Pat Sullivan Blog

24 Observations on the Intelligent Design versus Macro Evolution debate

I kicked off quite a firestorm with my recent post on Marketing Darwin. The blogger Orac picked it up, shredded it to pieces, which led to dozens of comments at my blog and his.  Smelling fresh blood, Professor PZ Meyers takes me to task, and more comments ensue.  Basically, I get trashed really badly. Thank goodness I am secure in my old age!  :)

I find it all interesting.  Many of the commenters raise some really good points, and I agree with some of them.  Many though seem to deliberately misunderstand me, and then trash the misunderstanding.  I only spent about 15 minutes writing Marketing Darwin but would have taken more time to clarify myself if I'd known how it was going to be used. 

So I thought I would write another post, this post, partially in answer to some of those comments. I don’t expect to change the minds of my critics.  But I do hope that some of you reading this will gain insight into what has been going on for at least the past 10 years or so with the advent of the Intelligent Design versus Macro Evolution debate among scientists.

Update: This Should Scare Everyone But Won't

Here is an update to European Scientists trying criminalize Intelligent Design speech.

Here is a shocking article detailing Orwellian type censorship and punishment in Europe.  This kind of thing ought to scare the crap out of everyone including Democrats and Republicans, Evolutionists and IDists, pro-lifers and pro-choicers. 

Intelligent Design Blogs

I came across this blog that you may be interested in if you are interested in the continuing controversy regarding Intelligent Design.  Here is a list of other blogs that cover the same subject.

I really like this topic though rarely have the time to write much about it.  Regardless of those who think it really should be "Un-Intelligent Design" or "No-Design, just sort of happened", this is an area that will continue to receive attention. 

My opinion is that to any thinking person, they have to look at the incredible design of the human body, the earth, the universe we find ourselves in and conclude that there sure seems to be a lot of evidence that a really incredible designer was/is at work.  Makes sense to me.  The issue is, if you believe that what do you do about it?

Science and God

Dennis Prager mentioned this article this morning on his program.  Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man "closer to God".

He recounts his awe as he first looked at the "3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind".  I have had two similar experiences.

The first was as a freshman in college.  I had been steeped in evolutionary thought and pretty well bought into it because it fit the lifestyle I wanted to live as a young man.  I did not like the idea that there was a God who cared about things that I was doing, right and wrong.  I took an anatomy class that was taught by a wonderful teacher.  He made it so interesting.  As I studied the marvels of the human body, the awareness that the body could NOT have come about merely by chance gradually dawned on me.  It shook me to the core.  There simply was no question in my mind that I was looking at something incredibly well designed.

The second was when we were building the first version of ACT!.  We were deep into discussions and arguments about how little details of the product should work.  ACT! was actually quite intricate and each feature raised lots of questions and issues.  If we did it one way, there would be advantages and disadvantages.  If we did it another, it raised another set of issues.  One day, it dawned on me that this was exactly the process God went through to design and create the world that we find ourselves in.  "Let's see, if I give them two kidneys that will provide a backup system, but there is only room enough for one liver.  Hmmm?  What about this free will thing?  If I give them free will, they can really make a mess of things but if I don't, they will be robots.  What should I do to allow for the problems free will might create."

After ACT! was shipping, there were always people who would criticize decisions we made.  The thing I realized was that they had no idea about the things we had wrestled with and why we had made the decisions that we made.  I sometimes wonder if we do the same with God.  God, why did you make it this way?  Do you sometimes wish that "Life" had different features??  What an interesting question.

I think it is a great when scientists dig deep into something and come away with awe regarding the incredible design that they see.  I always find it amazing when dogmatic evolutionist's insist that what looks like design, is actually simply a random series of accidents and chance events.  That boggles my mind and asks too much faith from me.

Gandhi

(Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)

"The future depends on what we do in the present."

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Indian political and spiritual leader

Thanks Gandhi, I needed that reminder today.

National Day of Prayer

(Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)

From The Center for Arizona Policy, via an email forward from my mom.

Our country was built on a foundation of prayer. George Washington, in his First Inaugural Address spoke these words:

“It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States.”

George Washington called the entire nation to prayer in 1789 when he proclaimed a National Day of Thanksgiving. Following his lead, subsequent presidents also proclaimed days of prayer and thanksgiving. In 1952 Congress established a National Day of Prayer and in 1988 President Ronald Reagan signed legislation permanently setting the National Day of Prayer as the first Thursday in May of each year.

Interesting to read the words of Washington, especially that last sentence.  I've never read them before. 

And I've never found prayer to be a bad thing.

Double Standards

Double standards exist everywhere in our world today.  Here is another perfect example of a double standard.  On one hand, University Professors protest to protect the free speech rights of a leftist professor who was caught plagiarizing.  On the other hand University Professors want to crucify a Christian librarian who had the nerve to suggest that incoming freshman read a few books that were more traditional in their worldview.  Hypocrisy, whether it be on the Right or on the Left is ugly.

Islamic version of tolerance

Can you even imagine a governmental system where someone would face the death penalty for converting from one religion to another?  Only in Islam today.  Here is the story of a man who faces the death penalty for converting to Chrisianity in an Islamic state.

Incredible, but common!  This is what we and Europe can look forward to if Islam is successful in accomplishing their long stated goal of World Domination.  Welcome to the Middle Ages!

Crazy Teachers

Michelle Malkin covers the Denver teacher who went ballistic in his High School Geography class.  Very interesting!

Two observations:

1.  I think this goes on a lot.  If a teacher says anything positive about their views regarding Christianity, they are crucified.  When teachers voice their opinions on anything else including thier hatred of Christianity or America, it is usually fine.  Students need protection from teachers like this.

2. You have to be impressed both with the presence of mind of the student who turned on his tape recorder.  He also asked the teacher GREAT questions.  Given that young people tend to rebel against the views of their elders, perhaps there is hope for our coming generation.  Perhaps they will rebel against the extreme views of teachers like this!

Jon Kyl on Newt Gingrich

One of my Arizona Senators, Jon Kyl, recently wrote this about Newt Gingrich's new book, Winning the Future.  I like both guys.  I recently heard Kyl speak briefly at an dinner.  He is a very sharp and bright guy.  While many don't like Newt, I admire his insightfulness and directness.  I also admired his ability to pull off the "contract with America" sweeping Republicans into the Congress. 

