Remembering those we lost on 9/11

"In this time of need, it is the greatest of heroes who step up to meet the challenge. Never forget 9/11/2001."


Please keep the survivors in your prayers today.

Britney’s performance at the MTV Video Music Awards

After listening to the news this morning, my heart really went out to Britney. I can’t help but think that the best choice she could make would be to put her present lifestyle to rest and get out of the entertainment industry altogether.



I’ve been reading a book by Philip Yancy, titled Where is God When it Hurts. It’s an excellent book, and ties in with the ID debate quite nicely.

After hearing about Britney this morning, I thought about something I read from the book last night in regard to pain and pleasure and the intimate connection that link the two. I highly recommend reading the book for a better understanding of that connection, but here is a portion I wanted to share:

Jesus captured succinctly the paradoxical nature of life in his one statement most repeated in the Gospels: “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Such a statement goes against the search for “self-fulfillment” in advanced psychology - which turns out to be not advanced enough. Christianity offers the further insight that true fulfillment comes, not through ego satisfaction, but through service to others. And that brings me to the last illustration of the pain/pleasure principle: the Christian concept of service.

In my career as a journalist, I have interviewed diverse people. Looking back, I can roughly divide them into two types: stars and servants. The stars include NFL football greats, movie actors, music performers, famous authors, TV personalities, and the like. These are the people who dominate our magazines and our television programs. We fawn of them, poring over the minutiae of their lives: the clothes they wear, the food they eat, the aerobic routines they follow, the people they love, the toothpaste they use.

Yet I must tell you that, in my limited experience, these “idols” are as miserable a group of people as I have ever met. Most have troubled or broken marriages. Nearly all are hopelessly dependent on psychotherapy. In a heavy irony, these larger-than-life heroes seem tormented by incurable self-doubt.

I have also spent time with servants. People like Dr. Paul Brand, who worked for twenty years among the poorest of the poor, leprosy patients in rural India. Or health workers who left high-paying jobs to serve in Medenhall Ministries in a backwater town of Mississippi. Or relief workers in Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, or other such repositories of world-class human suffering. Or the Ph.D.’s scattered throughout jungles of South America translating the Bible into obscure languages.

I was prepared to honor and admire these servants, to hold them up as inspiring examples. I was not, however, prepared to envy them. But as I now reflect on the two groups side by side, stars and servants, the servants clearly emerge as the favored ones, the graced ones. They work for low pay, long hours, and no applause, “wasting” their talents and skill among the poor and uneducated. But somehow in the process of losing their lives, they have found them. They have received the “peace that is not of this world.”

The Better to Hear You with My Dear

The mouse with a human ear growing on its back proved just how far science could, or would, go. The experiment saw a biodegradable, synthetic frame planted on the mouse; human cells were added to the frame and nourished by the mouse to produce, in effect, a real ear. With an ear-to-body ratio of about eighty percent, he's probably a very good listener.

Freaky...and icky.

Expelled to New York

Can't imagine a better place to do a little advertising than Time Square.

The movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, will be released to major movie theatres in February...just in time for Darwin's birthday!

Yesterday, I finally had a chance to listen to a podcast interview with the producer of the movie. It sounds like this should be a highly controversial flick.

After listening to Part 1 and Part 11 of the podcast interview, you'll be chomping at the bit to see the movie on the big screen.

February can't come soon enough...

Teaching ID & Creation Science...can we?

Although Darwin supporters will claim that, due to the Kitzmiller case, ID cannot be taught in our science classroom, that ruling does not seem to stop ardent supporters of evolution from actually including both ID and creation science in their class schedules. In fact, it seems that there has been a push to teach both in intro. biology classes. Although, it would be questionable as to whether the students will be getting an accurate picture of the theory.

PZ Myers has adapted his biology class to include ID & creation science. From the syllabus provided at his site, it appears that the topic will be given as much time as other sections of the course. Check out his schedule for yourself. It appears that ID and creation science will be addressed during week 8:

Week 8 / Oct. 16-18

Creationism and Intelligent Design Science and culture in conflict. Social origins of creationist beliefs; common arguments refuted.

This is an interesting approach...teach ID, or rather spin it to your liking, and conflate it with creation science. This, I've been told, is legal because, although Judge Jones ruled that ID isn't science, it evidently doesn't mean that the topic cannot be broached in science classrooms.

It's interesting that it's acceptable for an anti-ID professor to use a week of classes to cover the topic, yet the Dover school district was not allowed to read these 4 paragraphs before the subject of evolution was covered in class:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. At theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the Origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses up on preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

I still remained shocked that those four paragraphs could lead to a million dollar lawsuit. But, regardless of that ruling, it appears that college professors are allowed to cover the subject.

