Search This Blog

Thursday, May 27, 2010

Why Darwinists Don't Get It...As usual it starts with the beginning....

I will make additional comments to this brief dialogue in blue...reply to Woolf!

Jon Woolf has left a new comment on your post "The Anthropic Principle/fine tuning of the Univers...":

I reject your so-called "tons" of evidence on scientific bases and not religion.

Radar, by your own testimony you didn't start questioning evolutionary theory until after you were born again, and began getting your science from preachers who insist that you can only be a real Christian if you accept a literal interpretation of Genesis.

That is almost true but the differences are important.   First, I came in with a Darwinist viewpoint because I assumed that it was correct.   So there you are right.

Second, I got Bible from preachers who, in passing, may have discussed Genesis but frankly the primary push to me was my own study.   I realized that (unlike many of my fellow Christians) Darwinism and Christianity did not mix IF the Bible was to be trusted and IF NOT then could I trust it to provide evidence for salvation?   Now, being a logical person I had some trepidation.   I was able to see a remarkable change within myself upon becoming a Christian.   I actually cared a great deal more about other people and also found myself caring about the will of God.   Furthermore I had a great inner peace that seemed permanent.  So the study of Genesis from a scientific point of view did have inherent dangers to my newfound faith.  However I thought that such dangers were a necessary part of my journey of faith if I was to continue to be a man of logic and a seeker of truth.

So I went forth to find out if there was a scientific rationale behind Darwinism and whether there were those who had scientific evidence to bulwark Genesis.   Moses versus Darwin in the great laboratory of the libraries and bookstores of my neighborhood and the years of personal study from my past.   I was determined to know what was true and then let the chips fall where they may.  Dr. Henry Morris, via cassette tapes and books, opened my eyes to the fact that there were, in fact, entire organizations of scientists who believed Genesis, believed in a young Earth and a Noahic flood and had documentation to back up their beliefs!  It was then that the battle was on.   I had to review Darwinist teaching and compare it to scientific evidence and compare that to what the Bible asserts and consider...before long I was convinced that Darwin had made some interesting observations that would have advanced our understanding of organisms had the march of science rightfully set Darwin aside as new information came along to dismiss the crux of his arguments.   But unfortunately this subject had already become worldview-driven and so it remains.

Furthermore I have made a point of almost exclusively using science rather than religion in making posts about science, which makes sense.

Radar, science is a process, not a job title. If you are working toward a pre-assumed conclusion, as all creationists do, then you aren't doing science. When you say that the Bible must be assumed true as a precondition of any theorizing about Earth's history, that's religion, not science.

Jon Woolf, you are looking at the back end of a process and saying it is the start.  No, I began as a Darwinist and, upon conversion to Christianity, reviewed the subject of origins from the point of view of "what if" rather than "therefore."   I simply gave Genesis a chance to be accurate rather than beginning with the foregone conclusion that there could NOT be a God and therefore ANYTHING made a better explanation than a Creator God who formed the Universe ex nihilo.   When you say that naturalism must be assumed at the beginning of the study of origins, THAT is religion!   To say that you believe in God or to say you do not believe in God, both are metaphysical statements.   Therefore to exclude God from the possible causes of the Universe is just as religious as my inclusion of Him as the most logical solution.

Or I could say macroevolution, since the evidence for that is zero zip nada. No transitional forms.

The question of whether transitional forms exist was answered conclusively by the discovery of Archaeopteryx lithographica, 150 years ago. Since then, the examples have piled higher and higher. Protoceratops, Diarthrognathus, Tiktaalik, Hyracotherium, Sphecomyrma, Pachyrachis, Protocetus, Ardipithecus, Nectocaris ... the list goes on and on.

You forgot Flipperpithecus.   Oh, and our favorite Darwin-day Lemur, Ida?   How about Pakicetus?  Nebraska Man?  None of these animals are transitional. Some of them are fakes or falsely presented. None of them have an unformed one thing becoming another thing.  They are all simply species of organisms that we find today in different forms.   One of the big lies of Darwinism is transitional forms.   Also, the theory behind them has been falsified by following the phylogenetic trail exactly, as we can now do with advances in our study of DNA and the cell.   Various limbs and organs do not all come from the same place in the gene, even in supposedly related-by-evolution organisms. 

No observed information gain in organisms nor any comprehensive concept that suggests how it might happen.

[yawn] BTDT. Insecticide resistance in mosquitoes. Cecal valves in wall-lizards. Citrate metabolization in Escherischia coli. Toxin resistance in garter snakes. Neurotoxins in rattlesnake venom.

