Attention Gov. Sanford: Resign Already!!

It’s the story that doesn’t end. The South Carolina governor goes missing, rumors are floated that he’s hiking the Appalachian Trail, and later he shows up to admit he was in Argentina committing adultery. Well, he didn’t quite say he was "committing adultery"; he said, “I've been unfaithful to my wife. I developed a relationship with what started as a dear, dear friend from Argentina.” The latter sounds much more benign. But if that weren’t enough, a NY Post article reports that Sanford, “said Tuesday that he "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than his mistress -- but never had sex with them.”

I’ve followed politics for many years now but I just can’t figure some people out. Why do so many elected officials do such stupid things? I mean, you would expect someone who is able to be elected governor to be somewhat intelligent, right? It’s not so much that I can’t understand why he might do it. People sin – including elected leaders. But if you’re a governor, a congressman, or even the President, you have to know that something like an affair will be found out. Are these people so weak-willed and short-sighted that they can’t see beyond the heat of the moment?

Sanford is a special case. This guy thinks he’s a hero in a romance novel. In the NY Post article he said, “This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story. A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.” Give me a break! This was about sex. You’re a grubby adulterer; you’re not King David. If Sanford specifically confessed to his sin, expressed sincere contriteness, and asked for forgiveness, I might feel differently about him. But to play the part of a tragic hero just tells me the guy is only sorry he was caught and is more interested in saving his political career than in redemption.

I know that people are sinners. People cheat on their spouses every day and try to candy coat it. They don’t “commit adultery,” they have “trysts”, “affairs”, and “relationships.” They’re victims whose spouses don’t understand them. They were driven into the arms of their lovers. Yada, yada, yada.

We need to stop turning a blind eye (or a bleeding heart) toward sin. There’s no longer any stigma in being divorced just like there’s no longer a stigma in having premarital sex or having illegitimate children. We’ve become a “tolerant” society that doesn’t “judge” people. It seems that the only vice society won’t tolerate is hypocrisy – we loathe people who preach morality and cheer (jeer) when they fail to practice it!

I try to call a sin a sin. I hold elected officials to an even higher standard than I do society at large. I even hold Republicans to a higher standard than Democrats. We entrust conservative leaders, for example, to defend traditional marriage. How can I trust Sanford to do that if he can’t even keep his own marriage together?

I’ve said that Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Robert Edwards, Barney Frank are morally bankrupt. I also say that so are Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, and now Mark Sanford. I guess I could take solace in the fact that at least Republicans speak out in defense of traditional values even if they don’t always practice them but it seems a very small comfort.

I believe some people who condemn Sanford for hypocrisy are themselves being hypocrites. I suspect many of the people asking Sanford to resign whistled a different tune when their favorite Democrat was caught in a scandal. Did these same people ask Bill Clinton to step down? I suppose I could be accused of many things but hopefully hypocrisy isn’t among them. Gov. Sanford, you need to resign.

The HR2454 Republican Hall of Shame

The Cap and Trade bill (HR2454) passed by a slim, 7 vote margin in the house late Friday evening (6/26). That’s bad news. It’s made worse when you realize that 8 Republican turn-coats – I mean, “Representatives” – voted for the measure. Since the bills passed by only 7 votes, these 8 RINO’s can be held directly accountable for the bills passage in the house. All I can say is shame on them all.

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330

Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165

Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361

LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572

McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611

Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761

Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

If any of these are your Representatives, I would suggest you let them know how you feel about their vote. Especially don’t forget in 2010!

If this bill is ever enacted into law, Obama himself admits that energy bills will necessarily “skyrocket.” I’ve heard varying estimates between $175–700 more each year on the average utility bill. Of course, that’s on top of the already high utility rates foisted upon us over the last couple of years.

