Today I was watching television and saw a 'celebrity fact' list; the kind used as filler on so much of the vacuous television that airs today.  It had to do with actor Will Smith.  It went something like this:  'Green Facts about Will Smith.'  It listed a few good things the actor had done, including donating to the Martin Luther King, Jr. museum.  None of the things listed had to do with the environment. Hmmm.

So I realized that I was witnessing the evolution of language; but unlike the theory of evolution, it was not an unguided, random process.  The word 'green' is being used to denote virtue.  Of course, it might just as well be the word 'purple' or 'bookshelf.'  But I see a trend; it isn't that you're green or purple, it's that you aren't.  If one is not green, one is not virtuous.  We know that to refuse to bear the banner of environmentalism leaves us branded earth fascists and nature-haters.  But who knows what will follow?  'He's not very green,' will stop meaning I don't recycle or drive a hybrid.  It will mean that my definitions of virtue are no longer valid.  It will mean that I have failed the modern tests of virtue by failing to adopt ideology and world-views that are considered good and wholesome by an entire generation (or series of generations) to whom virtue has nothing to do with Divine authority, the worth of mankind or any hint of objective truth.  I will be, initially, 'un-green' for failing in my duties to theearth and the non-human creatures and plants that inhabit it, as well as to the 'spirit' of earth that underlies the views of those atheists and agnostics who treat earth as a deity. 
 
But soon enough, I will be less than green for intolerance of gay marriage, support of absolute truth claims; for denying the right to abortion and unfettered sexuality of youth, and for ultimately denying the neo-socialist rhetoric that has young America, and much of old America, in it's red-gloved fist.

I'm not very green.  But I'm good.  And I refuse to accept that transformation of my language.  Green may be a political viewpoint.  And it's certainly a color I love.  But I'm not green.  Because when Kermit said 'it ain't easy being green,' he was more prophet than frog.

Edwin

I am a physician, as my bio says.  Modern medicine is driven by a constant barrage of 'evidence-based' medicine.  What this means is, researchers look at data on illnesses, injuries and treatment, and use statistical analysis to find the best evidence for the best practice.  The idea being, rather than practice based simply on personal experience, we use science in order to give patients the best possible opportunity to be healed, whole and well. 

This approach is fraught with some danger, for in many instances it becomes 'practice by authority.'  'Dr. Whatzit is at Stanford, and everyone knows those Stanford doctors are really smart, and so his idea must be right.'  Often, however, it does result in very good changes in medicine, that are more cost-effective and more successful.

However, the search for truth being what it is, I have to wonder about the future.   Barak Obama's theology suggests that one's search for spiritual truth is relative, and depends on one's own desires and interests.  He holds to a 'many paths to God' worldview.  This is comforting to some, and certainly easier to discuss at parties and political events.  But in terms of the search for truth, it leaves much to be desired. 

The problem is that Western man has decided, quite falsely, that there are two paths in the search for truth.  The spiritual one is more nebulous and ultimately less important, man now seems to say.  On the other hand, the scientific one is critical, holds the key to the future of humanity, and is objectively attainable.  However, our ancestors knew that the search for truth was all part of one effort.  As science increasingly suggests, many of the things we innately believe are right, or believe are right based on spiritual traditions, are in fact scientifically confirmed.  The big-daddy of all of these things being the discovery of the 'Big Bang' theory of cosmology, which reflects the words of Genesis.  'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.'

So where does the search for truth go?  If post-modern man accepts the relativistic view of spiritual truth, how long until he accepts the same about scientific truth?  Well, it's already happened.  Progressive scientists are always willing to 'follow the truth wherever it leads;' until, that is, it leads to a church door, a piece of holy scripture, an unpopular scientific finding or anything that isn't consistent with the tenets of the progressive faith. 

Science is intrigued by the wonders of homosexuality until we see that homosexual men have remarkably shortened lifespans. We aren't to discuss that.  Science tells us that men are naturally polygamous in order to 'spread their genes.'  Science is silent on the cultural disaster of fatherless homes. Science thinks abortion is perfectly safe and healthy, until it finds increased suicidality, subsequent fetal demise, or increased cancer rates in women who had abortions.  Science is also silent on the genocidal nature of abortion among blacks, which is, incidentally, the exact effect desired by Margaret Sanger, patron saint of Planned  Parenthood, who was a racist and eugenicist.  Science knows we need energy to make life better; until it may involve nuclear power, or anything other than wind, wave, solar and geothermal. 

Our leaders increasingly appease those of differing opinions, because 'everyone's truth is their own.'  And even our scientists are willing to avert their eyes from 'truths' that annoy. 

The future of truth, in the West and in the world at large, is in peril.  Because if we don't care, and if there is no objective truth, what's the point in science at all?  And who will define right and wrong?

It may seem glib for a presidential candidate to offer the option of many truths being equal.  But it reflects a larger disdain for truth; or at the very least a larger sense of intellectual sloth and cowardice.  As inheritors of the culture most concerned with truth in the history of all the wide world., we should be petrified. 

Edwin