That yawn represents a gaping hole in your knowledge.   Any of these have been shown to be a result of information loss or exchange and not one of them is a result of information gain.   For instance, probably all E Coli have the ability to metabolize citrate anaerobically built into the gene pool but citrate is not a preference for them.  It required information loss that produced a speciated form of E Coli that could, indeed, metabolize citrate aerobically but would not survive for long in "the wild" as other E Coli better prepared to survive would be more likely to live and reproduce. 

That yawn is also the gap between Darwinist claims and one, even one, example of information GAIN in an organism over the entire course of observational scientific history.   Not one researcher has ever found it to happen and no one can imagine a probable means by which new information enters the gene.  Mutation is usually a problem rather than a solution but oddly enough the cell is designed with lots of redundancies and several pre-set switches that mutations can trigger in order for the organism to exist despite the error in the code.

I recognize that the cell is a combination of hardware and software beautifully and intricately designed, much as a spacecraft, with lots of redundancies and contingencies to enable it to continue to navigate through generation to generation and continue to fill the niche in the ecosystem it was designed to fill on an Earth designed to provide a home for not just life, but intelligent life and placed in such a way that the majority of the Universe can be observed and studied and to some extent understood and its powers and processes utilized to accomplish things for the benefit of mankind. 

I believe that in the beginning, God created.   I do not just believe this because I choose to believe it but I also believe it because it is far and away the most logical and really the only logical explanation for life.   Life is far too complex and designed and organized to have happened by chance events.   When will Darwinists see this?  It is just too obvious.   Every new revelation about organisms reveals more design, more fail-safes, more proof that kinds are designed to adjust to conditions but remain the same kind!

This just in....

Biology's Skeleton In The Closet: The Broken Bones Of Origins Science

Review Of Chapter 13 Of Signature In The Cell, by Stephen Meyer, HarperOne Publishers, ISBN: 9780061894206
By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

I never would have suspected that the literary sensation Dr Seuss' The Cat In The Hat Comes Back would be used to make a point about the devastating shortcomings of origin of life theories (1). But when I read one of the later chapters of Meyer's Signature In The Cell which in one foul swoop discredited Hermann Muller's fortuitous origins of DNA, Henry Quastler's DNA self replication hypothesis and Manfred Eigen's ideas on hypercycles I could not help but be fascinated by his use of this children's classic in his exposition. Of course in their own unique ways each of these scientists became steadfastly convinced that they were onto something of great significance that would lead to fruitful avenues on the all important question of how life had begun.

Muller drew inferences from his own work on viruses, in particular bacteriophages ('bacteria eaters'), equating these simple organisms to "a gene that copies itself within the cell" (2). He envisioned these as being somehow analogous to primitive DNA floating around in the chemical-rich soup of the early earth (2). Quastler on the other hand suggested that polynucleotides could act as templates for replication through complementary base pairing (3). And Eigen chose to assume that 'self-reproducing molecular systems' involving RNA molecules and basic enzymes could somehow supply an early form of transcription and translation, later forming hypercycles that would have preceded the arrival of the earliest cells (4).

So how is the Cat in the Hat relevant? Crucial aspects of the above mechanistic propositions, writes Meyer, parallel the antics of our feline friend as he unwillingly redistributes the mess he has created in the house of his none-too-happy hosts. Origin of life scientists have similarly been trying for decades to "clean up the problem of explaining the origin of [biological] information" only to find that they have "simply transferred the problem elsewhere- either by presupposing some other unexplained sources of information or by overlooking the indispensable role of an intelligence" (1). And their modern day brethren, with the apparent sophistication of computer-housed evolutionary algorithms, have fared little better. Meyer's unpacking of the reality behind Ev, for example, described by its author Thomas Schneider as "a simple computer program" that attempts to evolve the information content of DNA binding sites in a hypothetical genome, is a case in point (5). In Ev Schneider specifies the sequence of these DNA binding sites and incorporates the code for the binding site 'recognizer' (protein) into the genome (5). The relative penalties for mis-binding or non-binding of the recognizer to sequences are pre-set into the program (5).

Ev stands guilty as charged since, as Meyer asserts, it presupposes an unexplained source of information (1). And for that matter so does the much-celebrated evolutionary algorithm Me Thinks It Is Like A Weasel. "[Both] succeed in generating the information they seek" writes Meyer "either by providing information about the desired outcome from the onset, or by adding information incrementally during the computer program's search for the target". The so-called 'active information' imparted by the programmer allowed both programs to assess the proximity of any given sequence to a pre-specified target- hardly a fair representation of the Darwinian mechanism in action.