Now, this is good to know because I'm certain there are teachers in other universities or even high schools who might have a different understanding of what ID actually entails. Surely not all teachers agree with PZ's spin on the facts surrounding ID. I believe it would be equally acceptable for them to include in their schedule an allotted time to cover the issues as well. Oh, and certainly after explaining the theory, they would share Jones ruling in which *he* concluded that "ID is not science". That would keep it all nice and legal. Shoot, they could even share the fact that much of Jones ruling was copied verbatim from the trial lawyer's notes.

I would think that the next teacher or school board that is taken to court due to addressing these topics in class would merely have to point to the evolutionists teaching the subject and the case should be thrown out. Both are teaching what ID entails, and both are sharing JJ's ruling that ID isn't science. For those educators who remain open to academic freedom, I believe after sharing the facts, I'd ask the students whether they agree with Jones' decision after what they've learned about the topic in class.

Yeah, I'm glad PZ has opened the door to this option...what's legal for one guy is surely legal for all.

Mice Thrive Missing Ancient DNA Sequences

I noticed this article posted at Science Daily today, and remembered someone in the comments section of Uncommon Descent mentioning this recent “knock-out” test on mice.


I was searching all over the place trying to find some feedback about it, and UP pops Davescot’s post at UD.

From the Science Daily article:

The discovery that deletion of ultraconserved elements does not render mice unviable or infertile is a major challenge to our understanding of how highly conserved elements of the genome persist and what their functions are, says Ahituv. He and his colleagues are pursuing research aimed at answering these compelling new questions.

Can anyone say front loading?

The Dawkins Delusion, Alister McGrath

Here is an interesting exchange with Alister McGrath, the author of The Dawkins Delusion.

Dawkins gives them [atheists] a simple way of looking at life: people who believe in God are mad, bad and sad; atheists are bold, brilliant, and brave. You don’t need to think about things; you don't need to read books by Christians. You can write them off in advance as the predictable rantings of deluded idiots. It’s very worrying, and shows how dogmatic and simplistic atheism has now become. [my emphasis]

I came away with that conclusion as well when I attended Dawkins lecture at KU last year. He made mention at one point that "you don’t have to read a book about fairies to know that they don’t exist".

Stellar intellectual scholar that one...

HT: Denyse O'Leary for the link.

Anthony Flew's Latest

Here’s another book being delivered to my doorstep soon....

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

You can view an interview between Lee Strobel and Anthony Flew at this link.

The Spiritual Brain

I just ordered a copy of Mario Beauregard and Denyse O'Leary's latest book, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul.






From the review:

Most neuroscientists are committed to the view that mystical experiences are simply the result of random neurons firing, or “delusions created by the brain.” THE SPIRITUAL BRAIN takes another approach, powerfully arguing for what many in science are unwilling to consider—that people actually contact a reality outside themselves during intense spiritual experiences. Beauregard uses the most sophisticated technology to peer inside the brains of Carmelite nuns during a profound spiritual state. His results and a variety of other lines of evidence lead him to the surprising conclusion that spiritual experiences are not a figment of the mind or a delusion produced by a dysfunctional brain.

Can't wait to dig into it...

Lots of Swingin' going on....

I haven't really commented on the perverto factor plaguing those poor souls that represent us up on capital hill...basically because I don't even know where to begin.

So, I'll just say this....boys, try to keep it in your pants. Seriously...for the good of the nation. I mean what's up with this crap? ...whoops, no pun intended. Is it a power thing, or do more people hide hidden perversions than I want to know about?

Fr'instance, who in their right mind feels the need, in a public restroom mind you, to ask the nearest stranger to get it on???? I mean, if one is experiencing a serious problem, perhaps self service might be more appropriate (and a heck of a lot safer).

That kind of crap is not about sex, it's about something else altogether.

Mercy...

This is gonna get ugly

Dr. D. James Kennedy passed away today.

While there were things about Dr. Kennedy's approach that could, at times, cause me to cringe, his passion for the gospel of Christ was strong, and he cut straight to the heart of many issues that plague our society. My heart goes out to those close to him.

My hope is that those who so strongly oppose Kennedy due to his faith take a good look at themselves as well before they cast the first stone. He was a good man, but like all of us, he wasn't perfect, and I don't think he ever claimed to be.

Baylor’s Evolutionary Informatics lab shutdown

In June, I mentioned that Baylor University had a new lab where it appeared that the design inference may be considered in respect to the research being done.

As reported at Uncommon Descent, the lab has been shut down due to complaints that the work was perceived as being linked to ID.

This whole episode is so puzzling...

It seems to me that allowing this type of research would give those who oppose ID a better footing in their objections to ID. If nothing were being produced by Marks that would advance the design inference, they would be able to *show* the world that ID is worthless to the advancement of science.