Republicans and Dems alike would do well to tell the American people directly what they want to do.  Personally, I think the Reps are pretty good at this.  The MSM hate what the Reps want to do but at least you know what it is they want to do.  The Dems have hinted that they are working on their "contract".  Problem is that the only things that they can agree to put on the list is:

1. Hate Bush

2. Hate anything Bush says or does.

3. Hate all Republicans

4. Protect the right to kill babies while in, or almost out of their mothers wombs.

This does not come close to Newt's contract.  I am tired of hearing them do nothing but criticize without offering any alternative that is better.  They offer no alternatives!

I agree with the 5 main things Newt fears will happen in our future:

1. That Islamist terrorists and rogue dictatorships will acquire and launch nuclear or biological weapons.

2. That God will be driven from American public life and reduce us to the civilizational ennui that now characterizes a declining Europe.

3. That America will lose the patriotic sense of itself as a unique civilization.

4. That America’s economic supremacy will yield to China and India because of failing schools and weakening scientific and technological leadership.

5. That an aging America’s demands on Social Security, Medicare, and related government programs will collapse the systems.

Typical of Newt, he offers solutions for those 5 things:

1. We must commit to a long war to defeat the terrorists and tyrants who would destroy America.

2. We must reestablish that our rights come from our Creator and that an America that has driven God out of the public arena is an America on the way to decay and defeat.

3. We must insist on patriotic immigration and patriotic education based on classic American history and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln.

4. We must transform our domestic institutions in order to harness modern science and technology to create jobs, wealth, and lead the world economy into the 21st century.

5. We must establish the opportunities for a personal Social Security account, a portable personal pension account, and a personal health savings account, so the wealth we create during our working lives is wealth we control.

Media and Opinion

I hate it when the media obviously works so hard to shape public opinion the way they think it ought to be.  You see it all the time.  The media trys to change mainstream opinion on the war, abortion, Brokeback Mountain, gay marriage, hating Bush, you name it.  Polls done on journalists show that about 80% are very liberal.

I laughed when I saw on Google News about 80 articles repeating a press release stating that 450 churches were going to celebrate Darwin's birthday and evolution.  Big deal!  Most of the headlines try to make you think that virtually every church celebrated Darwin's birthday.

There are over 80,000 Christian Churches in America.  What if a 1,000 of them decided they were going to celebrate Creation and Intelligent Design.  You think it would get any press coverage?  Nope!  Silly stuff but we always need to consider the bias of the reporters telling us what to believe.  Often they are very subtly trying to influence our opinions in the guise of unbiased reporting.

Admiration

George Bush changed his schedule to go to Coretta Scott King's funeral where he was rebuked and ridiculed by two former Presidents and a Reverend Lowery.  The audience loved it and cheered wildly as Bush just sat there and took it. He had to know beforehand that he was not going into friendly territory.  He had to know what was likely going to happen. And yet, he went anyway.  From the LA Times:

The most overtly partisan remarks came from the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a King protege and longtime Bush critic, who noted Coretta King's opposition to the war in Iraq and criticized Bush's commitment to boosting the poor.

"She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar," he said. "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor."

As the barbs flew, Bush seemed to take the heat in stride, smiling at times, giving Lowery a standing ovation and even pulling the civil rights leader in for a bear hug.

I have to admire his courage and graciousness in the face of bitter partisan rudeness and incivility.  President Bush showed true Christian character that would be difficult for most of us and certainly me.  He was clearly the most civil person at this uncivil event!

I have always been in awe of Jesus when at the start of his "Passion" Peter struck one of the guards with a sword. Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?  But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"  Matthew 26:52-54

Had it been me, 12 legions of angels would have destroyed them all!  I would not even begun to suffer what Jesus knew He was about to suffer.  His grace under the pain of the next 24 hours is truly amazing to me.  What a triumph of character to withstand the incredible pain, shame, ridicule and hatred all the while knowing He did not HAVE to do it, except to fulfill His mission.  That is something to be admired! 

I admire Bush for not opting out of what he had to know was going to be a painful time.  I admire the glimmer of Christ likeness that I saw in George Bush today. 

A website you HAVE to read

I have posted numerous times here about my concerns about radical Islam.  My observations came only in the past few years after 9/11.  Prior to 9/11, I was virtually oblivious to the true threat that radical Islam posed to all modern nations. 

I continue to be concerned that America is gradually growing bored with the idea that there are millions of Islamic terrorists who believe that their religious scriptures clearly instruct them to "kill the infidels."  The infidels would be us, the Jews, Christians, Hindus and even other moderate Muslims.  I have failed to understand non-military ways of dealing with this threat.

My son Patrick came upon this website by Daniel Pipes.  I have spent much of today reading his articles dating back to 1980.  His website, DanielPipes.org, is the single most accessed source of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam.  His resume is very impressive. 

If you want some insight into what "the war on terror" is really all about, you have to spend time on this site.  Sign up for his newsletter!

There are so many articles I found interesting that I cannot even begin to mention each one.  Easily the most scary one is this one revealing more about the nutcase president of Iran.  We truly live in a dangerous world.  While I am not certain that President Bush is doing everything right, I am glad we have a President who is at least doing SOMETHING RIGHT to protect us.  There is no question in my mind that what America has done in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere has played a major role in stopping further terrorist attacks on American soil.  Likely, it is inevitable that the terrorists will once again succeed here, but at least since 9/11, we have been spared due to courageous efforts of our military who have been unleashed by President Bush.  The more I learn, the more I realize that this is NOT a short term effort!

Take some time and begin to digest the insight of Daniel Pipes.  I wish I had discovered him earlier.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Middle East, Islam, Iran, GWOT

Iran throws CNN out

I find it funny that Iran got mad at CNN for apparently mistranslating the nutcase president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  They translated his words "nuclear technology" to "nuclear weapons."

I find this funny because CNN is very much part of the crowd that argues if we are just real nice to terrorists, they will stop being terrorists. If the terrorists are successful in doing what they say they want to do, (establish Taliban-like, Sharia-Islamic governments everywhere) the first thing that will go is freedom of the press, followed rapidly by outlawing abortion, homosexuality, most movies and freedom of religion. 

We truly are at war for our way of life.  Why liberal activists and Democratic leaders don't see this is beyond me.  The things they love the most would be the first things eliminated if the terrorists win.  And yet they act like Americans are the terrorists for trying to kill the terrorists wherever they can be found.

Iran just proves that they are totally intolerant, even of the politically correct, tolerance loving CNN.

Technorati Tags: Iran, Politics

Judge Johns Decides Intelligent Design Case

The verdict is in.  Intelligent Design is illegal speech in the classroom of public schools because it is "not scientific," rules Judge Johns.