I had the opportunity to hear Michigan State University philosopher Robert Pennock present on another much-touted algorithm called AVIDA during the 2008 Bioethics Forum in Madison, Wisconsin. The forum carried the promissory title Evolution In The 21st Century. And Pennock certainly did his utmost to adopt the 'Darwin immortalized' slant that the event was promoting (6). From the deliberations that followed Pennock's exposition it appeared on the surface that AVIDA trumped its predecessors by not pre-specifying any sort of evolutionary target (5). But as I found out on further inspection appearances can be deceptive. In fact the AVIDA world is home to a brood of digital organisms that are rewarded with resources and replicate each time they perform logic functions (eg: AND, OR). Meyer's principle criticism is that the inherent complexity of these functions in no way equates to that which we find in genes and therefore unreasonably "diminishes the probabilistic task that nature would face in "trying" to evolve the first reproducing cell".

The problems with AVIDA run deeper still as Winston Ewert, William Dembski and Robert Marks II have made all too clear in their expository dissection of digital organisms. They conclude that "AVIDA generates active information from a number of knowledge sources provided by the programmer and, with respect to an evolutionary strategy, performs poorly with respect to other search strategies using the same prior knowledge" (7). In fact AVIDA organisms are endowed with virtual genomes and the capacity to replicate and operate within a realm of assigned merit values for each of the logic functions they perform (6).

More generally, the thrust of Meyer's attack has everything to do with the law of conservation of information (COI) (6). COI theory supplies us with a critical insight: "all computer search algorithms of moderate to high difficulty require active information" (ie from the programmer) and "the amount of information in a computer in its initial state equals or exceeds the amount of information in its final state" (1). That is, evolutionary algorithms do not furnish us with a means by which to simulate the origin of genetic information through natural selection given that too much information is siphoned into these algorithms from the onset by external intelligence.

For the same reasons already mentioned, the mess left by Dr Seuss' Cat in the Hat is once again proverbially pertinent to the matter at hand. In this regard, Meyer is to be congratulated for his divulgence of biology's foremost skeleton in the closet- the absence of a scientifically plausible explanation for the origin of biological information. On that matter, we should embrace his enthusiasm for change in the way that clenched-fist biologists filter debate over their view of life's unfolding story.


1.Stephen Meyer (2009) Signature In The Cell: DNA And The Evidence For Intelligent Design, HarperOne Publishers, pp. 271-295
2.Iris Fry (2006) The origins of research into the origins of life, Endeavour, Volume 30, Issue 1, March 2006, pp. 24-28
3.Robert L. Herrmann (1975) Implications of Molecular Biology for Creation and Evolution, JASA 27 (December 1975): pp. 156-159,
4.Vladimir Red'ko (1998) Hypercycles, Principia Cybernetica, See
5.Thomas Schneider (2000) Evolution of biological information, Nucleic Acids Research, 2000, Vol 28, pp. 2794-2799
6.Robert Deyes (2008) AVIDA As A 'Teleo-LOGIC' Model Of Life, Access Research Network, See
7.Winston Ewert, William Dembski, Robert Marks II (2009) Evolutionary Synthesis Of Nand Logic: Dissecting A Digital Organism, Proceedings Of The 2009 IEEE International Conference On Systems, Man, And Cybernetics, San Antonio, Texas, USA (October 2009), pp. 3047-3053, See

Memorial Day - for the veterans!

My friend Adam Miller sent me this:



 Keep it
moving, please, even if you've seen it before. 
It is the 
 not the preacher,  who has given us freedom of religion.
It is
 VETERAN not the reporter,   who has given us freedom of the press.

It is
 VETERAN not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

                                                                          It is                                                                             
not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.  

It is
 VETERAN not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is
 VETERAN not the politician,
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the
salutes the Flag, 

It is

who serves
under the Flag,
I'd be EXTREMELY proud if this email reached as many as possible. We can be very
proud of our young men and women in the service no matter where they serve. 

               Bless them all!!! 

                         Makes you proud to be an AMERICAN!!!!!

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Just thought I would try them on for size

Based on what I see, I am either immediately dumping one of these money grabbing thingys. People keep telling me I should "monetize" the blog. Let's see what looks good and what is horrible?

I am trying Adsense and Amazon. I may dump Adsense but Amazon lets me decide to highlight a possible product for a change of pace.

I could probably put one Amazon product at the end of a post and just dump Adsense since I have no control over content.

So probably Adsense hits the road, but I like Amazon and use it to buy mainly used books, new books, music CDs or MP3s and sometimes a gift for a friend or relative.

Tea Party and Eric Cantor invite YOU to try your hand at governance

Because government by the people for the people was part of the original intent. Now we have government by the ideologues for the millionaires AT the people.

