Black Box Report

Somewhere on the road between Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney is sitting alone in the back of the MittMobile, staring quietly at his checkbook and wondering, "...What the #%$@*&! just happened?" And what happened was the Huckaboom, with Slick Mitt getting punked by plain spoken Mike Huckabee, who had God as his co-pilot:

It seems that the voters in Iowa actually appreciated the fact that…Huckabee might have sincere religious principles, rather than the usual Republican tendency to trot out "moral values" which would never ever mean providing...care to the poor if it meant not cutting...taxes for the super-rich.

So congratulations to Huck. For an overwhelmingly white, older and evangelically-tinged state like Iowa (much like Huck himself), he was the right man in the right place and time. Unfortunately, this may be as god as it gets from here out:

A Huckabee nomination could conceivably destroy the party. Not only would he be lucky to break 40 percent in the general election against any of the plausible Democrat(s)…but many fiscal conservatives…would bolt…Huckabee's mobilization of fervent evangelicals…scares the hell out of mainstream Republicans.

For the GOP, it's one thing to sweet-talk a group like the religious right, but quite another to make one of them the standard bearer for the party. And the rest of the party Is. Not. Happy.

Dear Iowa Republicans,

I’ll put this in language even your tiny little Iowa brains can understand: What the f*** is wrong with you people?

The news coming out of Des Moines (literally, French for “tell me about the rabbits, George”) tonight is distressing in the extreme. 32 years ago, your Democratic brethren took one look at Jimmy Carter -- the worst 20th Century President bar Nixon, and the worst ex-President ever -- and declared, “That’s our man!”

Three decades later, and along comes Mike Huckabee. Same moral pretentiousness, same gullibility on foreign affairs, only-slightly-less toothy idiot’s grin. Then you so-called Republicans took a look at Carter’s clone and said, “That’s our man, too!”

And by a pretty wide margin.

...But Mike Huckabee? Really? We’ve seen this game before, and its name is... every other single stupid, un-winnable candidate you’ve ever picked -- which is most of them.

So I repeat the question: What is wrong with you people?

All my love, you corn-sucking idiots,

VodkaPundit

Gee, remember when, seemingly against all common sense and self-interest, Middle America voted to re-elect George W. Bush, and conservatives delighted in chastising liberals for being upset at the decisions of those good heartland folks? Good times.

So Huck better watch his back - he's just made himself the prime target of Republican long knives. As a surging anomaly without a win, he was merely a pest. As the undisputed winner of the first Big Mo, he's a dangerous threat. And so, with that in mind, who's in the best shape coming out of Iowa? Surprisingly, it may be...John McCain, by default:

McCain had a pretty poor night...coming in fourth behind the comatose Fred Thompson. But let's not kid ourselves...there's simply no one left...The best financed candidate just fell on his face. Their big winner of the evening is opposed by almost the entire establishment of his party. The frontrunner of recent months is lost down in Florida shakily repeating '9/11' under his breath like a hobo who needs a stiff drink. McCain's just the only guy left.

4th place never looked so good

Faith demands no proof. Having faith in something like creationism requires nothing other than you believe that it happened. Science, however, does require proof. That's why they call it science and teach it in schools, where provable facts are important things:

Schools science classes are no place for religious arguments. Evolution does not destroy religion it ignores it. The evidence for humans being alive on Earth for much more than 6,000 years is impossible to refute.

Ever since Galileo was put in jail for suggesting the earth revolved around the sun, science has been attacked by those who prefer not to have their faith questioned, and proponents of evolution should expect to be treated no differently:

In order to support biblical creationism, it's not enough to critique biology - you've got to get right down to the roots and revise all of physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy to take down the perfidious lies of the League of Scientists.

Or in this case, the National Academy of Sciences, who have advocated evolution, not creationism be taught in schools. Not surprisingly, defenders of the faith are wishing those scientists would just mind their own business:

Since when did it become the business of scientists to engage in public relations to sell their work and to produce reports aimed at acceptance by special groups? That's what happens when scientists go beyond presenting the evidence and begin marketing their own presumptions and prejudices.

Actually, it became their business when others started marketing their faith as science, which as I mentioned earlier, it isn't. That's why it's called faith. But are the two really so incompatible? The blog Conservative Donnybrook doesn't think so:

I, for one, believe in evolution. It seems clear that animals, plants, fungus and bacteria evolve and change over time. I also believe that God intended it this way. I therefore, believe that evolution ought to be taught to our youngsters. Whether the hand of God controls or implemented the process is best left to Sunday school teachers and parents.

There, was that so difficult?