Rush: God's Creation Is So Complex and So Massive, We Are Insignificant

Rush Limbaugh had a great commentary yesterday that included discussion of the spectacular and devastating eruption of the Chaiten Volcano in southern Chile. Here is a part that I enjoyed:

For those of you buying into this silly compact fluorescent lightbulb scheme, when you look at these pictures from the UK Daily Mail, I want you to try to convince yourself that the type of lightbulb you use matters a hill of beans to anything, when you look at the raw power. And then after you do that, after you ask yourself, after you tell yourself how worthless, how irrelevant, I should say, the kind of lightbulb you use is, I then want to ask you, "Are you one of these people that's bought into this silly notion to unplug your toaster and all of your electronic appliances when you're not using them?"

You might want to do that to save electricity, that's fine. But if you're doing it to save the planet, I want you to take a look these pictures and ask yourself if unplugging your Sunbeam toaster, your Mr. Coffee, your cell phone charger, will matter a hill of beans to the climate of this planet. If you answer yes, you have a serious vanity problem, or worse: Your life is meaningless and you'll be talked into any scheme or hoax to believe in in order to make you think your life has a purpose, such as saving the planet. You're simply helping a bunch of socialists tear down the greatest capitalist system on the face of the planet if you go along with this rotgut garbage.

Amen. Let's sue Al Gore.

'Conservatism cannot hope to strengthen itself by relying on Darwinism’s increasingly shaky empirical foundations'...

John West:

... Biology professor P. Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota, Morris, has demanded “the public firing and humiliation of some teachers” who express their doubts about Darwin. He further says, “It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.”

Whatever one’s personal view of Darwinism, the current atmosphere of intolerance is unhealthy for science, and it’s unhealthy for a free society.

Conservatives who are discomfited by the continuing debate over Darwin’s theory need to understand that it is not about to go away. It is not going away, because the accumulating discoveries of science undercut rather than confirm the claims of neo-Darwinism. It is not going away, because Darwinism fundamentally challenges the traditional Western understanding of human nature and the universe. Finally, it is not going away, because free people do not like to be told that there are some questions they are not allowed to ask and some answers they are not allowed to question.

If conservatives want to address root causes rather than just symptoms, they need to join the debate over Darwinism, not scorn it or ignore it.

Previous:
South Park on evolution...
Coulter exposes Darwinism...
Books to consider...Darwinian Fairytales, by David Stove
A mathematician's approach to the origins of life...

South Park on evolution...

Laugh. Out. Loud.

"and the retard baby was different, so it got to live..."


(h/t AllahPundit)
"So there you go... you're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt-sex with a fish-squirrel. Congratulations."

Outstanding!!!

Previous related:
The Privileged Planet...
An "irritate a liberal" article roundup...
Coulter exposes Darwinism...
Intelligent Design: Ready for prime time? Let's let the kids decide for themselves...
A mathematician's approach to the origins of life...

An "irritate a liberal" article roundup...

Survival of the Fakest (pdf)

Science now knows that many of the pillars of Darwinian theory are either false or misleading. Yet biology texts continue to present them as factual evidence of evolution. What does this imply about their scientific standards?

The black rebellion against fatherlessness

BLACK BOSTON, like black America, is in the midst of a moral and cultural crisis. Forty years after the passage of groundbreaking voting and civil rights legislation, blacks face dire conditions that would have been inconceivable to the generation who came of age during that period.

Church vs. State in our Modern Society

The view that the state is to be thoroughly secular, and not influenced by religious values, especially Christian - was completely foreign to the first 150 years of American political thought. Clearly, the Founding Fathers did not try to expunge every vestige of Christian religion, thought, and values from all facets of public life.

Devising moral destruction

How would you destroy the moral fiber of a nation grounded in moral truth? A nation whose founding document says is predicated on the self-evident truths that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights?

Intelligent design makes sense, complexity of life not accidental

Evolutionary theory is based on the faith belief that millions of such fortunate mutations have occurred, sequentially. This is statistically impossible. It makes Darwin's theory more of a religious belief than science.