This decision is not really surprising, but it is disappointing.  And clearly, it will not end this debate. 

The world and the people in it actually appear to be designed by a super-intelligent being.  And there is actually a lot of evidence that what appears designed, must be designed because there is no other explanation for it!

So if I was designed, why was I designed?  What was I designed for?  And lastly, who designed me?

Creation is quite possibly the greatest evidence for God.  Remove God from creation, you don't have all the other "baggage" that go along with Him.

The thing I find interesting is asking the question, "What if it is true?"  What if the God of the Bible, in fact, did create everything we see? 

It seems like intellectual suicide to me to totally ignore the simpleton observation of the design inherent in nature, even if you believe ID is only some stupid theory.  It is still a plausible theory.  (And with some digging, one would find many scientists who completely subscribe to this theory.)

And so it goes...I am sure there will continue to be many more efforts to censor what students are taught.  It seems kids these days can be taught virtually anything in the name of tolerance, as long as it's not Judeo-Christian subject matter.  Once again, the "tolerant," secularist left proves itself intolerant of views that don't support their religious beliefs.  Yes, Darwinity is a secular religious belief requiring faith.  It is not fact, but a theory of how we got here, sans God or any other super-natural designer.  But evolution is the politically correct, mainstream belief.  (Mainstream rarely tolerates alternative views.  No where is this more evident than science it seems.)

Isn't it interesting that over a centuries of America's existence, no law has ever been passed that forbade anyone speaking against Christianity.  Yet the left has no qualms about censoring anything that contradicts their views.  Sad.

The Supreme Court is likely to take an appeal of this case or another case down the line.  I hope they do.

Hugh Hewitt weighs in with a few opinions about the brief written by Judge Johns.

Technorati Tags: Intelligent Design, Evolution, Censorship

More War on Christmas

The following are a few clips about this year's battle for Christmas that were emailed to me.  I thought you might enjoy reading more about this.  It really is quite silly but groups like the ACLU have chosen this battle ground, and so it must be defended for the sake of our heritage, tradition, and intellectual honesty.  Enjoy.  And Merry Christmas!

First person: Merry Christmas – its OK to say it
Commentary by Alan Sears
SBC Baptist Press

It’s that joyous season once again. And nothing so warms a wintry heart like singing “O Mid-Year Break Tree,” “We Wish You a Merry Solstice,” or that more recent favorite, “A Whiskered White Male Is Coming to Town.”

Never heard of these carols? Well, despite the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies’ claims to the contrary, that is how the event formerly called Christmas will be celebrated if they have their way. You better watch out, you better not say the wrong words or display a nativity scene; otherwise, you may hear “Hark! The Herald Lawyers Sing” at your doorstep next December.

On a Christmas Crusade
South Bend Tribune

Mike Johnson, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization Vickie Metzger cited when she approached the P-H-M school board this week, said diversity isn't the heart of the issue.

Johnson said his group, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., respects religious differences. His legal opponents, often represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union or Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, respect all religions except Christianity, he said.

The ACLU recently conveyed its disapproval of a vote in North Carolina, in which a city council agreed to allow a holiday display featuring a Nativity scene, a Menorah, Santa Claus and other cultural icons.

"That was multicultural," Johnson said. "It respected everyone's beliefs and yet it offended the ACLU. Instead of seeing tolerance for all faiths, what we've seen is outright hostility toward the Christian faith."

A-caroling they will go: School program revised to include unedited version of Christmas song
RealityCheck.org

Officials at a suburban Chicago elementary school have changed their minds about their decision to revise the Christmas song "We Wish You a Merry Christmas" to "We Wish You a Happy Holiday" as part of an upcoming student concert after a letter from an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund clarified the law.  The song joins tunes related to other holidays that were reportedly already part of the program.

"It's silly that we even have to discuss whether it's okay to sing genuine Christmas carols in an elementary school Christmas program," said ADF attorney David Hacker.  "Many schools are simply not aware of what the law truly says about public religious expression at Christmastime.  We're very happy that, after receiving our informational letter, the school decided to change its policy."

"This resolution is a perfect example of how easy it is for parents and others to make a difference in their schools and communities simply deciding not to accept the status quo," Hacker added.

Schools simply misinformed on Christmas observances
Agape Press

Mike Johnson, an attorney with the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, says similar "government censorship" is occurring all across the country. And that censorship, he says, is largely based on people being misinformed about the law.

"What we see, rather than a tolerance for all religions, [is] really an outright hostility towards one particular faith; and that, typically, is Christianity," Johnson states.
"There's no reason to censor [representations of] the Baby Jesus from Christmas celebrations, even on school campuses -- and we all need to remember that."

Many area merchants still wishing customers a ‘Merry Christmas’
Rolla Daily News Online

National chains including Wal-Mart and Target say they do not mandate which greeting is used. That is also the case at JC Penney.

“There’s no company policy on the addressing of whether we use ‘Happy Holidays’ or ‘Merry Christmas,’” Rolla JC Penney Manager Gary Grice said. “Associates can say whatever they’re comfortable with.”

The battle is on to save Christmas
WEBCommentary

Who is fighting on behalf of the majority of Americans who treasure Christmas and look forward to celebrating this special day? Until recently, there was no organized opposition to the anti-Christmas brigade. But thanks to the Alliance Defense Fund and to the Rev. Jerry Fallwell, there is a wealth of information available on the topic. Go to www.saychristmas.org or to American Defense Fund’s Web site at www.alliancedefensefund.org or to The Liberty Alliance Web site at www.fallwell.com to learn more about joining the battle to save Christmas.

Even political leaders are developing a backbone when it comes to defending Christmas. Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert presided over the lighting of the Capitol Christmas Tree last week in Washington, D.C. It had been known as a holiday tree since the start of Clinton administration.

Analysis: Stores explain censoring ‘Merry Christmas’
Waynesville Daily Guide

On a Dec. 1 broadcast, Focus founder Dr. James Dobson introduced the Alliance Defense Fund president Alan Sears who discussed the “issue of the public use of Christian symbols and sayings at Christmastime.” In an article on the Alliance Defense Fund ‘Save our Christmas’ Web site the following was announced:

“Alan Sears, president of ADF, said his group’s goal is to inform, educate and help protect the rights of Americans who celebrate Christmas. According to a 2003 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 96 percent of Americans do just that.

“An overwhelming majority of Americans of all faiths agree that we should celebrate Christmas,” Sears wrote. “This is a time for goodness, giving and hope — not a time for fear, intimidation and the disinformation of agenda-driven, anti-Christmas legal entities.”