Besides higher utility costs, the bill will necessarily make us more energy dependent. There will be no more power plants built in the US. I’m sure Obama and his partners in crime are hoping we don’t remember that he said cap and trade will bankrupt the coal companies who try to build more plants. In the same clip, Obama says that cap and trade will raise “billions of dollars” that we can invest in solar and wind technology. Let me translate: “We will collect billions of dollars from every American family and use it to force them to live in caves and read by candle light.”

There are no two ways about it. This is a big government grab for more money and more intrusion, which is fueled by more costs and higher unemployment for the average American family.

We must stop this bill in the Senate. Contact your Senators now and tell them to vote, “no.”

Maybe Birds Aren’t Dinos After All!

This is big. I mean, this is huge! As far as I’m concerned this is the story of the year – maybe even of the decade. Physorg.com reports, “Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links.” From the article: “Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight - and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.”

The transition of dino-to-bird has been a basic tenet of evolutionary dogma for decades. As an example of an evolutionary series, I’d say the dino-to-bird series is way ahead of the horse or whale series and is second only to ape-to-man evolution. In most evolutionists’ minds, bird from dinosaur evolution is settled. National Geographic once reported that we can say that birds are dinosaurs with as much confidence as we say humans are mammals. Of course, they later had to retract that statement with much red-facedness but we won’t go there now.

The confidence of evolutionists in the dino-to-bird theory can be seen in the way they present their theories to the public. Does anyone remember the velociraptors from the movie, Jurassic Park? In that movie, velociraptors were very dino-like. Lately, however, artistic renderings of velociraptors make them appear much more bird-like. It seems like dino-to-bird evolution truly has occurred in the minds of artists. This is what they believe and they’ve been selling it to the public as a done deal.

This new research could change all that. Again from the article, “The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.”

What insightful new facts did the OSU researchers uncover that led them to this about face? Here’s a quote from the article:

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.

Duh!! You think? I’m not a scientist or anything but even I could have told that you can’t have descendants older than their ancestors. And evolutionists are just now figuring it out? That should have been their first clue! But as they say, “love is blind” and if you have a theory you love, you can’t let facts get in the way!

Even though the reverse daughter/parent relationship should have sunk the whole dino-to-bird idea, what really did it for the OSU researchers involved the avian respiratory system and the characteristics of the femur (thigh) bone. According to the article, warm-blooded birds use about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles (I guess they’re assuming dinos are cold-blooded reptiles). By the way, this has been brought up many times before by creationists: how likely it is that animals having perhaps the lowest metabolic rate (reptiles) would directly evolve into animals having perhaps the highest metabolic rate (birds)? Because of their complex respiratory system, birds have a fixed femur that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing as it breathes. Dinosaurs, as well as every other walking land animal, lack this critical feature and, instead, have a moving femur. A moving femur in dinos means they could not have had a respiratory system like birds.

What really made me laugh as I read the article are these two candid quotes:

"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology….

"This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before.

No, it’s not really strange or amazing. When you’re committed to a theory, you project your theory onto the evidence. The theory becomes a paradigm through which all new data is viewed. If you go looking for evolution, you will see evolution where there is none. It’s like the saying, “when you’re a hammer, everything else looks like a nail.”

Now don’t get me wrong. The scientists at OSU aren’t becoming creationists. They’re not rejecting evolution over this flap – not even close. I’m sure they’re still 100% committed to evolution. I consider this to be another example of the Constanza Tactic which I’ve blogged about in the past. Evolutionists will push some highly touted evidence as “proof” of their theory, they will convince the public evolution is true, later they will quietly discard the evidence when they discover they were all wrong about it, and the public will continue believing in evolution.

Sometimes I wonder how many sub theories of evolution must be proven wrong before people begin to suspect the overall theory might not be true. Indeed, it doesn’t matter at all to many people that their “cherished theories” were wrong because they just come up with a new theory to explain the new evidence. If the new theory is later shown to be wrong as well, then it will be on to the next theory. But THE theory - the theory of evolution - can never be wrong.