If there are truly scientists who believe Darwin's theory, then perhaps they could prove their faith by volunteering to become genetic mutants.

I am not holding my breath for any to volunteer.

This is a tacit admission that there is an intelligence in the universe far in advance of us. This is just common sense. To ignore the obvious is not good science, and to preclude research or a scientific theory because we don't like the conclusion is worse.

Intelligent design does not require the espousing of any religious belief. It only recognizes the obvious — that the incredible complexity of biological life is not accidental, but instead shows evidence of intelligent design.

All intelligent design proponents ask is that it be examined on a scientific basis, just as we do now with its competitor, Darwin's theory of evolution.

Open letter to ABC News: your ‘BIG LIE’ on same-sex marriage

Your news anchor, Charles Gibson, asserted that the American people are “fairly evenly split” on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Yet he did so in the face of your own organization’s poll showing that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to “same-sex marriage” by a margin of 58 to 36 percent.

Making Gibson’s false claim even more outrageous was the fact that on the same broadcast ABC reported that “forty-five of fifty states have passed either constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage.”

Thank God for Moral Violence

Let us make war on the phrase "violence doesn't solve anything." It is a lie, and anyone who utters it cannot be taken morally seriously.

Take, for example, the American use of violence against the Taliban. Thanks to it, Afghani women may get an education, attend public events without a male escort and otherwise ascend above their prior status as captive animals.

‘White Guilt’: America’s race problem In his new book, Shelby Steele, a scholar on race issues, offers a solution. Read an excerpt:

When I woke on that January morning to the sight of President Clinton wagging his finger on the morning news and saying "I never had sex with that woman," I thought two things: that he was lying and that he would be out of office within two weeks. It was a month later that I realized not only that he might survive his entire term but also that his survival, even for a month, already spoke volumes about the moral criterion for holding power in the United States.

Liberals will get us all killed

I don't say it as much anymore and yet there may be nothing more important for our nation to understand than the reality of that statement. Liberals don't have a clear cut sense of right and wrong. They are fuzzy when it comes to moral absolutes, and they sure don't seem to have any clue when it comes to national security.

Don't believe me? Then how 'bout a refresher?

Is America Headed For Decline?

"What one generation allows in moderation," it was once said, "the next accepts in excess." This has certainly been true in America in recent years. Anyone old enough to be raising children has witnessed firsthand the decline of moral standards since the time we were kids. It seems the time-honored notions of courage, honor, sacrifice, responsibility and decency have become a thing of the past.

When Education Fails to Educate

Let's face it. Public education is a mess. Some may even say it is dead. Many subjects being explored and indoctrinated into our children's minds in the public education system these days doesn't even have anything to do with education at all. Just last week the National Education Association (NEA) was debating whether to embrace or endorse same-sex marriage or not. At first the NEA did decide to endorse same-sex marriage, then changed their minds about it and decided not to. Then, at the last moment, they pulled a John Kerry flip flop and changed their minds again. Now the NEA will endorse same-sex marriage. My question is what does same-sex marriage have to do with kids learning math, science, history, and other such subjects?

Crisis of Faith: Episcopal schism reflects wider culture war

The Archbishop of Canterbury last week unveiled plans for a great divorce within the 77-million-strong worldwide Anglican Communion – or at least a formal separation from its American cousin, the Episcopal Church. The split that so many Anglicans have anticipated for so long finally appears to be upon the church – and North Texas Episcopalians are leading the way.

And, like many nasty divorces, this one has to do with sex.

Stem Cell Research: Science or Politics?

It’s important to remember that there is no ban on embryonic stem cells research. Anybody who wants to do it is free to do so, he just can’t do it on the public’s dollar. If it held the promise that proponents claim, top pharmaceutical companies would be vying for chances to throw their research dollars at it. After all, if it worked as promised they could expect to make huge profits. That they don’t see such prospects should tell us something.

The real crisis in American education

The real crisis in American education is that we no longer agree about what a child is. If a child has a soul she requires one kind of education; if she has no soul, it hardly matters what kind of education she receives. If she has a soul, her personal conscience, shaped by transcendent considerations, should guide her in every situation. If she has no soul, the collective will may serve as her compass.