According to a 2000 Gallup poll, 90 percent of people in the U.S. recognize Christmas as the birthday of Jesus Christ. And the Fox poll showed 87 percent believe nativity scenes should be allowed on public property.

Boycotts bloom as religious conservatives wage battle over Christmas
Forward newspaper

Another Reform movement official, Mark Pelavin, said that the Christmas campaigns were triggered by the renewed aggressiveness of the religious right.

"One of the characteristics of this political moment is a new assertiveness in some quarters of the religious right," said Pelavin, associate director of the Reform movement's Religious Action Center.

The American Family Association launched a boycott of Target stores. The Alliance Defense Fund brought together 850 attorneys from across the nation to "help defend traditional Christmas."

Technorati Tags: Christmas

It is OK to say Merry Christmas

Over the last decade we have watched Christmas be attacked incessantly by the ACLU and other so called "tolerant" organizations.  The War on Christmas has reached new heights this year. It will probably continue to accelerate over the coming years.  But this year, the backlash has begun in earnest and will also continue to accelerate in opposition.

The continued commercialization of Christmas has caused the holiday to lose much of it's original meaning.  I think those who want a totally secular society (and really hate anything Judeo-Christian)are actually doing the majority of Christian Americans a favor.  By their efforts to exorcise society of our obvious Judeo-Christian heritage, the secularlists are beginning to make people really think about what Christmas really is.  A celebration of the birth of the most amazing person to be born -- Jesus of Nazareth. 

Regardless of what you may personally think of Jesus, it is hard not to be totally amazed that 2,000 years after He lived, billions of people in virtually every nation and tongue seek to follow His teaching.  Billions actually believe that He was who He said He was.  Why? 

Hopefully many people who have taken for granted their "faith" in Jesus will think a little more about why they believe what they believe.  Often, it is not until we are challenged to think about something until we actually do.  "Do I really believe this thing that some people want to destroy?"

Stores that have decided to avoid offending anyone by saying "Merry Christmas" are now offending Christians by saying "Happy Holidays."  Those Christians who are offended are deciding to boycott these stores, or just not buy anything for Christmas anymore. 

As a Christian, I'm honestly not offended by a greeting of "Happy Holidays."  But I do think that most of us -- Christians included -- too easily forget the true meaning of Christmas.  The Christmas season is not about Target or Kmart meeting their sales numbers.  It is not about keeping our economy booming.  It really is about simply remembering the celebrated birth of the most amazing person who ever lived!

Technorati Tags: Christmas, Jesus

Goodness of God

I was recently thinking about the statement, "God is good."  Many hear this statement every week at their local place of worship.  The Bible and other religious holy books are replete with statements about the goodness of God.

I was thinking about the concept of "good" in light of bad things that obviously happen in our world (such as hurricanes, earthquakes, disease, etc.).  Since the dawn of time it seems man has been arguing about the issue of evil. (I am working on another post regarding this topic , so I won't go into that specifically now.)

The thing that occurred to me was a different way of looking at "good."

If a mechanic is "good," it is referring to his skill.  The same holds true for any skilled person.  They are GOOD at what they do. God is "good" in that sense.  I am not saying He is not also GOOD in the sense of what we think of the virtue called goodness.

I am always intrigued by statements of scientists, including Darwinists, who point to the "genius of Nature."  A commentator to my recent post on Intelligent Design referred to a book called The Genius Within.  When I look at the evidence of design in the universe and in living organisms I have to admit my awe at how incredibly "good" the design is. 

Obviously it is argued just how this "design" came to be, whether by random acts guided by some mysterious "natural selection," or the conscious, deliberate act of a highly intelligent designer.  Any objective observer, regardless of his or her persuasion, has to admit that the end result is nothing short of an amazingly good design. 

From my perspective, I think the weight of evidence from many academic disciplines points to God as the "Designer."  And in the sense that what we observe is really quite "good," one would have to come to the conclusion that God is good.  That is, He is good at what He does.  In the Book of Genesis it even states the God stepped back and looked at what He had created and called it "Very Good" (Gen 1:31).  I think His own observation of His handiwork is correct.

Technorati Tags: Intelligent Design, God, Creation

Fooling "Mother Nature"

I don't even like to say "Mother Nature."  But since it is such a commonly used term, I decided to entitle my post this way.  I don't like the term because it implies an Intelligent Designer behind creation, but identifies that Designer as some sort of mythological goddess...Gaia or whatever.  I don't happen to believe in Gaia so it naturally grates on me.  But I digress...

I was reading this article from the University of Pennsylvania Medical School that researched why drugs like Vioxx and Celebrex actually CAUSE heart attacks and strokes.  I am always interested in the underlying reason why something happens.  The U of P research team showed that these drugs inhibit something that the body is designed to do, which they believe inadvertently causes deaths. 

Personally, I am always concerned about any drug that inhibits something that the body was DESIGNED TO DO!  As much as has been learned by modern medicine, are we being arrogant in thinking that we know everything, and we can therefore stop the body from doing what it was designed to do -- without ANY repercussions?

Statin drugs interfere with the liver's ability to make cholesterol, and thus lower cholesterol, the supposed public enemy #1 for heart disease.  (Not surprising to readers of this blog, this theory has been contended.) 

The real questions should be, why does the body make cholesterol? And what is the cost of lowering it through artificial means? 

Cholesterol is actually a very important chemical in the body. All hormones are produced using cholesterol. And cholesterol transports oil-soluble vitamins like A, E, and D to every cell in the body. These must be the reasons why the liver manufactures cholesterol so abundantly!

Researchers are discovering that heart failure results from a chain of events. Often stemming from chronic infection, the arteries become inflamed and damaged, and the body attempts to repair itself utilizing calcium and cholesterol, or “plaque.” If the blood vessels are inflamed, a build-up of calcium and cholesterol may occur. But these aren't the underlying causes of heart disease; they are just trying to fix the problem!

Statins are toxic to the liver and are not nearly as safe as pharmaceutical companies would like for you to believe!  Most importantly, in the process of it's stopping the liver from doing what it is supposed to do, statins deplete the body of one of the most most important chemicals - CoQ10! 

CoQ10 is a powerful antioxidant and vitamin-like substance made by the body itself.  Many doctors prescribe CoQ10 to heart patients because it is critical for the functioning of the heart! 

Lets get this straight.  Statins are supposed to prevent heart disease by lowering cholesterol.  But these same statins deplete CoQ10, a substance the body makes to keep the heart healthy! 