Ignorance on Display at the Creation Museum

There was ignorance on display at the Creation Museum. No, I’m not talking about my good friends at Answers in Genesis. I’m talking about a group that visited there recently. There was a nerd… I mean “paleontologist”… convention held at the University of Cincinnati and a group of 80 of the nerds… I mean paleontologists… decided to take a fieldtrip and tour the museum. OK, I know I should be nicer because, after all, the museum’s tour guide greeted the group graciously saying, “Praise God, we are excited to have you here.”

So, what was their impression of the museum? The Courier Journal characterized their responses this way, “some were skeptical, some were amused, some were offended.” That’s typical. Professional evolutionists like these are militant about their beliefs. They don’t just disagree with creationists – they loathe them! Weren’t any of them curious? Weren’t any of them surprised? Didn’t any of them learn anything? No, I guess that’s expecting too much.

But even though their snobby attitudes are typical, I continued to be annoyed by them. Here are a few of their quotes for your consideration:

“I think it’s a very professional outfit and they put on a good show,” said Jason Rosenhouse, a math professor at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., and manager of a blog on evolution. “If you can sort of suspend disbelief, you can see why people get caught up in it.”

Do you see what I mean? The Mr. Rosenhouse’s not-so-subtle implication is that the museum is merely “a good show” but only those people who “suspend disbelief” [sic] could “get caught up in it.” And he didn’t stop there. He went on to say this:

“I hate the fact that this exists,” he added. “But given that it exists, I can see why people would find it compelling.”

Can you believe that? He hates the fact that the museum exists!! I’ve said before that if it were in their power, there would be a pad lock on the museum right now. It’s a textbook example of the attitudes exposed in Ben Stein’s “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed”.

Arnie Miller, a geology professor at UC, echoed Rosenhouse’s sentiments during the tour:

“From a pure audio-visual standpoint, it’s spectacular,” he said. “Part of it I find offensive as a scientist. It’s more than just a different point of view. They contend that if you don’t accept their view of the story in Genesis, you’re responsible for the ills of society.”

Mr. Miller has misrepresented AiG’s position. Here are AiG’s true thoughts on the matter:

The concepts of right and wrong must have an ultimate basis from which to appeal, or else they become simply relative to the culture. This is what we see happening in today‘s Western world. The Bible teaches that God the Creator made men and women for each other, and experience confirms that we are made for each other physically. This was the Creator’s intention and plan. And any deviation from this is outside the created order. So it has been until very recent times, when, backed up by evolutionary ‘science’, the concept of homosexual acts being ‘wrong’ has been changed. Now they are promoted as neither right nor wrong, but a ‘choice’. And, unless one appeals to a Creator who sets the absolute laws for life, who can say this is incorrect? If there is no Creator who has made us and set the rules, then all our morals and ideas of what is right or wrong are simply subjective—what we ourselves decide.

The Courier Journal article concludes:

Julia Sankey, a geology professor at California State University at Stanislaus, said she wanted to know more about the attitudes some of her students are bringing to class.

“I’m not offended, just annoyed,” Sankey said. “Why are we wasting our time on this (evolution debate)? It’s not science, and we’re wasting our time.”

I suppose I should acknowledge that at least she sought to know more about her students’ attitudes but I’m sorry that Ms. Sankey feels she is wasting her time with this. After all, according to various polls, up to ½ of the US population believes in creation. I predict that one day her “it’s already settled” attitude is going to be the undoing of evolution.

Here’s what I predict. One weakness in creation science is the lack of enough practicing scientists. However, thanks to the efforts of creation ministries like AiG, more and more students will become interested in science, they will then study science in college, and eventually become practicing scientists. They will begin doing research, publishing papers, and making contributions to their field. The difference will be that they will be doing it from a creation perspective. When that happens, scientists will be forced to argue the science and can no longer argue by consensus (argumentum ad populum).

I say, let the nerds scoff. They have no idea what’s really going on at the museum!

