempt to revive Keynesian economics is another case of the same intellectual blind spots. Keynes himself concluded that massive deficit spending failed to cure the Great Depression. It made the hunger and poverty last longer.

On the best evidence we have, socialism failed in the post-colonial world, which is why Russia, China, and India are now following some version of capitalism. Obama's Dreams from My Father is therefore a cruel charade. Obama Sr. got things seriously wrong in Kenya, and denying that plain fact can lead only to more failures.

In ordinary science any remaining debates would be based on those facts. It's only in pseudo-science that you keep repeating a terrible idea over and over, in the face of the evidence.

The goal of science is to discover truth and to get rid of bad ideas. From that point of view, global warming is on par with the bloody tyranny of North Korea, because they are both based on well-known falsehoods. They are different degrees of corruption and malignancy, but they are both driven by socially accepted lies.

Sigmund Freud taught that reality testing was the greatest sign of sanity; all neuroses distort reality. So yes, the left is scientific in one respect -- if your science studies human delusions.

Harvard University fired President Larry Summers for daring to say that boys might have a genetic edge in pure math. Historically more than 90 percent of math geniuses have been young males. They often seem to be mildly autistic; maybe those are the lonely kids who spend their waking hours thinking about pure mathematics instead of playing baseball.

The National Science Foundation is now investing millions of dollars in large-scale experiments on little girls, to make them better at higher math. Nobody seems to be wondering if their normal sociability might be harmed as a result. Whom are those little girls going to talk to? Math whizzes devote thousands of hours to numbers and topology. Does it occur to anybody how lonely those math whizzes often are?

A century ago, left-handed kids were forced to switch to their right hands for writing. It never worked, and that nutty craze ended up with thousands of self-hating adults, who felt there was something terribly wrong with them. Just a decade ago Latino kids were forced to learn in bilingual classes in California -- when parents know that it's hard enough to learn the three Rs in only one language. Today Hispanic kids are running statistically behind the others, maybe because millions of them had to start with a handicap. It's always "idealistic" adults who inflict their nutty fixations on helpless children.

Two centuries after Jefferson, Franklin, and Benjamin Rush, we are now governed by science frauds. Just let that little fact bubble in your mind -- and then do something about it, please. If we don't do anything, nobody will. There's far too much money in scientific fraud for it to go away by itself.

posted September 05, 2011 08:25 AM            

There's a funny story about Barack Obama at Harvard Law, both funny-ha-ha and funny-peculiar. It involves one of those cloud-borne Himalayan intellects of liberalism, Professor Larry Tribe, the Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at one of the most prestigious law schools in the United States. Tribe is the legal giant who is always a bridesmaid but never a bride for the Supremes.

And yea verily, the Professor met and held converse with The Blessed Lightworker Himself back in the nineties. The story doesn't say if they were both stoned out of their minds when they got together, but it's the only explanation I can think of. What happened is so weird and so discreditable to all concerned that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Still, nobody in the liberal media seems to get the joke...which tells you a lot.

Professor Tribe, it appears, made it really big in academic law by writing trendy postmodern articles like "Toward a Syntax of the Unsaid: Construing the Sounds of Congressional and Constitutional Silence," "The Constitution in Cyberspace," "Toward a Metatheory of Free Speech," "Trial by Mathematics," and even "Seven Deadly Sins of Straining the Constitution through a Pseudo-Scientific Sieve," which turned it all into self-parody, because pseudo-science is exactly what made Larry Tribe's big reputation. This academic disease is commonly described as "physics envy." It arises out of academic inferiority complexes, with everybody wanting to do fake physics because that is real science.

If you remember those old po-mo days, that kind of stuff was standard pomotwaddle designed to impress innocent young students and the Board of Trustees. No sane person believed it. Alan Sokal famously hoaxed a po-mo journal into accepting a nonsense physics article, and then revealed their ignorance to the world. Postmodernism never recovered.

Professor Tribe comes right out of a great comedy tradition of long-winded professors spouting obvious claptrap to fool the suckers. Shakespeare used that gag with Polonius in Hamlet. Groucho Marx used it. Moličre became famous for his "scholar" in the suckered Bourgeois Gentleman. Greek and Roman comedy writers used it. Every humorist in history has used that shtick, because it's funny. But it takes a postmodern professor of law to make it real.

