A few thoughts spring to mind off the top of my head. I'm no expert, this is all just a hunch, but here are my suspicions:
1. The CIA is like any government agency, a bureaucracy. For the most part, its personnel remain the same regardless of which political party controls the White House or the Hill. There are reasons for this, damned good ones, but pitfalls as well. Remember, a bureaucracy will do everything it must to propagate itself, and nothing more. That's a s true of the CIA as it is of the Post Office or the DMV.
2. The CIA was created to fight a different war. Like the military, the culture and structure of the CIA is based in the Cold War, to play the spy game against the Soviets. Like the Military, much of what the CIA learned about how to do its job against the KGB is completely useless in its efforts against our current enemies. Unlike the Military, when the CIA screws up, CNN isn't usually rolling. When the military makes an operational mistake based on outdated doctrine, the results are usually apparent, painfully so, and thus more quickly and effectively addressed. When the CIA makes such mistakes, they can usually cover it up, at least long enough so that those responsible are long gone. The immediate motivation to fix it rather than CYA is diminished. It takes a mind-bogglingly spectacular disaster, like passenger planes flying into skyscrapers, before anyone really takes notice.
3. While the CIA as an agency is an (ostensibly) apolitical bureaucracy, its poersonnel, like the personnel of ANY bureaucracy, are human beings, and by nature have political leanings. The difference is that in the CIA, these individuals are often equipped with job-related skills and resources that allow them to use their positions politically. I've heard rumblings that many at Langley are no fans of the current party or administration, and the number of tears they've shed over these intelligence "failures" is mitigated by the damage they've done politically.Comment Posted By Brian B On 5.12.2005 @ 17:35
For the record, and for the sake of the argument, when we say "Intelligent Design", what DO we mean? Can we at least define terms so we're all on the same page there?Comment Posted By Brian B On 3.08.2005 @ 15:31
Teaching ID along side evolution would be akin to altering math to teach â€œ2+2=4, because God said so.â€
True enough. Again, what I take exception to is the way that evolution is often presented to the effect of saying,â€œ2+2=4, so there is no God.â€Comment Posted By Brian B On 3.08.2005 @ 15:16
I suppose that over the years, the meaning of the phrase "Intelligent Design" has... well, evolved. otherwise, I must have misunderstood it the first time I heard about it. I was, at least back then, under the impression that it was a subset of the "theistic Evolution" school of thought. If not, I stand corrected.
The big beef many of us have with the way evolution is presented is that it's presented as a foregone conclusion that if life evolved, it must have done so by accident -- it is taken as "gospel" (oops, religious imagery -- my bad) that evolution supports atheism -- not deism (A god who sets things in motion and stands back), CERTAINLY not theism (An actively involved creator God). I encounter this attitude every time the topic of evolution comes up -- from the man on the street on up. Take the time to watch almost any TV documentary on evolution, and you can't miss the implications and often outright claims of such.
But that's simply not true. All evolutionary theory can do is describe how life has evolved. It can NEVER address the issue of why, or who did or did get the ball (or Bang, as it were) rolling.
C.S. Lewis said it best:
"The story told by modern physics might be told briefly in the words 'Humpty Dumpty is falling.' That is, it proclaims itself an incomplete story. There must have been a time before he fell, when when he was sitting on the wall; there must be a time after had reached the ground. It is quite true that science knows of no horses and men who can put him together again once he has reached the ground and broken. But then you wouldn't expect her to. All science rests on observation: all our observations are taken during Humpty Dumpty's fall, because we were born after he lost his seat on the wall and shall be extinct long before he reaches the ground. From the very nature of the case the laws of degradation and disorganization which we find in matter at present cannot be the ultimate and eternal nature of things. If they were, there would have been nothing to degrade and disorganize."
If I believed that anti-religious teachers could keep their yaps shut about the existence or non-existence of God PERIOD, and ONLY teach the part that goes "We observe that this is HOW life developed", I wouldn't have a problem with teaching only evolution. Ain't gonna happen.Comment Posted By Brian B On 3.08.2005 @ 13:23
Yup, the trackback URL for this post is broken.Comment Posted By Brian B On 25.02.2005 @ 19:56
Pages (1) :