On the Soulful Side: If she has a soul, she has a higher destiny than that of the social order to which she belongs — she out lives it to reach her eternal disposition. When a society understands this it will be structured to help her attain her higher destiny — or at the very least, its institutions will not be allowed to hinder her journey. Hence protections like the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

On the Soulless Side: If she has no soul, society may work upon her to shape her to fit its aims — whatever they may be. Her beliefs, allegiances, sexual energies, religious ties, familial bonds; her very mind, will and emotions are all available to be worked upon by the master planners of her education. Enter the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There is an alternative to Islam’s example

In her essay A Call For Clear Thinking, Ayaan Hirsi Ali urges her fellow Muslims to reject fundamentalism and to embrace the open society

UN Watch Issues Report Card of UN Human Rights Council Inaugural Session

Geneva, June 30, 2006 — UN Watch issued a Report Card (see below ) grading the performance of the UN Human Rights Council's inaugural 2-week session, which has just concluded. "Despite some encouraging indicators," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based NGO, "the Council failed to adopt a single statement for the victims of gross atrocities in Darfur and for millions of other victims around the world."

Children need both a mother and a father at home

Fathers roughhouse and encourage competition and independence. Mothers are gentle and encourage equity and security. Fathers tend toward encouraging risk without consideration of consequences. Mothers tend to avoid risk. Joined together, they keep each other in balance and help children remain safe while expanding their experiences and confidence.

-Home-

Coulter exposes Darwinism...

Wes Vernon says it better than I could...

... The book points out that Darwin "hypothesized [not proved]" that the bat might have evolved from a clumsy squirrel. The idea that we emerged from a monkey (or whatever) has yet to be proven. Human breeders have not produced a single biological structure in the laboratory — let alone a whole new animal species — even under artificial conditions. "No such demonstration exists; none has ever been provided."

---

The idea that we emerged
from a monkey
has yet to be proven.

---

Next, we come to a major fraud that has contributed to the "evolution" theory: the discovery of "a manlike ape that looked like a transitional fossil between ape and man — the long sought after 'missing link.'" For decades, biology textbooks (studied by our kids in liberal "churches" — i.e., government schools) presented this as fact.

In 1953, the "finding" of the "Piltdown Man" (the ancient skull of an apelike man in transition) "was exposed [after decades of respectability in scientific circles] as a complete and utter fraud" and was in fact "from a thousand-year old human fossil and the jaw from an modern orangutan."

Other fakes include "findings" by such "scientists" as the German Ernest Haeckel whose early 20th Century "demonstrations dealt with the "amazing similarity of fish, chickens, and humans to the womb." His work too appeared in biology textbooks in government "churches," even after embryonist Michael Richardson discovered in the 1990s that Haeckel had "used the same woodcuts for some of the embryos and doctored others to make sure that the embryos looked alike." Said Richardson: "It looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology."

---

it's turning out to be
one of the most famous
fakes in biology

---

Haeckel, by the way, had other theories as to how man emerged. Among them was his "scientific" claim that "wooly-haired Negroes" were psychologically nearer to the animals (apes and dogs) than to civilized Europeans...[and therefore] we must....assign a totally different value to their lives."

In fact, there are more than tenuous links between evolution theories and those of Nazism. As Coulter puts it, "From Marx to Hitler, the men responsible for the greatest mass murders of the twentieth century were avid Darwinists." As evidence of this, one can site Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler, wherein the author traces the evidence that eugenics organizations in Germany at the dawn of the 20th Century touted "scientific" theories of the laws of evolution.

---

the men responsible for the
greatest mass murders of the twentieth century
were avid Darwinists

---

As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, "Everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again, and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscious of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as 'instinct.'"

Coulter writes, "It is impossible to understand Hitler's monstrous views apart from his belief in natural selection applied to races. He believed Darwin's theory of natural selection showed that 'science' justified extermination of the Jews."