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The next Sola we will review in this series is Sola Fide or “Faith Alone” which is sometimes referred to as “justification by faith.” It is the belief that we receive salvation only through faith in Christ; good works of any sort play no role whatsoever in our salvation.

Among the Five Solas this is may be the most controversial and is the dividing line between many most mainstream protestant denominations and other beliefs. For example, there are some groups that believe that after a person accepts Christ he must immediately be baptized before he is saved. So they believe in salvation by faith + baptism and not “faith alone.” Mormons (which is not a Christian group anyway) believe they must work toward their salvation and Jesus simply “makes up the difference” where they fall short.

I believe the Bible is clear about how we are saved. There are many verses that support this but let’s start with perhaps the most definitive: Romans 10:9:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

This passage leaves very little wiggle room for interpretation. Of course, one text is not a proof text so we need to look at the abundance of Scripture that supports salvation by faith alone. Salvation by faith is the primary theme of John’s gospel consider John 1:12, John 3:15-16, John 3:18, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:47, John 8:24, John 11:25-26, John 12:46, and John 20:31. Indeed, from John’s gospel alone, one would be hard pressed to add to salvation any ingredient other than faith.

We also have the example of the publican and Pharisee (Luke 18:10-14). The Pharisee essentially bragged to God about how good he was in keeping the Law. The publican only prayed, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Jesus said it was the publican and not the Pharisee who was justified.

As an additional thought, we must be careful to understand that even faith could be considered a work. Look at Ephesians 2:8-9:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

You see, we are saved “through faith”; we are not saved “because of faith.” We do not say to God, “God, I have faith so You are required to save me.” Even the faith we have is not of ourselves – God gives us even the faith through which He saves us! How wonderful is God!!

Though I believe the Bible is clear that we are saved through faith many people will use some passages to argue otherwise.

Some will point to passages that command us to obey the Law (such as Matthew 5:48). I concede that Christ expects us to try to follow the Law but following the Law is not what saves us. Indeed, no one except Christ has ever kept the Law. Read Romans 3:10. If we must do good works to be saved, then we have no hope for salvation because our works are nothing more than filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).

Some people will point to Matthew 7:21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” The irony is that, in context, the people discussed in v. 21 are the ones who rely on their works to save them: they cast out demons, prophesied, and performed miracles. However, Jesus still calls them workers of iniquity! Jesus tells us the will of the Father in John 6:40, “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.” Doing the will of the Father does not mean doing good works; it means we must have faith in the Son!

Still others read passages that discuss God judging our deeds and confuse our reward with our salvation (Matthew 16:27, Revelation 14:12-13, et al). At the White Throne Judgment, the lost are indeed judged by their works (Revelation 20:13) but they are all condemned because their names are not written in the Book of Life. Christians’ works are judged for our reward but our salvation is already secured. Read 1 Corinthians 3:14-15:

If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

In other words, when our works are judged we might lose our reward but we are still saved.

But the chief text cited by believers in salvation by works is certainly James 2. Consider, for example, v. 14, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” Wow! The clear implication of that verse alone is that faith by itself cannot save a person.

However, in the context of the entire chapter, James is talking about how works are the evidence of faith. A person who claims to have faith but demonstrates no evidence of faith (that is, continues to live like a sinner) likely isn’t truly saved. Look at v. 21-22, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” We see then that Abraham’s works were wrought by his faith. He had faith and so he performed the works. Likewise, if we truly have faith there should be evidence of our faith in our works. I believe James’s point is summed up well in v. 18, “Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”

Let me conclude by saying that Christ’s work on the cross is sufficient to cover my sins. When Jesus said, “It is finished” (John 19:30), He meant just that. No more work is necessary. If we feel we must add something done by our own hands, we are basically saying to Jesus that His death wasn’t enough! I know that nothing I can do could compare to His sacrifice and so I will put my trust completely in Him to save me.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

The Five Solas Part 3: Sola Gratia

The Five Solas Part 4: Solus Christus

The Five Solas Part 5: Soli Deo Gloria

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura

The Five Solas Part 1: Sola Scriptura

Over the next several days I will be publishing a series of posts on the Five Solas. The Five Solas are five Latin phrases (or slogans) that emerged during the Protestant Reformation and summarize the Reformers' basic beliefs and emphasis in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day. "Sola" means "alone". These five points represent a remarkably precise and enduring summary of the Christian faith.