Tea Party of Lake County, IN

Please visit our website:

Washington needs to hear from "We the People"

Eric Cantor - YOUCUT

Click HERE to visit YOUCUT website

YouCut -- a first-of-its-kind project - is designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. It allows you to vote, both online and on your cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House enact. Vote on this page today for your priorities and together we can begin to change Washington's culture of spending into a culture of savings. Click here to learn more about our first week's winning item, a $2.5 billion spending cut.

Hat tip to Mark Leyva, LKTP leader and Congressional Candidate!

Amanda is getting married!

Our Daughter Amanda is getting married and I am taking a couple of very difficult technical certs this week while working so the posts will be short or simple pastes until the big Saturday Wedding takes place.

I notice our wonderful government is going to tax US because BP screwed up a drill?

I have a great story to tell and I am trying to figure out whether I should write a novelette or publish chapter by chapter on one of my blogs. Not this one probably.

This is the week of so many graduations and graduation parties. Please do not drink and drive, guys. More later!

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Heroes and Heroines

Photo credit Hope For Chile Survivors

"The most essential factor is persistence - the determination never to allow your energy or enthusiasm to be dampened by the discouragement that must inevitably come."

James Whitcomb Riley (for whom my junior high school was named).

I feel like so many bad things are happening and so much untruth is being shouted from rooftops that post after post involves my fighting the battle of worldviews in the areas of science and politics and religion. At times it feels like plugging holes in dikes and other times like chopping at a big tree with a little hatchet. At times it seems almost futile and often negative.

