The Bible demands that we speak the truth: “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor.” For many of us, this author included, speaking the truth can be difficult…some of us live in a rose-colored world and the truth is sometime tricky to determine. However, as we see our world slowly dissemble into chaotic mumblings, something needs to be done.
As we look to our past, we see that one time, truth was the expected standard. President Richard Nixon resigned from his presidential office on August 9, 1974; he apparently resigned due to public objection over his lying to investigators. Of course, his resignation was a sad day for the country; however, years later when President Ronald Reagan told Mikhail Gorbachev, “Tear down this wall!” one wonders how President Nixon’s resignation affected that outcome. The entire world – anyone who could watch the news whether Russian, British, and even French – understood that America stood for “Truth, Justice, and The American Way.” No one in America was exempt from the truth standard, even the President (at the time the President could be considered the most powerful man in the world).
Somewhat later, the people of United States faced another prevaricating President; the President, President Clinton, lied under oath – the entire world heard him say, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representative and was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999. There was no longer a public objection to this lying; in fact, many Americans encouraged this evolutionary idea of a lying President. The most powerful man in the world was/is fast becoming the least restrained. (This double standard makes life very confusing: how can a government pursue and punish corporations for “retirement heist” while they steal openly from Social Security.)
“Truth, Justice, and The American Way” is not only fundamentally important to our social/political environs, but it extends into the very fabric of our epistemology. One of the science façades: there exists the pretense of Darwinism which was successfully disproven in 1962 (unless someone has proven that for every exact phenotype there exist only one exact genotype; these two share no common function and thus cannot be expressed by a limit).
But epistemologically, Darwinism is a system of faith and when disagreeing with operational science will revert, as Bill Clinton did, to questioning the substantiating facts: when confronted with the findings of ENCORE someone stated, “The only way 80% of the genome could have a function is if you define ‘function’ so broadly that just about anything qualifies. That is the main problem with the ENCODE fiasco – their definition of ‘function’ stops just short of ‘can be digested by DNase’.”