While most Christians will agree with these points in principle, I’ve noticed that many aren’t able to argue for the accuracy of them using Scripture. For example, the first Sola we will explore is Sola Scriptura or “Scripture Alone.” Most Christians will agree that the Bible is our only source of authority and other sacred writings (such as the Book of Mormon), Church traditions, or men’s opinions are all subservient to the Bible. Yet how many Christians are able to defend this view of Scripture using only Scripture? It would be the height of hypocrisy to insist the Bible is the final source of authority if the Bible itself does not make that claim!

The most obvious passage dealing with the idea of Sola Scriptura could be nothing else than 2 Timothy 3:15-17:

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

We see from this passage the following things:

>That the Scriptures are given by God.
>That the Scriptures are inerrant (how else could all Scripture be profitable?)
>That Scripture alone is able to make us “wise unto salvation”
>That with just the Scriptures we may be perfect and “thoroughly furnished unto all good works”

That single passage stands on its own merit and little more needs to be discussed. However, some groups may claim to agree with the above passage but at the same time will say that they have some other revelation in addition to the Scripture. If that is true, then it isn’t Scripture alone – it’s Scripture plus some other revelation.

Some groups, for example, claim that they hold either traditions or teachings that must be read, followed, or understood before a follower can correctly understand the Bible. For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are renowned for their “Bible study” groups. They print Bible study material such as the Watch Tower magazine which they claim is necessary to correctly understand the Scriptures. The organization actually discourages members from reading the Bible independently of the supporting material which they provide.

For people who believe that such instruction is necessary to correctly understand the Bible, I direct you to 2 Peter 1:20:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

There is no secret understanding of Scripture. The Bible says what it means – plainly. There ordinary understanding of a passage is the correct one and no other material is necessary to discover some other meaning. If someone claims that a passage means something other than what an ordinary reading reveals, great care should be taken to not let such a person deceive you (2 Corinthians 11:3-5).

Another claim held by some groups is to have additional Scriptures. The Mormons, for example, claim to have a companion to the Bible, The Book of Mormon. To them I would say that the cannon of Scripture is closed. Nothing more can be added or taken from the Scriptures. Consider Revelation 22:18-19:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The Scriptures alone are our revelation from God. No other man or book can have revelation which contradicts the Scripture. The Bible alone is sufficient and everything the God wanted to know about Him is contained therein.

Further reading:

The Five Solas Part 2: Sola Fide

The Five Solas Part 3: Sola Gratia

The Five Solas Part 4: Solus Christus

The Five Solas Part 5: Soli Deo Gloria

Some More Comments About Sola Scriptura

The Evolution of the Bombardier Beetle: It Could Happen!

The Bombardier Beetle is a remarkable creature with an ingenious defense mechanism. Whenever it is threatened, it releases a boiling hot, noxious gas into the face of its attacker. This is accomplished with the aid of two sacks in the beetle’s abdomen, each holding a different chemical (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide) which, when combined, explode and become an effective deterrent.

The question is how could a creature, through a series of random, undirected mutations, evolve to have two chemicals that react so violently with each other? One false step in the supposed evolutionary pathway and the poor critter would blow itself up!