So I want to list a few of my personal heroes and heroines -

  • God. I am thankful that He was patient with me and kept trying to get me to see the light through all my profligate early years. I work on his behalf in a lot of ways but He is still the top dog, the Creator of all things, the Upholder of time and material existence and the Savior of mankind. God is artistic, He has a sense of humor, He has great patience and His works and understanding are quite beyond me and yet He does present truth succinctly and well.
  • My mother for deciding to have me despite the fact that my birth would put a detour in her career roadmap and my father for fathering me and presenting one great side of both manhood and fatherhood. My parents both loved me and believed in me and no parent does all things right but that is so important for a child.
  • My wife, Debbie. She is my best friend on Earth and I love her so much! She is a remarkable artist and most of the things she creates she gives away to bless other people. Whether it is her handcrafted jewelry or her painted eggs or carved pumpkins she is amazing! But she is a better wife and mother than she is an artist.
  • My children are all blessings to me. Robert put in five years in the military and now is on the track to be a history teacher plus he works in the Youth Ministry at church with me and Debbie. He had a leg problem that forced him to have five painful surgeries and have two tours of duty with a leg contraption that hurt him continually. He can still play basketball at a high level. Sara is the mother of my two grandsons, an achiever who was an academic and singing star in high school and is now a championship mom and a law clerk. Michelle is the mother of my granddaughter and a girl who has fought through two entirely different life-threatening conditions and several major surgeries to still optimistically look for good rather than evil to come. David is one student teaching semester away from his English teaching certification and degree to become a high school English teacher. Amanda has just graduated with honors with an art degree from college and is about to marry a great young guy who had graduated the year before. She has not only earned scholarships to go through college but maintained a GPA of about 3.5 all the way through. Nathan is about to graduate high school and is already signed up and roll-ready for college to train to be a certified automobile mechanic and has been a volunteer doing public service all the way through high school. Most of my kids received honors in school and most of the time were honor roll students but I am most happy that all six of them are good citizens and Christians. So far my son-in-law brigade is terrific as well. No sons married yet.
  • Our missionary friends. We know couples, three of them, who have been serving overseas for over two decades doing great things for God instead of making money and being comfortable. Another couple has been primarily stateside but doing important Bible translation work for Wycliffe Bible Translators. One couple and their young girls are now trapped behind the Russian border, their passports having been confiscated. The old iron curtain may yet go back up there.
  • Our fellow youth staffers. Bill and Shelly, the Youth Pastors at our church, they cannot afford to live on the salary the church pays so they both work at side jobs involved with local schools. Shelly works in a school cafeteria and Bill drives bus. They are willing to go the extra mile to stay in harness even though Bill has been offered Senior Pastor jobs for much more money. He believes they are called to do what they do. A guy named Mark aka Ralph and I help Bill with the teaching in Junior and Senior High classes, respectively and Mark's wife, like mine, also is on volunteer staff. We have a couple of dozen dedicated staffers who keep coming back year after year to be part of the lives of teenagers.
  • Our former Pastor and his wife - Tim and Patty - who left us in December to go be missionaries among the poor population of the Turks and Caicos despite leaving a nice home and lots of friends and family...because they wanted to follow God where He would lead no matter what. Bill and another elder, Harry, are doing most of the preaching until we find a new Senior and they do it well.
  • Bloggers for good. I know some bloggers are hired by various factions to promote agendas or products, but most of the bloggers I like are people who just give the time and effort in hopes of making a positive impact on the world. I keep adding new good blogs to my links list, some of them famous like Pamela Gellar or Michelle Malkin, some of them military-involved like Amy Proctor (and her cool husband Sergeant Johnny) or worldview focused such as Hawkeye (Jim) and Tim High or exceedingly political such as the guys at StopTheACLU or Mark. Angel is one of the voices focused firmly against terrorism. I could go on and on about terrific scientists and humorists I admire who take the time to try to say something important.
  • Actually good people who happen to be politicians, like Marlin Stutzman and Sarah Palin (here come the haters) or Eric Krieg.
  • The mother of my first four children. She went through a lot of hard times and we divorced and I retained custody of my children. She has fought through a crisis of faith and some medical issues to now have great relationships with all of her children, her grandchildren and also her ex-husband(me) and his current wife(Debbie). Sue was a great mother for the majority of our 20 years of marriage and she deserves plaudits for overcoming a few difficulties with determination and a resurgence of faith.
  • People who work to serve others as teachers and medical professionals. Oh sure, plenty of both professions include lazy people and bad people. However, I think many teachers and medical professionals have a genuine desire to help others and deserve acclaim.
  • Pastor Wood, the guy who led me to Christ. I was hairy and big and smelled of cigarettes and beer and marijuana and a few hours of hard work when he sat down with me and opened my eyes to God. It takes effort to put yourself out there for God, especially with people who looked like I did back then. He was dedicated and brave and I am glad to say he remains a friend and mentor to this day.
  • Military men and women who serve the USA. Many of my friends and god-kids are military now and I can tell you there are lots of sacrifices military families must make to allow their spouses and/or parents and/or children to take the oath and grab the rifle and go stand on a wall somewhere.
  • My Christian friends who encourage me on facebook or in person. Various injuries I have incurred over the years make my life very difficult at times and it is so great to be encouraged by friends when times get tough.
  • My fellow warriors in the political ranks who formed a new chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus along with me on Saturday. We have a motto - "The conscience of the Republican Party!" We have an aim to inform and encourage and energize the people of our county to vet their politicians and to vote for the good guys instead of the guys with money.
  • All you small businessmen who have formed businesses that employ others and help other families make a living. With time and effort and God's help we will make this country business-friendly again.
  • All you parents who actually give a rip about your kids. We will stand with you to try to keep traditional values of the American people in place or replaced.
  • All of you who fight for life and against the Holocaust against the Unborn.
  • Even my commenters who disagree with me. I learn from you whether you are right or wrong. You are like weights I must lift to gain strength and durability. I am thankful our respective First Amendment rights have allowed us to disagree vehemently at times and the government has not yet tried to shut us down.
  • Every Governor or Attorney General who has vowed to fight Obamacare in the courts and every state like Arizona that picks up the ball when the Federal boys drop it.
And yet there are more. There are so many people to admire and respect living now and so many from the past who should be celebrated. I could go on and on and on. If you give of your time and talents to help others, I thank you. If you have served your country in the military or as a emergency responder such as policemen and firemen and EMT, I salute you as well. If you work to help the homeless or heal a disease or help someone through rehabilitation of some kind, you too! American volunteerism helped make this country great. If we could get the government out of the volunteer areas and back to doing what they are tasked to do, maybe we could still be that shining beacon on a hill. I believe in an exceptional America peopled by exceptional Americans.

"Greatness is not found in possessions, power, position, or prestige. It is discovered in goodness, humility, service, and character." - William Arthur Ward.

A talk with a physician about Obamacare

Yesterday in the company of many fine fellows and a few feminine companions history was made. Maybe. We small group of erstwhile Quixotes have formed a chapter of a 527 organization with the intention of informing and energizing voters. I am hopeful that within a couple of months we can have a small impact and by 2012 we will help to focus grassroots efforts and perhaps even have a convention for Tea Party types to pre-qualify a people's candidate to run against the RINO that the dunderheads up the ladder drop down on our heads. You will know us when we have the html code ready for the badge to display on blogger.

In Indiana, many grassroots candidates lost to party hacks because the hacks had some name recognition and big money. We can't help with the money part. But we can inform voters so they don't just vote for a name they vaguely remember. Sadly, with some voters any recognition at all gets their vote. John Gacy? I heard of him, guess I should vote for him as Sheriff!

While working as a poll judge I was asked to tell people who the incumbent was and how to vote a straight ticket (primaries? Nothing but straight tickets) or who to vote for (which I could not do) and a few folks who were asking other voters who to vote for...shouldn't people KNOW something about candidates in advance? Well, we want to fix that!