And here, the author gets closer to home and contemporary society when she notes that many abusers, politically correct advocates, sexual profligates, racists, and "animal rights nuts" eventually gravitate to Darwinism.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, believed in Darwinism. In fact, she cited Darwinism to support her crusades for birth control. She was also a eugenicist. Call it pure happenstance, if you will, but Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S., and — coincidence or not — about 36% of aborted babies in this country are black. Blacks make up only 12-14% of the United States population.

Hitler's own opposition to abortion, as Weikart explains, was not based on the tenets of Judeo-Christian morality, "but rather was a complete repudiation of them." As Coulter writes, "He didn't oppose abortion because he believed in the human soul. In fact, and needless to say, he didn't oppose abortion for everyone, only 'Aryans.'"

For 80 years now, we have heard over and over again about the Scopes "monkey trial" in Tennessee wherein the story is told of how the evolutionists made monkeys out of the creationists. Clarence Darrow — for the evolutionists — was the hero who destroyed the credibility of the dottering three-time Democrat presidential wannabe William Jennings Bryan. He is one of the more famous of defeated presidential candidates in history, second only to Barry Goldwater whose ultimate influence was arguably more long-lasting.

---

It turns out that the whole monkey trial
was nothing but a publicity stunt

---

It turns out that the whole monkey trial was nothing but a publicity stunt to put the town of Dayton, Tennessee, on the map. Everyone involved was in on the showmanship — Darrow, Bryan, all of them (though Bryan likely would have preferred better PR). It was plotted by the ACLU and eagerly embraced by the city fathers and Chamber of Commerce types. This is all told in detail in the book Summer for the Gods, where Edward Larson explains how the circus (that's exactly what it was) was set up. Hollywood, of course, perpetrated that historical hoax with no less than four productions of Inherit the Wind, in which the trial is portrayed as a real watershed confirming the most sacred belief of what Coulter identifies as the "liberal religion." ...

The complete article... here.

William Dembski too...

... Liberals’ absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution’s scientific validity and everything to do with their refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.

From Ann Coulter herself in Godless:

On Darwinism: Liberals creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.

On the fossil record: The preposterous conceit that the fossil record has produced a mosaic of organisms consistent with evolution except for the occasional "gap" is absurd. Evolution is nothing but a gap. It's a conjecture about how species might have arisen that is contradicted by the fossil record and by nearly everything we have learned about molecular biology since Darwin's day.

On religion "vs." evolution: The only religious belief driving opinions about evolution is atheism. God can do anything, including evolution. But the value of Darwinism for atheists is that it is the only way they can explain why we are here. (It's an accident!) If evolution doesn't work out for them, they'll have to expand on theories about extraterrestrials or comets bringing life to earth.

On Darwinism and Nazism: Hitler's embrace of Darwinism is not a random fact, unrelated to the reason we know his name. It is impossible to understand Hitler's monstrous views apart from his belief in natural selection applied to races. He believed Darwin's theory of natural selection showed that "science" justified the extermination of the Jews.

On Darwinism's appeal to liberals: Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it's "science," which they hate, but out of wishful thinking. Darwinism lets them off the hook morally. Do whatever you feel like doing - screw your secretary, kill Grandma, abort your defective child - Darwin says it will benefit humanity! Nothing is ever wrong as long as you follow your instincts. Just do it - and let Mother Earth sort out the winners and losers.

More Godless quotes... here.

-Home-

Books to consider...Darwinian Fairytales, by David Stove

In Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution, philosopher David Stove is relentless and surgically precise in his ability to take apart the shallow and flimsy arguments that pass for Darwinian "scholarship" these days. But Stove is not your average creationist or proponent of intelligent design: he is a not a Christian (or a believer in any religion), and declares forthrightly that Darwin was a genius. That's why it's all the more compelling when Stove, working purely from sound reasoning and a sober evaluation of the evidence, explains clearly why Darwinism is unsound, overstated, and ultimately unbelievable - no one can accuse him of mere party spirit or partisan cheerleading.