By the '90s Larry Tribe had risen to become the Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law, based on the depth and profundity of his cockamamie legal scholarship. I guess. And then, a magical moment in history when great minds meet...it was Michelangelo and Leonardo, Plato and Socrates, Larry, Moe and Curly.

Barack Hussein Obama Barry Soetoro, Jr. walks into Larry Tribe's office.

Now you can't blame Obama for this one. Poor kid, he just wandered into the big professor's office one day, right off the beach at Waikiki by way of LA and Columbia, a real stoner with a chip on his shoulder about race, because that was the in thing to do. It was a great time for radical chic. Racial rage was the way to get into Harvard in the '90s. Here was a black guy, or close enough, and he had a radical idea for Larry Tribe: Why not apply Albert Einstein to Constitutional law? I mean, why not?

Long sucking sound on a fat joint.

Creaky voice from Barry: "Pass it on, man..."

Larry creaks back, "Yeah, man, good s--t."

Barry: "Cosmic! Like, it's Relativity...or Quantum...or ummm... suthin...Albert Einstein, man...lookut..." (laughter all around).

Suddenly, they both have the same idea.

Larry and Barry in unison: "Let's do it, man!"

I wasn't there, but it's the only thing that makes sense.

So Larry wrote up his Harvard Law Review shtick on "The Curvature of Constitutional Law," and the rigorous peer review process at the Law Review went into high gear, and yes, they okayed it. A real contribution to constitutional law.

Through the magic of Google Scholar, you can dig it out and pass it along to your friends. It's destined to become infamous, right along with that German physics lab that started eco-freaks around the world jumping in unison at one second past midnight, 3/31/2008, to make the planet ring real loud. Pass it around, folks. A lot of them tried it, but not quite enough to jar the earth out of orbit. Too bad.

Now, any high school science teacher could have told Professor Tribe how the curvature of space bears on constitutional law: It doesn't. There is not a smidgen of relevance. None. Physics and the law only get together around bloodstains and such, and even then you have to slug your way through chemistry and biology to get there. Wiser heads should have told the Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard, "Don't even go there, Larry -- you'll become a laughingstock." There are real scientists and engineers at Harvard, not to mention students, who can instantly spot the difference between science fantasy and the real thing, and neither have anything to do with the Constitution. So much for getting on the Supremes, Larry. Just don't do it! Don't even think about it.

Larry wrote it up anyway.

Physicist Frank J. Tipler has described Tribe's paper as "crackpot physics," but that was too kind. This is pure out-of-your-mind stone-head Amateur Hour. It makes sense only if you're hallucinating really badly.

And Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. got only a footnote. ("S--t, man, only a footnote? What's the matter, I'm the wrong color or sumthin? You don't want Hussein on that article? You don't like my stash?")

This may be why Elena Kagan was clowning it up for the cameras at the Senate Judiciary Committee rather than for Professor Tribe. Obama never forgets a slight. Plus, even Harvard should be able to spot arrant nonsense from its tenured faculty after three or four decades of reading it. Plus, Larry Tribe looks too heterosexual. Three strikes, you're out!

Still, the lowbrows in Obama's White House and the WaPo still look with superstitious awe at that magic moment in the '90s when two Renaissance Minds met and sparked off a stunning new insight into constitutional law. The stoners at Harvard Crimson were duly impressed, and Moveon.org thought it was Totally Awesome, Man. The Washington Post apostrophized,

Obama analyzed and integrated Einstein's theory of relativity, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to gravity, for a Law Review article that Tribe wrote titled,"The Curvature of Constitutional Space."

Ah, the sophisticates of D.C. were in bliss. Only physicists and engineers around the world were getting rolling fits of the giggles. Axelrod and the WaPo are still honestly proud of that Einstein-and-the-Constitution story, so much that they publicized it in a WaPo puff-piece for El Jefe Supremo. The WaPo and the White House are still dumb enough to believe it, and they have never heard from a real-life high school science teacher to tell them it's all bull pucky.