DONE With Eagle Forum

A week later, I finally will finish covering the Eagle Forum. After Mark Krikorian, Dr. Benjamin Wiker spoke on "The Darwin Myth." I went into this session very wary of what he would say -- and he surprised me by speaking of how Darwin wrote his Origin of Species to exclude God, while other scientists of the time saw evolution as demonstrative of God's hand. Dr. Wiker spent most of his time pointing out the ways in which the philosophical idea of Darwinism has taken over the scientific theory of evolution. He compared it to the way Marxism could have taken over economics.

I admired not only his presentation of the facts, but also the careful way he skirted around the divisive issue: whether or not evolution happened. From a couple remarks, I garnered that he gave credence to the theory, but he did not focus on it. Unfortunately, during the Q&A, rather than focusing on the main point of his lecture, the conflation of atheism and science, his questioners zeroed in on evolution. As we had with global warming, we ended up a number of non-scientists feeling qualified to make a definitive judgment on science.

Next, Kristan Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America, and my summer boss, spoke about pro-life issues. As enthusiast as ever and speaking faster than her words could come out, she gave the crowd a talking-to about their own apathy. She's my boss, so no critique coming here. My favorite thing that she said: "For $300 I could've never been here. And the same goes for everyone in this room." A very chilling thought.

Next, we had a variety speakers, none of which caught me quite as much as the first three. How to use the internet for networking, the specifics on Cap and Trade (based on someone's "evolving feelings on global warming"), missile defense ("it's probably the only system the Pentagon makes that doesn't kill life forms"), grassroots activism.

Robert Rector spoke on marriage as a "remedy for poverty." Long and short of it, 39% of children are born out of wedlock and most of these to uneducated, minority women. If single mothers married the fathers of their children (one per single mother!) the rate of poverty would drop by 60%. In answer to a question from yours truly, Rector added that this decrease is not simply due to dual income: men earn more when they are married with children. We need to teach young women the value of having children within marriage. Again, I learned that liberals hate marriage and so enforce policies to break it down. My problem: as a sociological phenomenon, it interests me and certainly shows how the morally upright path can be best for society (imagine that!); however, to make policy based on these facts seems similar to saying, "Marry for money." Also, if we're placing such high value on the male income, it supports homosexual marriage between two men, something Rector would not advocate.

Finally, we had another student panel. It consisted of three students, two of whom were good speakers, but all of whom spoke to a crowd that did not include me, mocking liberal policy (allowable) and the underlying values (the bit that irked me).

However, one of the students gave me the best quote from the weekend. Yes, even better that liberals are "exquisitely selfish." One of the young ladies stated, in reference to the "Vote for Jesus" posters:

"I love Jesus. He's King of the world. But He's never going to be president of the United States."