Stove skewers modern defenders of Darwinism such as E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins, refuting their false assertions and faulty assumptions with blistering logic and devastating wit. He shows the hollowness of generally accepted Darwinian notions such as "Every organism has as many descendants as it can"; "Anything that hurts chances for survival will be rooted out by the process of natural selection"; "People who are prosperous and fortunate will have more children than the poor and disadvantaged"; and more.

Darwinian Fairytales breaks through the doctrinaire cant that still surrounds Darwinian myths -- making it the one book to read in order to understand how to refute the tired but still influential Darwinian arguments that continue to dominate the popular discourse.

"Darwinian Fairytales" debunked:

Why the human race wouldn't even exist today if one of Darwin's core assumptions was actually true

The Darwinian conception of life: how it rests on assumptions that are denied by Darwinism itself

How Darwin misread evidence of the differences between civilized and savage men that he found among the Yahgan Indians of Tierra del Fuego -- leading him to disastrously mistaken conclusions

How Darwinism depends on discredited Malthusian theories about how population growth would ultimately outstrip food production

Four ways in which the Malthus/Darwin theory that reproduction is the primary focus of human endeavor is false

Why even the best available explanation of certain matters may still be false and incomplete

How Darwinism overestimates human selfishness and disregards overwhelming evidence that humans are more altruistic than the theory allows for

Why the Darwinian struggle for life simply does not exist in human populations

How Darwin's theory regarding population growth is exactly the opposite of what the evidence actually shows

How the Darwinians actually overestimate the differences between human beings and animals in formulating their theories

Richard Dawkins' popular theory of the "selfish gene": why it ranks among the most absurd of the many absurd contemporary defenses of Darwinism

How Darwinians contradict themselves by describing adaptations as designed for certain purposes, while simultaneously denying that they mean that those adaptations were ever intended

The glaring factual error Darwin -- and later Darwinians -- make regarding the incidence and importance of child mortality in various species

Enlightenment views of man: how they always exaggerate quite ridiculously the amount that education can achieve

The inclusive fitness theory, which affirms a Darwinian "dog eat dog" view of human interaction: its many absurdities

Proof that - contrary to a core principle of Darwinism - cooperation has always been more common than competition among human beings

How the Darwinian idea that human life, and indeed all life, is devoted primarily to reproducing as much as possible is absurd, reductionist, and ultimately opposed to all human creativity and achievement

"Whatever your opinion of 'Intelligent Design', you'll find Stove's criticism of what he calls 'Darwinism' difficult to stop reading. Stove's blistering attack on Richard Dawkins' 'selfish genes' and 'memes' is unparalleled and unrelenting. A discussion of spiders who mimic bird droppings is alone worth the price of the book. Darwinian Fairytales should be read and pondered by anyone interested in sociobiology, the origin of altruism, and the awesome process of evolution." - Martin Gardner, author of Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience

(Book description from Human Events Book Service)

-Home-

A couple of must-see videos from yesterday - Gitmo & Coulter book banning...

First, Bill O'Reilly does a fantastic job interviewing one of the interrogators at Guantanamo. You can read Bill's talking points here.

It's easy to be struck by the professionalism of this man, and it's equally difficult to imagine how so many on the left can seem to be siding with the terrorists held there.

Today's Vent is a good one on the subject of the suicides that occured just hours after O'Reilly's interview..."Boo Freakin Hoo" indeed.

Then there's this performance last night on H&C (thanks to Ian at Expose the Left), with Ann Coulter and Michael Panter, who is trying to get "Godless" off of bookstore shelves in NJ.

When faced with the simple question of whether or not Mother Sheehan's many comments likening Bush to a Nazi were considered equally "over the line" by Panter...he filibustered. The double-standard is now in the spotlight. Where is/was the MSM indignation with nasty, irresponsible, unsubstantiated comments from Durbin, Kerry, Sheehan, Berg, Dean, etc...? At least Ann backs her opinions up with facts!!!