Another perfect example of this are the acid-blocking drugs that prevent the body from making hydrochloric acid in the stomach.  They stop heartburn for sure, but why does the body make HCl in the first place?  Is heartburn design mistake that requires a "human fix?" 

HCl is the first step in digestion and very critical to the overall digestion process.  Stop it, and you get temporary relief.  BUT, you set yourself up for potentially severe problems later on (Leaky Gut Syndrome, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, etc.) simply because you stopped the body from doing what it was designed to do.

I contend that most of the time, when you prevent the body from doing what it is designed to do, you run great risks. 

I make the same point in my book, Wellness Piece by Piece.  It is far better to figure out why you are sick than to simply attempt to cover up the symptoms with drugs.  I believe that there are cases when drugs are useful as a "crutch" of sorts.  But you HAVE to attempt to uncover the real cause when you are battling chronic health conditions! 

Unfortunately for us, most doctors don't have time to do this today.  They only have time to cover over the symptoms!  They apply acute medicine techniques to chronic health problems. 

And most insurance companies/programs don't cover chronic care either.  (Need help finding a good doctor?)

I believe that if the body is not doing something it is supposed to do (or doing something it is NOT supposed to do), it usually comes down to one of two reasons, or both. 

Reason 1: The body is lacking some sort of natural nutrient that it REQUIRES! 

Reason 2: The body is unable to get rid of some toxic substance that is preventing/blocking it from doing what it is designed to do. 

If you can answer those two questions, you'll be well on your way to conquering your own chronic conditions!

Otherwise, we need to be VERY CAREFUL in our attempts to fool "Mother Nature!"

Pat Robertson vs. George Stephanopoulus... Media Bias?

I wrote a post about two days ago about Pat Robertson's assassination comments.  I joined virtually everyone else blasting Robertson for his outrageous comments.  I still think he was way off base for what he said.

However, I came across this NewsMax article which pointed out that George Stephanopoulus (pronounced "step-on-all-of-us"), the former Clinton top advisor turned media pundit, publicly stated the very same thing in 1997 in a Newsweek Magazine feature article.  He gave a long and reasoned explanation about why Clinton should assassinate Saddam Hussein.  The headline read, "Why We Should Kill Saddam."   Wow!!!

There was no media outcry from anywhere.  It was not talked about on every TV station.  No editorials condemning him and what he said.

The article closes with, "The one-time top Clinton aide said that, far from violating international principles, assassinating Saddam would be the moral thing to do, arguing, "What's unlawful - and unpopular with the allies - is not necessarily immoral." 

I wonder how George's same comments would play today?  Wonder if he is saying the same things today?

And really, what is the difference between what Robertson said and what Stephanopoulus wrote?  Stephanopoulus was MUCH more explicit than Robertson and yet NO ONE said a thing that I know of.  Why?

First off, blogging did not exist then!  Today, George would be blasted by the conservative half of the blogosphere for writing that same article. 

Second, George was part of the politically acceptable club and his assasination idea was considered reasoned and intelligent.  Could it be that it was OK for him to say what he said because he was a liberal democrat, fresh out of the administration of the media-beloved President Clinton? 

But since Pat Robertson is a "Wacko Conservative Ultra Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist," he's lambasted!  Say it ain't so.

But of course, it is so...We all know that the majority of the mainstream media has a liberal bias.  This is just one more clear cut example.   And one of the most clear that I know of.

Now, I do want to make sure that my position is understood: I thought, and still think, Robertson's comments were crazy for him to say.  But to be fair, Stephanopoulus HAS to be considered just as crazy as Robertson!

UPDATE: Pardon My English, Hugs, Kisses, and Bombs, and Memento Moron are just a few of the other bloggers that see the same irony I do.

UPDATE: NewsMax also reports that CIA, Military Men Agree with Pat Robertson.  Not that anyone would be surprised at this because this is what the CIA and special ops actually do.  (At least, we think this is what they do!)

Pat Robertson, what were you thinking?

I am a Christian and I am embarrassed by Pat Robertson's call to assasinate the President of Venezuala.  I can't find an example anywhere of Jesus calling for the assasination of anyone.  Neither did any of his followers like Paul who wrote most of the New Testament.  There is a definite view of politics as important but something less than the transcendent "Kingdom of God."  Jesus said that His Kingdom is not of this realm! 

So what in the world is Robertson doing calling for the assasination of a head of state?  It is embarrasing because he is viewed by many mainstream mediatypes as speaking for a large part of the Christian world.  I don't think he actually does.  He certainly does not speak for me.  I think he is way off base!

Having said that, I think Christians have a responsibility to be involved citizens just like Jesus made sure he paid his own taxes.  I am certain that Jesus was VERY aware of the political climate and happenings during His day.  But that was NOT what motivated Him at all.  He was totally motivated by His mission -- the redemption of mankind! 

Pat Robertson would do well to follow His example!

UPDATE: I just heard a report that Pat Robertson is now saying he didn't mean "kill him," he only meant that Hugo Chavez should be kid-napped, or something like that.  That's not much better.

UPDATE: Of course, the blogosphere is just blistering Pat today.  People just LOVE IT when Christians mess up!

Tristan Abbey Replies

Tristan Abbey sent me the following email in reference to my previous blog entry, A Better "What are Darwinists Afraid Of?" 

Mr. Sullivan,

Many thanks for the favorable review. For the record, I haven't actually updated my bio in a while - I'll be a sophomore at Stanford this fall, not a freshman. Mea culpa!

I think your suspicion that the younger generation is more open to ID is definitely right. Lots of the students in our group are high schoolers and young undergrads. There are many, many more affiliated with the IDEA Center (www.ideacenter.org) and many others who are keeping their support for ID a secret until they get their degrees and positions. Luckily, I'm majoring in poli sci or history, so my involvement won't damage my professional career.

Tristan Abbey

The younger generation is a great encouragement to me.  Shame that many of them have to stay in the closet!  Universities are certainly not bastions of free speech are they!

"The Case for a Creator"

One of the books that has had a big impression on me is Lee Stroebel's "The Case for a Creator."  He was an atheist reporter for the Chicago Tribune who decided to investigate the issues surrounding Evolution and Creation.  His book and subsequent conversion, was the result of his investigation.

I recommend it in my book, "Wellness - Piece by Piece" and also on our website at Jigsaw Health.

I came across an interview of Stroebel that is a good introduction or summary of what is in his book.  Given the debate that has ensued from President Bush's remarks that he thought Intelligent Design ought to be taught along with the Theory of Evolution, I thought you might find this interview interesting and insightful about the real issues in the debate.