The example of the bombardier beetle is an often used as evidence for design. Simply put, God made the beetle the way it is. But the example is so common that evolutionists have attempted to address the example directly. The following rebuttal is taken from the pro-evolution site, Talkorigins.org:

1. This is an argument from incredulity. It is based in part on an inaccurate description of how the beetle's bombardier mechanism works, but even then the argument rests solely on the lack of even looking for evidence. In fact, an evolutionary pathway that accounts for the bombardier beetle is not hard to come up with (Isaak 1997). One plausible sequence (much abbreviated) is thus:

a. Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce
other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.

b. The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).

c. Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more
quinones appear in the exuded product.

d. More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).

e. As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.

All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species.

As I read that response, I noticed a glaring flaw in it. Perhaps you can see it as well. This supposed “plausible sequence” is nothing more than story telling. Where is the “scientific” evidence for this scenario? Is there a fossil sequence showing these various stages? The footnotes notwithstanding, this is conjecture and nothing more.

As one who recognizes logical fallacies, I am aware of the argument of incredulity and I try to avoid it. I think complexity is evidence of design but not necessarily proof of design. When you have incredible creatures, we can ask ourselves which better explains the existence such a creature - evolution or design? The Bombardier beetle is an example of a complex creature but there are innumerable examples of complexity in nature. The human eye is another example. I've seen Dawkins animated video but it's simply another made up story. No such progression of the eye is found in the fossils of supposed human ancestors. When Behe raised the issue of IC in his example of the flagellum, we once again began to hear the "plausible sequences" being trotted out.

Does anyone remember Judy Tenuta? She was a comedian from the 80’s who played the accordion in her show. She was really funny. I’ve posted a little clip of her below. It’s probably a PG rated bit; there’s no bad language but there is some innuendo and some irreligious humor. Anyway, one thing Judy would do it make some outrageous comment like she and Pope would astral project. When the audience laughed she would look around and say, “It could happen!” She was very funny.

It occurred to me that much of evolution is story telling. The evolutionists’ “explanation” of the bombardier beetle, the human eye, and the flagellum are all just invented “plausible sequences.” That’s the functional equivalent of saying, “It could happen. Scientists invent fantastic stories without even shred of evidence beyond saying that it could happen!!

It was funnier when Judy said it.

Peppered Moth Evolution?

I’ve blogged before about how some people use the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution.” Though the creationists who use these terms are well meaning, I discourage their use. It leads to confusion because evolutionists conflate the two.

The peppered moth is a famous example of “microevolution.” You may recall seeing it in your biology text book. It’s considered a text book example of evolution via natural selection. Of course, it might fit the definition of evolution, but I think it’s perhaps the worst example of evolution I’ve ever seen (micro- or otherwise).

As I’ve said, evolutionists tend to conflate micro- and macroevolution. Regarding the peppered moth, Wikipedia said this:

“Critics have argued that the "peppered moth story" showed only microevolution, rather than speciation or other changes at the larger macroevolutionary scale. Biologists agree that this example shows natural selection causing evolution within a species, demonstrating rapid and obvious adaptiveness with such change, and accept that it is not proof of the theory of evolution as a whole. However, though creationists accept "microevolution" of varieties within a "kind", they claim that "macroevolution" does not happen. To biologists there is no dividing line between the two, and in the modern evolutionary synthesis the same mechanisms are seen operating at various scales to cause both evolution within species and speciation at a macroevolution level or wider changes, the only difference being of time and scale.”

You can see that the clear implication is that microevolution + time = macroevolution. The tiny changes (microevolution), like we saw in the peppered moth, over long periods of time, will lead to larger changes (macroevolution) in the species.

But here’s the rub. The peppered moth population comes in a variety of shades from light to dark. Before the industrial revolution, the light colored moths blended well with the lichens on the trees. Consequently, birds would tend to eat the dark colored moths more often and so the population of moths was mostly light.When the industrial revolution began, soot would settle on the trees and kill the lichens. Then the dark moths were better camouflaged and so the birds would tend to eat the light moths more often. Consequently, the dark moths became dominant.Today, industry has cleaned up considerably and soot is no longer dirtying up the trees. Consequently, the moth population has returned to the pre-industrial ratio of mostly light.