Some Coulter quotes for those who now think that all of Ann's new book is about calling out 4 of the 9/11 widows:

Coulter on the Supreme Court: In 1992, the Court ruled it "unconstitutional" for a Reform rabbi to give a nonsectarian invocation at a high school graduation ceremony on the perfectly plausible grounds that Rhode Island was trying to establish Reform Judaism as the official state religion. (Opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy.) Yes, those scheming Jews have had their eyes on the Ocean State for as long as I can remember.

On crime: Whether it is building prisons, mandatory sentencing, three-strikes laws, or the death penalty, if it has to do with punishing criminals, Democrats are against it. Liberals prefer treatment, rehabilitation, alternatives to prison, even creative alternatives to prison -- but not prison! That would be "blaming the perpetrator."

On prisons: Between 1995 and 2005, the prison population grew by 30 percent, meaning an additional half million criminals were behind bars, rather than lurking in dark alleys with switchblades. You can well imagine liberals' surprise when the crime rate went down as more criminals were put in prison. The New York Times was reduced to running querulous articles with headlines like "Number in Prison Grows Despite Crime Reduction" and "As Crime Rate Drops, the Prison Rate Rises and the Debate Rages."

On public schools: Public schools are forbidden from mentioning religion not because of the Constitution, but because public schools are the Left's madrassas... At least the crazy Muslims get funding from Saudi Arabia for their madrassas. Liberals force normal Americans to pay for their religious schools.

On the media's ignorance of religion: In another interview, [the Rev. Richard John] Neuhaus told a reporter that political corruption had "been around ever since that unfortunate afternoon in the garden." The reporter mulled it over before asking, "What garden was that?" In defense of the American educational system, every single one of these reporters knew how to put on a condom.

On abortion: No matter what else they pretend to care about from time to time - undermining national security, aiding terrorists, oppressing the middle class, freeing violent criminals - the single most important item on the Democrats' agenda is abortion. Indeed, abortion is the one issue the Democratic Party is willing to go to war over - except in the Muslim world, which is jam-packed with prohibitions on abortion, because going to war against a Muslim nation might also serve America's national security objectives.

On liberals' obsession with Fox News: Fox News isn't even particularly conservative, though it is recognizably American. I believe the one verified atrocity committed by Fox News was the wearing of American flag lapel pins after 9/11. Assuming - against all evidence - that Fox News is every bit as conservative as CBS is liberal, it is still just a small beachhead in a universe of liberal-speak. But the mere existence of one solitary network that doesn't toe the party line has driven the Left insane.

On Cindy Sheehan: Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on Entertainment Tonight, you're not longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show. At that point, you're longer mourning, you're "branding."

On public school teachers: We are simultaneously supposed to gasp in awe at teachers' raw dedication and be forced to listen to their incessant caterwauling about how they don't make enough money. Well, which is it? Are they dedicated to teaching or are they in it for the money? After all the carping about how little teachers are paid, if someone enters the teaching profession for the big bucks, aren't they too stupid to be teaching our kids?

On Darwinism: Liberals creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God.

On the fossil record: The preposterous conceit that the fossil record has produced a mosaic of organisms consistent with evolution except for the occasional "gap" is absurd. Evolution is nothing but a gap. It's a conjecture about how species might have arisen that is contradicted by the fossil record and by nearly everything we have learned about molecular biology since Darwin's day.

On religion "vs." evolution: The only religious belief driving opinions about evolution is atheism. God can do anything, including evolution. But the value of Darwinism for atheists is that it is the only way they can explain why we are here. (It's an accident!) If evolution doesn't work out for them, they'll have to expand on theories about extraterrestrials or comets bringing life to earth.

On Darwinism and Nazism: Hitler's embrace of Darwinism is not a random fact, unrelated to the reason we know his name. It is impossible to understand Hitler's monstrous views apart from his belief in natural selection applied to races. He believed Darwin's theory of natural selection showed that "science" justified the extermination of the Jews.

On Darwinism's appeal to liberals: Liberals subscribe to Darwinism not because it's "science," which they hate, but out of wishful thinking. Darwinism lets them off the hook morally. Do whatever you feel like doing - screw your secretary, kill Grandma, abort your defective child - Darwin says it will benefit humanity! Nothing is ever wrong as long as you follow your instincts. Just do it - and let Mother Earth sort out the winners and losers.