I found it interesting that he ends his interview with a statement that I basically made in my recent post "What Are Darwinists Afraid Of"  Stroebel says, "Why are people so afraid of evidence that happens to point toward an affirmation of what the vast majority of people on the Earth believe in the first place?  Enjoy the interview!

Top Athiest Changes His Mind

Trying to learn more about the Intelligent Design vs Evolution debate has led me to read many things the past few days.  I came across this great article about Antony Flew, considered to have been the leading atheist philosopher of our age.  In his words he has NOT become a Christian but has become a "Deist" like Thomas Jefferson. 

What was the main reasons he was an atheist?  Darwinian Evolution! 

What caused him to change his mind?  He was convinced by the impressive scholarship of scientists professing Intelligent Design.  He has become a believer in a Designer but does not know who He is!

Commentator Ed Darrell tried to claim here that one HAD to believe in Evolution if they believed in God.  After picking myself up off the floor, I responded that I thought Evolution was the main basis for unbelief for MOST, if not ALL atheists.  This article about Antony Flew is evidence that I am right.  (Can I help it if I am right?)

Once he began to see that the EVIDENCE strongly indicated a Designer, being intellectually honest forced him to accept it as truth! 

It is important to realize that Darwinists DEFINE science as any "natural" explanation for what is observed.  Meaning they deliberately EXCLUDE any possibility of a Supernatural Designer by their very definition of what SCIENCE is.  That is why they call ID'ers non-scientists even though the ID'ers are clearly very accomplished scientists who happen NOT to believe in Darwinity.

It would be like a Detective investigating a murder deciding that the murderer could be anyone but his mother!  Even if all the evidence indicated his mother was an Ax murderer, he could not "by definition" go there.  He would HAVE to make the evidence fit his presupposition.  He is NOT starting from an intellectually honest place though and neither are the Darwinists.  A NATURAL explanation is the ONLY explanation they will accept!  Bad presupposition if the evidence indicates something else.  If you are a scientist you should NOT start with ANY presuppostions.

A Response To Ed.

My post titled "What are Darwinists Afraid Of?" has had more comments than any other post I have done.  One commentator, Ed Darrell, has posted a few interesting "Pro Darwin" comments.  See the article and comments here.

I liked my reply so much I thought I would re post it.  That is one benefit of being the Blogger!

Repy to Ed: Many thanks to Ed for his well written reply to my comments in reply to his comments. Did you follow that?

I won't reply to each of his statements as I agree with much of what he writes. Sort of! The problem I have is that I totally agree that evolution can and has been observed often in nature. But there are TWO TYPES of EVOLUTION. There is micro evolution - change within species - and there is macro evolution - one species becoming another species.

The first has been observed. The first has been utilized in medicine and agriculture as he says. My problem is not with micro evolution at all. It makes perfect sense and is readily proven that it happened and still happens today! My problem is logically taking that observation and making the jump to MACRO EVOLUTION. I am not aware of any evidence or observation showing that has happened or is happening. The total lack of "intermediate" species in the fossil record are very telling. Also, the sudden appearance of species in the fossil record is totally unpredicted by evolution. Smarter people than I could go on and on about the huge holes in the theory of Macro Evolution.

I think that this is the main problem in a discussion about "evolution". One needs to make sure we know which type of evolution we are talking about! Id'ers, get accused of being stupid because they supposedly don't accept the concept of micro evolution when they readily do.

As to the lack of "published" work from ID'ers, scientific publications are controlled by Darwinists and they are not going to allow anything written by an ID'er to be published so that can continue to use the argument that ID is not scientific because they have never been published! That circular argument works in medicine too!

I also fail to follow Ed's argument that somehow it is anti-God to believe in ID and not in evolution. Clearly the basis of belief for every athiest I have ever talked to has been Evolution and not Creation! It seems rare to find Christians (or any other faith for that matter) who believe in a Creator but also believe that creation happened from NOTHING and totally randomly by chance.

I also don't like the tendency for evolutionists to attack ID'ers personally. I have read things written by people like Dembski and Behe and it is hard for me to believe that they are stupid people with an evil agenda. They seem extremely smart and their arguments compelling.

One could argue as Ed does, that this is because I am simply ignorant and have not been properly taught what evolution really is. The fact is, I have read things from evolutionists and I have gone through the obligatory evolution classes both in High School and College. In those classes I found myself saying, "that is all there is?" "That is what evolution is?" I wanted to know where the beef was.

I don't think the reason that only 22% of Americans believe in Evolution is that 78% of them are just too stupid or ignorant! I think that evolutionists have to do a better job explaining how what is observed, happened totally from NOTHING and totally randomly. That is the huge problem that they have it seems to me.

What is observed appears to be extraordinarily well designed! Nothing that we use or work with in everyday experience came into being from nothing or by chance. Our experience readily teaches us that everything worthwhile has been designed by someone.

Lawyers Have a Way With Words!

Ed Darrell is a rather prolific responder to anything written against Darwinian evolutionary dogma.  He has left a few challenging comments on this blog regarding my post "What are Darwinists Afraid Of?

Part of a comment he posted said the following regarding some leading Intelligent Design thinkers and writers, all of whom are fellows at the Discovery Institute.

"William Dembski is not a biologist, but a theologian; Angus Campbell is a speech professor; Jonathan Witt has a degree in creative writing; Steve Meyer has a Ph.D. in history and philosophy, and has never done a lick of biology research; John West is a professor of political science. Those are the big guns. Michael Behe is a biochemist."

Since I was not familiar with all of these names I decided to look up their credentials.  While Ed is correct that most of them are not biologists (neither is Ed since he is a lawyer in Dallas), most of them have a lot more credentials and accomplishments than he gives them credit for.   Lawyers have such a way with words don't they?! Let's take a look.

Ed says that Dembski is a theologian.  Well, he is that and more:

A mathematician and a philosopher, William A. Dembski is associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He is also the executive director of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (www.iscid.org). Dr. Dembski previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996.

Not bad for a stupid ID'er. 

Now lets look at Angus Campbell, a speech professor:

Ph.D., rhetoric, University of Pittsburgh, is a professor and director of graduate studies in the Department of Communication at the University of Memphis and past President of the American Association for the Rhetoric of Science and Technology. He has twice won the Golden Anniversary Award from the National Communication Association (1971 and 1987) for his scholarly essays and was a recipient of the Distinguished Teaching Award (1993) and the Dean's Recognition Award (1994) from the University of Washington. He was named Communication Educator of the Year by the Tennessee State Communication Association (2001) and most recently (2003) was the recipient of the Oleg Zinam Award for best essay in the Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies.