As a lay person, this latest saga certainly seems to suggest that ID must be a *much* bigger threat to Darwinian evolution than it’s supporters are willing to admit.

If what Dembski says is true, Lilley knew that he was involved in the lab. Lilley signed off on the grant that was advanced to the lab, so he must have been well aware that Dembski was involved as his name was on the grant. It doesn’t appear that Dembski was sneaking into the lab in some devious fashion.

What’s really puzzling is that it didn’t seem to me that what was going on in that lab was a threat to evolution...in fact, I would think that any research in regard to the information observed in nature would be of great benefit to the ToE.

One would think that by placing Dembski or other ID theorists smack dab into the mainstream scientific environment, provide them with grants and demand that they produce results which will answer questions that have yet to be answered in regard to the design inference, it would allow the Darwin supporters to put more pressure on them to produce results. If no results were forthcoming, their case against ID would be solid.

Mainstream scientists in these debates tell us that that ID must produce results, and that the research must be considered in mainstream peer reviewed journals, yet every time it looks as if there is a minute chance of that happening, the plug is pulled. Why?

It only took a few months in this case before the complaints were strong enough from those who were in opposition to the lab to come forward. I wonder how having Dembski on the campus could be that threatening? What were they worried would happen as a result of his involvement? Was it just the matter of the reputation of the school? Would that reputation lend to less grant assistance, or what?

Just as in the aftermath of the Gonzalez case, the sciencebloggers are claiming that ID advocates will be crying “persecution” or “censorship”, yet what else can this be called other than censorship? I don’t know what other explanation would apply.

Reasonable Atheists...

...delight me!

This review of "The God Delusion" was written by someone with a good head on their shoulders.

Interesting Observation

Yup, Interesting...

I'm Back!!

Whew....just finished up the last few things I wanted to do to my blog before making it public again.

So sorry about the sudden shut down, but I kinda pulled the plug on a whim - or a rant?...whichever.

As I've said in the past, I sometimes lose my patience when I keep getting asked the same questions over and over. I've wanted for some time now to try to put together several links to others posts I've written which I could refer people to so that I don't have to keep writing about the same topics over and over. So, I finally took the time to put together a short FAQs list. I had to completely shut down to do it or I knew I'd never get it done, but rather keep blabbering here.

So, you'll find the link to the FAQs list on my side bar along with a few other new additions. I'll add to the list as time allows.

Please note that your comments will not post publically to that list, but I will be able to read them and consider your opinions and decide whether I need to change the answers if you think I've misunderstood something or if I seem misleading. If I've made errors in my understanding of the science, I certainly want to correct those issues as well. But, I may not agree with you, so don't hold your breath waiting for me to change something to your satisfaction.

It was the perfect time for me to do this because last month marked the completion of my first year of blogging. It seems I wrote just under 450 posts last year...jeez, that's a lot of blabbering. Oh, well... it's a great outlet to let off some steam or have some fun.

I hope my readers from the past will stumble their way back in here and not think that I've deserted you forever!

The Limits of Atheism, by David Warren

Interesting read.

Something that we all need to take to heart:

In this case, we must ask ourselves why so many people get so excited about an area of science that should not concern them. For most of these correspondents know precious little science, and haven't the stamina to engage in detailed argument. They are simply shocked and appalled that anyone would dream of challenging what they believe to be the consensus of "qualified experts," whom they assume are a closed camp of hard-bitten materialists, with no time for religious or poetical flights.

The answer to this question is clear enough. People without a stake in a controversy pay little or no attention to it. They will hardly be vexed by assertions of one party or another, when the result of the controversy cannot touch their lives. It is rather when a person does have a stake, that he begins to care.

It follows that my most apoplectic correspondents have a stake in evolutionary controversies. They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against "religious superstition," and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned.

I think most of us die-hard advocates for ID are certainly well aware of the religious implications of both ID and evolution. Our worldviews are in question and our beliefs are strong so we question endlessly and try to discern what is true and what is trash. The same goes for the die-hard advocates of Darwinism. Most are involved due to their atheist or agnostic worldview or their anger against those who they believe are out to destroy science and create a theocracy.

If should be possible to allow for discussions on both evolution and ID in our classrooms without considering any part of religious issues, and that is what we should be striving for (together).

More from the article:

It follows that my most apoplectic correspondents have a stake in evolutionary controversies. They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against "religious superstition," and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned.

Yes, atheists and agnostics have strong belief systems of their own. They have their own secular and humanistic groups, they teach, preach and proselytize. PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are the equivalent of atheists priest, but atheists simply don't see it. Here's a cute picture of lego PZ with his new atheist logo that he's pushing people to wear and embrace and share their atheism. He needs to wake up and smell that cup of coffee he's holding...atheism is a faith belief - no different, and in some situations, no less fanatic than some forms of religion.