So here's the question. It's been more than a century since the peppered moth study. What "macroevolution" has occurred? Now, I know what you're going to say. 100 years isn't enough time. But think very carefully and tell me this: what "microevolution" has occurred in the last 100 years? Don't think too hard because I'm going to tell you. None. The ratio of light/dark moth varies a little over time to a net gain of zero. There was not even microevolution!

In this textbook example of “evolution,” there has been no change in the population. Not even a little one. The accumulative effect of microevolution has achieved nothing more than breaking even. As I’ve often said that time is not the hero of evolution.

Is Fox News Culpable?

OK, I admit it – I was watching Keith Olbermann again. Even though the guy is a rabidly hostile liberal who has been known to get my ire up, there’s still a certain comedy factor in watching him. It’s sort of like watching a YouTube video of a professional ice-skater who falls down 5 times during a performance. This guy just has no clue of what he’s doing. Anyway, he’s now holding Fox News (Bill O’Riley in particular) accountable for the shooting death of abortionist, Dr. Tiller.

On his show, Countdown, Olbermann played a montage with video clips of Fox News reporters discussing Tiller including a clip of O’Riley calling him “Tiller the Baby Killer.” According to Olbermann, it’s this kind of rhetoric that incited suspect Scott Roeder to carry out the murder. Never mind that one news source reported that Roeder has a criminal past and “has expressed anti-abortion opinions on sympathetic Web sites.” Never mind that there are about 2 million hits on Google discussing Tiller – including sites like chargetiller.com (which has since been taken down). No, according to Olbermann, he didn’t get the idea until he heard O’Riley talking about it! Let me ask you, Olbermann, could it simply be that the doctor had done 60,000 abortions that might have inflamed Roeder to take action?

It should go without saying that I condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller. Vigilantism is not how we exercise justice in the US. And a violent act like this certainly does nothing to help reduce the number of abortions but actually hurts the Pro-Life movement.

It’s obvious that Olbermann is using this tragic event to advance his war against Fox News. It’s shameful the way he’s acting. If he wants to equate reporting on controversial topics with inciting violence then I would say Olbermann has blood in his hands as well.

How many times have we heard people on the left accuse Bush of starting an “illegal war”? Ever heard Cheney called a “war criminal”? And certainly one hot topic in the news has been the flap over the interrogation techniques used shortly after 9/11. The left is quite to characterize them as torture and demand that the people in question be held accountable for their “crimes.”

Just last month, in a commentary directed to President Obama, Olbermann had this to say regarding the “torture”:

Indeed we must [resist the forces which divide us], Mr. President. And the forces of which you speak are the ones lingering — with pervasive stench — from the previous administration. Far more than a criminal stench, Sir. An immoral one. One we cannot let be re-created… This country has never "moved forward with confidence" without first cleansing itself of its mistaken past… [t]hat means prosecuting all those involved in the Bush administration's torture of prisoners.

There you go, Olbermann condemned “all those involved” in the torture of prisoners. Now someone has taken him up on it. The Drudge Report said today:

An Arkansas man was arrested Monday in connection with a shooting at a Little Rock military recruiting center that killed one soldier and wounded another. Police believe that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 24, shot the men "with the specific purpose of targeting military personnel." [emphasis added]

Didn’t the people on the right say that if we release information about the interrogation of terrorist suspects that it might put our troops into harms way? It looks like now it may have happened. Mr. Olbermann, when can we expect your apology for your incendiary words?

You folks at MSNBC need to cut it out already. This feeble attempt to lay blame on Fox News for merely reporting the activities of a serial abortionist is beyond the pale.

Hey, wait a minute! Maybe the big three networks were all in on the Kennedy assassination conspiracy and only reported the incident to inspire Ruby to kill Oswald! Excuse me while I call Oliver Stone.