Next Jonathan Witt, a degree in creative writing:

Senior Fellow Jonathan Witt holds a Ph.D. in English from the University of Kansas. After years of studying and teaching students about logical fallacies and the structure of sound arguments, Witt began to notice just how fallacious and unsound the arguments of the leading Darwinists were.

"They claimed to rest their arguments on a wealth of arcane scientific data," he writes, "but once I dug past the jargon, I found that their arguments were always built on a foundation of question begging definitions, either/or fallacies, bogus appeals to consensus, and quasi-theological claims that 'an intelligent designer wouldn't have done it that way.'"

Witt's dissertation on critical theory and aesthetics received highest academic honors and has led to articles in such journals as Literature and Theology and The Princeton Theological Review. Currently Witt is exploring how Darwin and prominent Darwinists employ widely discredited and even contradictory aesthetic presuppositions in their arguments against an intelligent designer. An article on this subject, "The Gods Must Be Tidy," appeared in the July/August 2004 issue of Touchstone. His InterVarsity Press book, "The Meaning-Full Universe," co-authored with Benjamin Wiker, will appear in 2006.

See Witt's own blog at http://wittingshire.blogspot.com/.

John West is a professor of political science:

Dr. West holds a Ph.D in Government from Claremont Graduate University and a B.A. in Communications from the University of Washington. He is a recipient of several academic fellowships, including a Haynes Foundation Dissertation Grant, an Earhart Foundation Fellowship, a Richard Weaver Fellowship, and a Chevron Journalism/Economics Scholarship. Dr. West is a member of the American Political Science Association, Pi Sigma Alpha (the national political science honor society), and Phi Beta Kappa.

Ed says Steve Meyer has a Ph.D. in history and philosophy:

Stephen C. Meyer is director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, in Seattle.

Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin of life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Previously he worked as a geophysicist with the Atlantic Richfield Company after earning his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Geology.

Dr. Meyer has recently co-written or edited two books: "Darwinism, Design, and Public Education" with Michigan State University Press and "Science and Evidence of Design in the Universe" (Ignatius 2000).

He has also authored numerous technical articles as well as editorials in magazines and newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, First Things and National Review.

Michael Behe is a biochemist:

Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.

In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, he has also written editorial features in Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. His book, "Darwin's Black Box" discusses the implications for neo-Darwinism of what he calls "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems. The book was internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and recently named by National Review and World Magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century.

Behe has presented and debated his work at major universities throughout North America and England.

One of the major tactics of debaters (and lawyers) is to attack the credibility of the other side all the while ignoring anything truthful or logical about what they say.  Lawyers do this well.  They sure have a way with words don't they!

A Better "What Are Darwinists Afraid Of"?

I have been reading a number of sites researching more about this raging "Intelligent Design vs Darwinism" debate that President Bush stirred up with his comments last week.  My previous post entitled "What are Darwinists afraid of?" has had a lot of comments.  There are a lot of deep feelings stirred on both sides whenever this subject comes up.

I came across  "Are Darwinists Chicken" written by Tristan Abbey and published in the Stanford Review. He basically raises the same questions as I did.  He, however, does so much more eloquently than I. 

The truth is Tristan is a recent high school grad and is going to Stanford this coming school year.  The Darwinists are in deep trouble if Tristan is any indication of what the new generation believes!  The younger generation always rebels against the dogma of the older generation.  Could they be targeting Darwinism like I targeted short hair?

Enjoy!

What are Darwinists afraid of?

President Bush touched a MAJOR nerve with his rather innocuous comment about Intelligent Design.  The Darwinists are going crazy and the liberal media has been hammering him over the head.  It has been the number one topic on Technorati for about the last 24 hours.  Google News is showing 230 articles on the subject.

If the scientific evidence is so strong in favor of the theory that the universe and humans evolved by chance from nothing, why would these Darwinists feel threatened by both theories being taught in a classroom? 

Oh yeah, because it "smells" of religion.  Someone grab a "SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!" sign.  Thank goodness we're getting rid of Christianity in America. 

The Darwinists have had a total monopoly in the classroom for decades and yet only 22% of Americans today believe that we evolved!  And the number is decreasing every year. 

(I will say that, somewhat surprisingly, so many of the blog entries throughout the day have been anti-ID, contrary to what one would expect according to the Harris Poll.  Wonder what the Harris people have to say?  I have no explanation...)

Similar to how the mercury-autism debate always turns political instead of sticking to science, the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate has turned from intellectually honest, "tolerant" scientific discussion to "those damn religious wackos want to force God on everyone" faster than a cilia can change directions!  (If the cilia reference doesn't make any sense, it comes from Michael Behe's excellent book, "Darwin's Black Box".) 

In reality, Darwinism is a faith that requires you to throw out reason and logic!  We came from nothing?  Deep in our hearts, we know it is untrue.  But we want to believe it because if we came from nothing, we report to no one.  But in our heart, we know that's not true either. 

A little known fact is that there are numerous ex-Darwinist scientists that started down the path to ABSOLUTELY PROVE ONCE AND FOR ALL that we all came from nothing.  Along the way, they found that this just couldn't be done and they became Christians because the Biblical record was more scientifically plausible than any other theory. 

An excellent book for the layperson is "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

PS - Is it any wonder that my nameless, faceless, east coast surgeon, arch-nemisis Orac has an anti-ID post up right now?  Although, LaShawn Barber didn't settle for any of his babble.  (See omments 62 and 63.)  Orac, may the God you surely do not believe in bless you anyways. 

Air America Intelligent Design Poll

This poll on AirAmericaradio.com caught my eye.

The results really aren't very surprising, until you juxtapose them with the results of the Harris Poll about Intelligent Design that I blogged about recently here.  (64% of people believe we were "created directly by God", and another 10% think it was a "Powerful Force/Intelligent design."  Only 22% believed humans "Evolved From Earlier Species.")

These two markers create an interesting demographic profile on Air America readers.  First, they aren't much into Christianity...not that anyone is surprised by that.

But this really cements the fact that Air America listeners are way outside of the American mainstream on what most would consider to be a very core issue since one's belief about where we/this all came from has a dramatic impact on one's life and views.

Maybe it's just because it was President Bush suggesting we teach Intelligent Design in schools?  Wonder how the poll would skew if Dr. Dean were to suggest it?

UPDATE: The blogosphere certainly enjoys talking about Intelligent Design.  See the spike at Icerocket.