Beautiful.

-Home-

Intelligent Design: Ready for prime time? Let's let the kids decide for themselves...

BreakPoint is a great resource if you haven't checked it out before, and Prison Fellowship - led by Mark Earley - is a fantastic organization. Check them out.

Here is a piece of Chuck Colson's latest on "Science and Democracy":

Virginia Commonwealth University recently released the results of its “Life Sciences Survey,” which measures public attitudes toward scientific issues. Among the issues asked about was the “origin of biological life.”

By nearly a 5-1 margin, people believe that God, either “directly” or by guiding the process, was responsible for the “origin of biological life.” Only 15 percent agreed with teaching a strictly materialistic explanation.

Most Americans, you see, favor a “pluralistic approach to teaching about origin of life in public schools.” In this “pluralistic approach,” sometimes called “teaching the controversy,” students would be exposed to various explanations.

These polling results cause weeping and gnashing of teeth among doctrinaire Darwinists, who see it as evidence of irrationality or superstition among ordinary Americans. Some even suggest that America’s leadership in science and technology is threatened by these “unscientific” attitudes.

Nonsense! What’s on display is not irrationality or disdain for science: It’s simply a reflection of the innate human understanding of God—what theologians call the imago Dei. Years of propaganda by scientists and teachers can’t erase it, and it’s also a recognition of the limits of science.

Read the whole article here.

Listen (Windows Media Player) here.

Click here to listen to a recent interview of Mark Earley by one of my favorites...Bill Bennett.

-Home-

7 books to consider...

Please check out...

Manliness, by Harvey Mansfield
A Time for Freedom, by Lynne Cheney
An Army of Davids, by Glenn Reynolds
Without Roots, by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) and Marcello Pera
Darwinian Fairytales, by David Stove
Help Mom! Hollywood is in my hamper!, by Katharine DeBrecht
The Real Jimmy Carter, by Steven Hayward

(click on any image below for more information)










-Home-

A guided tour to an un-enchanted world called "Liberal Land"...

A Virtual Visit to Liberal Land
By Rob Hood (03/29/2006)

...The Red State Army has announced that it has began sending in troops highly skilled in truth-telling, blogging, and internet fundraising. The scheduled date of rescue for the college kids and the Supreme Court is in November of 2006. They will return in November of 2008 to finish the job. The primary goals of this army is to install a new democratic government to replace the ruling party of Liberal Land.

It will happen like this: The Red State Army will:

1)stamp out communism by taking away tax money from ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and other unofficial government installations.

2) Weed out any sign of Political Correctness and arm every citizen with an old dictionary of real world terms.

3) Eradicate any form of socialism and replace it with a more competitive form of modern day capitalism where the public at large benefits.

4) Expose the Media for what they are: liberals with an attitude problem and a dark,evil agenda.

5) Outlaw the "fairness doctrine" and all it stands for and replace it with a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech.

6) tear down the Baal idols of worship and replace them with an unheard of religion called Christianity and instill into the minds of the young and moral right and wrong, a good and an evil.

7) make Israel the center of the world by helping the innocent people reclaim what was given to them by God over 3000 years ago.

8) laugh hysterically about anything related to evolution and replace it with what really happened in the beginning : CREATION!

9) Replace the Brady/Soros/Martin Bunch with people who want real freedom and the right to bear arms. The Red State Army will destroy translate all documents related to something called a "Brady law" by using highly trained Political Correctness Translation Technicians. These outdated and inhumane rulings will be replaced by a constitution that will consist of an amendment that will guarantee all law abiding citizens the right to bear arms.

10) infiltrate "Undocumented Immigrant" Drive and collect billions in unpaid taxes owed by illegal aliens.

These are real goals and were are so close to obtaining them. I hope that this tour of this far away land has helped you realize how lucky you are to live in a free society that can blog freely, worship Jesus Christ and the resurrected Son of God (especially at Christmas) without persecution, and to just be an American. Remember to be on the "right" side of the election this November.