The the author of the article gives an obvious nod to Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution:

Meanwhile the edifice of official atheist materialism crumbles, under the pressure of actual scientific inquiry. Mr. Behe's recent book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, does a fairly good job of surveying the three iron struts from which Darwinism was welded: random mutation, natural selection, and common descent. He is able to leave only this last standing.

...and goes on to to write:

This last week we learned of the collapse of one of the latest props of "deep evolutionism," which was also one of the earliest (the ancient Greeks first thought of it): The very popular "panspermian" hypothesis that life was first seeded on the earth by materials arriving in comets. It has been kicked away by Paul Falkowski, and other biologists and oceanographers from Rutgers and Boston universities, studying DNA samples frozen in the Antarctic ice. (See, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.) They showed nothing of any earthly genetic use could have survived.

Like every other modern essay in "evolutionism" (i.e. evolution as a religious cosmology), the idea behind panspermianism is to transfer the problem of life's origin on earth, out of the finite space and time of the earth's own geological history, and into some abstract place where the laws of chance have an infinite amount of time to do whatever is necessary. But the game is almost up. We can now roughly date the origin of our universe, and 15 billion years more-or-less is proving much too short a time for random processes to produce a non-random result. Fifteen billion times 15 billion years is still not nearly enough time.

Those who refuse to acknowledge God, will not give up. Most have by now moved on to hypotheses about "multiple universes," in the hope that by allowing an infinite number of other universes in which random processes produced random results, we can excuse this one for being so exceptionally non-random.

A Joke for Ian

Ian was quite put off with my request that we pray for the troups in a previous post. I’ve been told there is the possibility that the part about Churchhill in the first couple paragraphs of that post may be an urban legend.

But, here is a joke that I think Ian would appreciate, or at least I hope so. Everyone is so touchy about some of these issues (including me) that you never know how the things you write will be taken.

Working With God

A farmer purchases an old, run-down, abandoned farm with plans to turn it into a thriving enterprise. The fields are grown over with weeds, the farmhouse is falling apart, and the fences are collapsing all around.

During his first day of work, the town preacher stops by to bless the man's work, saying, "May you and God work together to make this the farm of your dreams!"A few months later, the preacher stops by again to call on the farmer. Lo and behold, it's like a completely different place -- the farm house is completely rebuilt and in excellent condition, there are plenty of cattle and other livestock happily munching on feed in well-fenced pens, and the fields are filled with crops planted in neat rows. "Amazing!" the preacher says. "Look what God and you have accomplished together!"

"Yes, Reverend," says the farmer, "but remember what the farm was like when God was working it alone!"

Like that one, Ian? *wink*

A Good example of why Evolutionists won't debate Proponents of Intelligent Design

Here is a link to a "conversation" between Dr. Brace and Dr. Behe at the Cranbrook Institute of Science.

Participants:

Dr. C. Loring Brace, professor and curator of biological anthropology at the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, will present a synopsis of the evidence for organic evolution.

Dr. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, will summarize the evidence for intelligent design.

The third participant in the conversation is the audience through questions and comments following the speakers.

I'm convinced that if we could get Discovery Institute ID proponents out in full force debating evolutionists in every possible venue, Darwinism (not evolution, as Behe again explains in the above link) would be in dire straights.

The problem is that Darwinists have proclaimed it unwise to debate...listen to the audio above to better understand why.

Scientists discover largest known planet

Nature is amazing.

Scientists have discovered the universe's largest known planet, a giant ball made of mostly hydrogen that is 20 times larger than Earth and circling a star 1,400 light-years away.

...

"There is probably not a really firm surface anywhere on the planet. You would sink into it," said Georgi Mandushev, a research scientist at Lowell Observatory and lead author of an article announcing the finding in the peer-reviewed Astrophysical Journal Letters.

...

"It's just letting us know that nature has some surprises for us ... a much wider range of possibility than we could imagine," Boss said.

He said scientists "can't understand why these so-called fluffy planets are so fluffy. It really is a mystery, just how they can be so low-density."

Cool...

I woke up at 3:30am the other night and couldn't sleep, so I went out on our top deck and star gazed for awhile. It's so difficult for me to understand how some view our universe as nothing other than the result of a materlistic blurp in time.

Another tall and small example

Just like my previous example on human variability, here are a couple horses whose skeletal remains would be vastly difference, yet guess what? They're still both horses!

Thumbelina, who weighs 4st 9lb, was born on a farm in St Louis, Missouri.

Her owners breed miniature horses but Thumbelina is a further quirk of nature - a miniature of a miniature.

She eats two cups of grain and a handful of hay each day.

Radar, at 6ft 71/2in from hoof to shoulder, is from Mount Pleasant, Texas.

At 2,400lb, he has a giant appetite to match, putting away 20 gallons of water a day and 18lb of grain.

More here.