The Theory of Evolution is Losing Ground

It is amazing to me that after many decades of having evolution taught exclusively in all public schools and even in many private and religious schools, a Harris Poll (here or here) reports that a full 64% of people STILL believe we were "created directly by God", and another 10% think it was a "Powerful Force/Intelligent design."  Only 22% believed humans "Evolved From Earlier Species." 

It is hard to convince people to disbelieve something that is so obvious because contrary to popular "elitist" belief, most people aren't stupid.

Obvious?  Yes, obvious!

Consider this: Imagine that I took 100 people and put them in a room with a BMW.  Then over a period of months, they were told over and over in various ways, by various authorities, that this BMW was NOT designed and NOT manufactured by a group of engineers, but instead it simply came into existence by random chance exactly as they see it before them.  These people would understand what they were being told was ludicrous.  Every person with a working brain would continue to see that it was OBVIOUS that something complex like this BMW was clearly designed by intelligent beings!

Everyday, science continues to discover more and more complexity in our world.  Especially, the complexity of the human body.  The cell "machinery" that inexplicably works is so incredibly complex scientists are literally baffled by how it came to be.  They cannot explain how each cell came to manufacture all the machinery that it needs to sustain life as we know it.   

However, the staunch "Darwinists" insist that even though they don't understand how it could be, they KNOW that what they observe HAS to have natural explanations.  Their "religion" (Darwinism) insists that a supernatural explanation is NOT an acceptable explanation even if all the evidence indicates otherwise. 

Darwinists start with a naturalist view that something can ONLY be labeled as "science" if it has a natural explanation.  Since a super-natural explanation violates this presupposition it MUST be rejected, even if it is likely TRUE!  So Darwinist's spend much time trying to force all observations into a naturalistic view.  They accuse anyone who disagrees with them by offering a supernatural explanation as being unscientific heretics! 

Good thing burning at the stake has been outlawed.

For many decades, Darwinists have controlled the very definition of the word "science."  In spite of this, their control has not resulted in the common people believing in their theory.  Why?  Because it simply cuts against the grain of what appears OBVIOUS to most people.  Something as well designed and well functioning as the human body (in fact, the entire cosmos for that matter) HAS to be designed by something intelligent! 

This has led to what is becoming a HUGE movement within academia at all levels called "Intelligent Design."  Michael Behe's Darwin's Blackbox pretty much kicked off this movement almost a decade ago.  It is a great read.  In fact, it discusses how Darwin himself said,

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory [of evolution] would absolutely break down."  - Charles Darwin

Behe then goes on to show several such "irreducibly complex" systems from his own field of molecular biology.

Even more telling in the Harris poll is that in the last 10 years, in spite of the continual pounding on the public mind that evolution and Darwin was TOTALLY PROVEN as fact, people who actually believe that humans evolved from earlier species dropped from 44% to 38%.  The Darwinist's are losing ground even though they control virtually all the schools and almost all the media! 

Why? 

Because design is obvious. 

A thinking person finds it very difficult to come to the conclusion that our complex, intricately designed world simply HAPPENED BY RANDOM CHANCE!  Their brains reject the thought and say, "no way!"

This really makes Darwinist's upset!  They attack on the growing majority of Intelligent Design scientists and "common people" with increasing intensity everyday.  You can expect the volume of their emotional attacks to increase even as their influence wanes.  They are no different than the religious zealots who persecuted Columbus, Copernicus, Galileo etc. because what they discovered challenged treasured beliefs.  The truth eventually wins out however!

The Discovery Institute is a good resource for more on Intelligent Design.  And an excellent book on the subject is The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, by Lee Strobel.

The arguments will go on and on but the Harris Poll shows that Darwinist's have really already lost.  The obvious is, well, obvious!

Email reply to a new friend

The following is the text of an email that I wrote to a new friend who emailed me about things he found useful in my book, WELLNESS PIECE BY PIECE, and the Jigsaw Health website.  As I re-read my reply to him I realized it could be a good post as it covers so many issues from several angles.  My new friend is a deeply devoted Christian.  I think you will get the gist of his email to me as you read it.

My email reply:

I understand completely about doing two things at the same time and getting better, but then being afraid to stop one of the things you are doing for fear that it was the reason you got better! I have done that MANY times! Uncovering hidden underlying causes of health issues is VERY difficult. That is where I feel I have had so many answers to prayer! I would think that I really understood why I felt a certain way, only to have the Lord somehow reveal something out of the blue that would cause me to realize that what I thought was not accurate.

Lexapro is likely the best of the SSRI's I think. I have never used it but it is highly rated here www.remedyfind.com/rm-3743-Lexapro.asp. I like this site because it is users who rate the various things that they take.

Depression IS an awful thing. Especially if you combine it with an unhealthy sense of "God is punishing me" or "If you just believed right, or thought right, you would not be depressed brother" type of advice/condemnation from well-meaning but ill-informed Christians! Been there, done that!

For some reason I never have used an anti-depressant though at times longed for one. Once a doc did talk me into trying Wellbutrin but that was short lived because it was AWFUL. Total insomnia was NOT a good side effect!

Instead, I have worked hard at trying to understand the underlying cause. I am not totally there yet but feel I am very close. Instead of taking something to re-use serotonin over and over, as in an SSRI, I have focused on helping my body make more serotonin. I figured I did not have a deficiency of Prozac!

Usually depression is one of two things, or both! A deficiency of one or many nutrients needed to make neurotransmitters, or a toxin (like mercury or something else) that prevents the body from making what it needs.

Mercury's number one effect is depression. Dentist's have the highest rate of suicide of any profession!

Really, that is the theme of my book: To discover the things that the body is missing and provide those, AND help it to get rid of the toxins that our generation has been exposed to in ever-increasing amounts!

From my way of looking at it, the Church is oblivious to the physical assaults upon the bodies of its members. We too easily ascribe physical issues with spiritual causes. We pray about our health and that is good, but then we expect God to somehow protect us when we eat like fools and are regularly exposed to highly toxic chemicals and metals in ever-increasing amounts.

I have often wondered if the attack on our bodies were not totally orchestrated by the one who seeks to destroy us. Does he know somehow that because we are looking at spiritual things we won't suspect a direct assault on our bodies which ultimately can effect our spirits?

Christians have had a false idea, it seems to me, as to the importance of the physical body and our responsibility to be stewards of it as well as we are of our hearts!

The body is the "temple of the Holy Spirit" and yet we treat it as though it is this awful thing of "flesh" that we can't wait to get rid of!

We get cancer or diabetes or depression and we say to God, "Why