While starting up the chapter with charter memberships and doing the officer thing (both by acclamation) and so on and so forth, I had the chance to have good conversations with some of the more honest local politicians and a few bloggers I had not met in person before and one exceedingly interesting wife of a blogger buddy who had a lot of eye-opening things to say about Obamacare.

My doctor and the people at my clinic are very concerned about what will happen once Obamacare really takes hold. I wondered what Dr. A would say and here is a close-to-verbatim recounting of the conversation. Keep in mind that I was holding a conversation with her about this and with two colleagues about two other topics so I was going back and forth between three people. Keep in mind that Dr. A was born and raised in Romania and remembers the communist years, is also fluent in Spanish and English is her third language! Makes me feel kind of dorky, but here we go.

R = Radar

A = Dr. A

R - So what kind of medicine do you practice?

A - I am, I do internal medicine, yes.

R - Where do you work? A hospital around here?

A - A clinic. I used to work in ******** Hospital but it was a consortium of physicians who were more concerned about money than caring for people and I grew tired of that, so I went out on my own. Hospitals are either going to focus on money or go broke and close.

R - Yes! My daughter had interupted aortic arch with ASD and VSD at birth and they rushed her to Michael Reese Hospital, which was a top class pediatric surgical hospital and her life was saved. Now the place is closed and abandoned...I saw some pictures of the place on Flickr and it was awful, a bunch of trash and junk now.

A - So now I work in Illinois.

R - Nearby? Can I go there?

A - (She then describes the area so I know what part of Illinois her clinic is in) I had to work in Illinois because I signed a non-compete in the state so I could not work in Indiana.

R- What do you think of Obamacare? Would it be a disaster?

A - No, I don't think so at first. But I think it is a lie. It really isn't free healthcare but it would lead to rationing. It would be hard to tell at first.

R - You think it would work at first?

A - Yes, at first it will not make so much difference. But it will go bad later on.

R - My doctor is worried he will go out of business. You know, I get a discount for paying cash? And I have gone to the same clinic since 1984 and they know me and what is going on with me. I am afraid I will lose them. Plus I can afford cash better than buying insurance.

A - Yes, well in Germany they have a system like this. It works but if you have a very difficult or expensive condition you must be politically connected or have money. Romania really did have free care but that was very bad.

R - Romania was free?

A - Yes, but the government would give a hospital a certain amount for the year and that was that. So they would get a million dollars and what do they buy? Soap, toilet paper, gloves, basic medicines, things like that. Then they have a few hundred thousand dollars and they pay for the most common medicines and then that is that. So if you come in with a broken hip and you need a special orthopedic device, you cannot have it...unless you pay for it and also pay a tip. In Romania people would tip doctors to get faster service or anything. If you had something that was not common and you had no money, you could not get help.

R - So it was actually a disaster?

A - Yes, for most people it was very bad if they were badly hurt or had a bad disease. It was a kind of rationing and it was about bribes and tips.

R - The underground cash only economy?

A - Yes. In this country a homeless bum can be rushed into the emergency room with broken bones and get xrays and everything he needs and then if he is ready to leave and has no money the hospital just pays. But someone who just wants to be checked for non emergency needs to show ID and maybe a visa card to get treatment. So the Obamacare is not about giving care to emergency patients who are poor.

R - But if it is free, then people will just come in with a headache and ask for all sorts of tests?

A - Okay. If my patient has a headache and we look at her condition and tell her there is a chance of brain cancer and she is a cash patient or has very poor insurance I know getting tested will cost her at least three hundred dollars. If she asks me the chances she has a tumor versus something common and I say one per cent then she can decide maybe she doesn't want the test. But if it will not cost her anything she will get it, you see? I get no money for the test, I will tell her the odds and let her decide. Under this Obamacare maybe everyone will want the test?

R - Sure. Again, I am a cash patient and everyone gives me a discount for cash so I would hate mandatory insurance.

A - I give thirty per cent for cash. If I have a Medicare patient and the charge is 63 dollars I probably only get 45 dollars back for that or maybe less and there is a lot of delay and paperwork. Some insurance only pays part of what is charged. I like cash payers. So many things are...

(At this point another guy interjects) There will be people who will be required to do operations they believe violates their Hypocratic oath and they will leave medicine!

R - Right, what if all physicians are required to do abortions? Some of them will not do it, believing the Hypocratic oath means they don't take innocent lives. What do you think?

A - I didn't take the oath.

R - No?

A - The room was crowded and a lot of the people did not smell good when they gave the oath so I just walked out and got my license anyway.

R - Wow. Romania was another world. Were there Trabants there?