-Home-

A mathematician's approach to the origins of life...

Intelligent Design is may not be scientific, but Darwinian evolution may not be either. Many people assume that critics of Darwin's theory of evolution...assumed by many to be fact despite countless unknowns...are all religiously biased proponents of Intelligent Design. Not true.

Click here to read an interesting article called "God by the Numbers - Coincidence and random mutation are not the most likely explanations for some things", by Charles Edward White posted on ChristianityToday.com

...The fine-tuning of the universe is shown in the precise strengths of four basic forces. Gravity is the best known of these forces and is the weakest, with a relative strength of 1. Next comes the weak nuclear force that holds the neutron together. It is 1034 times stronger than gravity but works only at subatomic distances. Electromagnetism is 1,000 times stronger than the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force, which keeps protons together in the nucleus of an atom, is 100 times stronger yet. If even one of these forces had a slightly different strength, the life-sustaining universe we know would be impossible.

If gravity were slightly stronger, all stars would be large, like the ones that produce iron and other heavier elements, but they would burn out too rapidly for the development of life. On the other hand, if gravity were weaker, the stars would endure, but none would produce the heavier elements necessary to form planets.

The weak nuclear force controls the decay of neutrons. If it were stronger, neutrons would decay more rapidly, and there would be nothing in the universe but hydrogen. However, if this force were weaker, all the hydrogen would turn into helium and other elements.
The electromagnetic force binds atoms to one another to form molecules. If it were either weaker or stronger, no chemical bonds would form, so no life could exist.

Finally, the strong nuclear force overcomes the electromagnetic force and allows the atomic nucleus to exist. Like the weak nuclear force, changing it would produce a universe with only hydrogen or with no hydrogen.

In sum, without planets, hydrogen, and chemical bonds, there would be no life as we know it...

---

without planets, hydrogen,
and chemical bonds, there would be
no life as we know it

---

Darwin thought that all life, including humans, arose from a one-celled organism. But to get from a one-celled organism to a human being with a least a trillion cells, there would have to be many changes. Darwin says these changes were produced at random, but they would have had to occur in the right order. It doesn't do any good to give an organism a leg until it has a nervous system to control it. Even if we limit the number of necessary mutations to 1,000 and argue that half of these mutations are beneficial, the odds against getting 1,000 beneficial mutations in the proper order is 21000. Expressed in decimal form, this number is about 10301.

10301 mutations is a number far beyond the capacity of the universe to generate. Even if every particle in the universe mutated at the fastest possible rate and had done so since the Big Bang, there still would not be enough mutations.

---

Even if every particle in the universe
mutated at the fastest possible rate...
there still would not be enough mutations

---

There are about 1080 elementary particles in the universe. The fastest they could mutate would be Planck time, or 10-42 seconds. Planck time is the smallest unit of time and can be approximated as the time it would take two photons traveling at 186,000 miles per second to pass each other. If every particle in the universe (1080) had been mutating at the fastest possible rate (1042) since the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago, or 1017 seconds ago, it would produce 1080 x 1042 x 1017 or 10139 mutations. But to have a chance at even 1,000 beneficial mutations takes 10301 tries. Thus, the chance of getting 1,000 beneficial mutations out of all the mutations the universe can generate is 10139 divided by 10301, or 1 chance in 10162.

For Darwin's theory to have a chance of being right, the universe would have to be a trillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times older than it is. Because the universe is so young, Darwin's argument fails, and William Paley's contention that design presupposes a designer becomes more persuasive...

---

Because the universe is so young,
Darwin's argument fails

---

Today, numbers from astronomy, biology, and theoretical mathematics point to a rational mind behind the universe. To be sure, they do not point to the personal God of the Bible as such. Yet they are not inimical to the biblical God, either. The apostle John prepared the way for this conclusion when he used the word for logic, reason, and rationality—logos—to describe Christ at the beginning of his Gospel: "In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was with God, and the logos was God." When we think logically, which is the goal of mathematics, we are led to think of God.