A - No, but some other car like that, yes. But there is no bank loan at that time, you had to have the money to buy a house or buy a car so not many people owned cars. I was very privileged and so I was better off than most people. My grandfather was rich and had much land and money. When the communists took everything they took land but did not take the house, so my grandfather sold it and got a smaller house where we lived and we still had some money. My parents were professionals. My mother was a professor of economics and I loved math but she warned me not to be a teacher.

R - Why is that? A university professor is a good job!

A - No, not in Romania. The pay is not good. The students are not good, they are not respectful. My mother warned me to either be an accountant or maybe four other ideas and I decided to try medicine. When we finally were free from communism in 1989 I began thinking about how to go away from Romania. Before we had no visa, no passports.

R - This is off the subject, but what if doctors did pro bono work maybe one-two days a month to help give care to the poor? Couldn't we do okay with the present system and throw away Obamacare if maybe doctors with tort reform could pay less in insurance and maybe help out pro bono like a lot of lawyers do?

A - I wanted to do this. At my church, which is in Cook County I was going to give three hours in the afternoon after church on Sundays to help out people who needed care, but I can't do it because if I practice medicine in Cook instead of Will County I have to pay an extra ten thousand dollars insurance. To give free care. So I could not do it.

R - That is so stupid. Lawyers!

A - So at first here it will not be bad but soon there will be rationing because all national healthcare plans become rationing. Only the rich and connected people will get everything they need. The poor will die.

R - So the poor and elderly people will get minimal care and then they die faster and oh, well?

A - That is what will happen, yes. It will be harder for me to work. It will be hard on people.

R - But couldn't we just allow insurance plans crossing state lines and business consortium plans and make insurance more affordable? We really aren't doing this the right way?

A - Yes, this is better. Make insurance better. My husband and I pay six hundred dollars a month for disaster insurance, if we have something very bad that puts us in the hospital but otherwise we just pay cash. Imagine when Obamacare happens, insurance companies cannot keep out anyone with preexisting conditions and so cancer patients and people who are going to need a lot of care so all insurance will be expensive.

R - So paying the no-insurance penalty is probably what I need to do.

A - In the end it will hurt the poor and people who are older and have bad conditions so rationing will happen and people will die I think. The poor.


So someone more accomplished and smarter than me who works in the industry and has experience with socialized medicine AND totalitarian governments is completely against it but her manner was quite stoic. She seemed to expect to get dumped on and was ready to slog on through. I hope for her and her husband that Obamacare will be stopped and repealed before it ruins the greatest medical system in the world. Yes, there are flaws in the system and jerk lawyers like John Edwards have helped insurance costs for doctors shoot up precipitously (ten thousand dollars EXTRA a year to give free care in Cook County?!) but we have the best system anyway. You find plenty of people fleeing national medicine nations coming here to get special care. Once the government takes over health care, that will change and I think it will change faster than Dr. A. believes.

Her husband is a talented writer and an IT guy. I am a writer and an IT guy. They have been married twelve years and met on Thanksgiving in New York City and were married in February. I asked if it was love on first sight and A said "maybe third" but her husband said he proposed on their fifth date. Great couple! I met my wife in late July and we were married before Christmas. Sometimes you just know. It will be fun to introduce my wife to M and to A. I am keeping them anonymous for now. Their names do not matter right now. The problems and issues remain.

And a note from Robert Sumner of the Biblical Evangelist:

THE “FIRST LADY’S” STAFF: Information provided by Columnist Dan Kennedy: "In lecturing us about blowing our money, The Great Ozbama displays breathtaking gall. Given that he is blowing trillions of our money, not his, and burying us in debt as no president in history, silence on the subject would seem more reasonable. To be nit-picky about it, since he is in citing trips to Vegas as particularly objectionable, I hold in my casino chip-calloused fingers a list procured from of Mrs. Obama's staff and their salaries.

“She reportedly has a staff of 22 assistants. Yes, I said twenty-two. (Previous First Ladies' dedicated staffs were in the single digits). Michelle's little army includes a Chief of Staff costing $172,000 a year; a Deputy Chief of Staff at $90,000; a Director of Policy and Projects at $140,000; a Director of Communications at $102,000; a Deputy Director of Scheduling at $62,000; two Social Secretaries – mysteriously, one at $65,000, one at $64,000; an Associate Director of Correspondence at $45,000, an Assistant to the Social Secretary at $36,000, and more, in total consuming $6.3-million annually – thus $25-million during her 4-year term. Not to mention a make-up artist and hair stylist.

“I have one assistant. Answer my own correspondence. Keep my own calendar ... Mr. President, sir, if you are going to lecture me about blowing my money in Vegas or turning down my thermostat or inflating my tires, do you think you could reign in your wife's blowing of my money just a teeny bit?"

Friday, May 21, 2010

Does Barack Obama hate America? Anyone?

71 per cent of Arizona citizens favor the Arizona Immigration bill, according to the latest Rasmussen poll. Now that makes sense, illegal immigrants are killing people in Arizona, kidnapping them, bringing in drugs, taking jobs and draining the treasury.

Depending upon the poll, probably 65 to 75 per cent of Americans want the laws against illegal immigration upheld. Now even Democrats by a slight margin favor the Arizona law. What does the law do? It upholds the Federal Law!!!

Barack Obama hated the law before he read it and so did Eric Holder the Attorney General. Janet Napolitano is a hypocrite of the highest order because for years and years she begged the Federal government to help her deal with illegal immigration while SHE was GOVERNOR of Arizona and now that she has a Homeland Security job she flip-flops.

Unemployment when Republicans controlled congress in 2008 was 4.4 per cent. It is more than double that now.

Republicans were crying out to stop the AIG/Fannie/Freddie debacle in which bad mortgages were bundled with good and all sold at a profit. The lenders were taking just about anyone who could crawl through the door and even giving 125 per cent loans because they knew they could sell it and walk away. Lenders walked off with profits, poor people got basically free housing for a few months before they were booted out and the economy was crunched by the mortgage banking industry taking a dive. We could see this coming but Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and all the Democrats in control of the banking industry were getting lots of money from bankers to let it go on. I mean, really, who was going to lose? Just the American people. The Federal government probably doesn't give a rip about us, frankly. We are just the hosts that the Big Leeches want to bleed dry.

Cash for clunkers was an epic fail.

Every bailout was an excuse for pork barrel politics and another chunk of national debt.

Obama is spending money that we don't have and our children won't have. He wants to greatly increase our debt and let the Bush tax cuts expire and then use cap and tax to kill the economy for the sake of CCX fat cats who wish to get fatter.

So before I just keep on ranting, I want to know what readers think. Remember that Barack Obama's "pastor" for twenty years said "God **** America?" Is that what Barack Obama wants? Does he want to destroy the country and then take his millions of dollars and move to some little island in the Pacific away from it all?

What in the world is the man doing? Quadrupling the debt, humiliating our allies, sucking up to our enemies, making a farce of being Commander in Chief? Anyone?

Thursday, May 20, 2010

A Tale of Two Book Banners: Palin Ripped, Kagan Excused

A Tale of Two Book Banners: Palin Ripped, Kagan Excused

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day?

This guy was so on top of this I just defer to Looking To The Left, go and see.

Okay, just one to whet your appetite?

South Park pulls back their Mohammed segment and then the Comedy Channel starts a SERIES on a rebellious Jesus Christ? So stifle your complaints in advance. Find a Constitution and look at the first amendment, will ya?

Is the NAS in the tank for CCX? Global Dumbing makes sense to John Kerry's wallet

From Watt's Up With That (and I hope you looked up the link Hawkeye provided - The Thermostat Hypothesis )

Even if CO2 increased greatly, it is too small a percentage of the atmosphere of the Earth to do much of anything to temperatures. But if you look back at my archives you will see how the CRU fudged their figures and the hockey stick graph. You will also see post after post of weather stations in North America being moved to cause them to give higher temperatures.

So would it shock you that the National Academy of Science is pushing for John Kerry's try at a Cap and Tax bill? Would it shock you that Cap and Tax of any kind would do no good at all, kill American industry, cause energy prices to rise for all and make John Kerry and Barack Obama and Al Gore and their buddies even more millions of dollars?

Do you want your budget to go through the roof like America's? Do you want other jobs to go down the drain, do you want the ten per cent unemployment go to fifteen or even twenty? Is every neighborhood doomed to have foreclosed housing? Two typical posts on the actual behavior of the temperatures of the Earth and one pointed opinion rant at the bottom.

Spencer: Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Poised for a Plunge

Global Average Sea Surface Temperatures Poised for a Plunge

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Just an update…as the following graph shows, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) along the equatorial Pacific (“Nino3.4″ region, red lines) have been plunging, and global average SSTs have turned the corner, too. (Click on the image for the full-size, undistorted version. Note the global values have been multiplied by 10 for display purposes.)

The corresponding sea level pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin (SOI index, next graph) shows a rapid transition toward La Nina conditions is developing.

Being a believer in natural, internal cycles in the climate system, I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that global-average SSTs will plunge over the next couple of months. Based upon past experience, it will take a month or two for our (UAH) tropospheric temperatures to then follow suit.

By Steve Goddard

As Bob Tisdale pointed out, Tom Karl’s NCDC trend claims don’t match his graph. The trend line is less than either of the claimed V2 or V3 trends in the graph below.

But beyond this blatant error, there are other problems with his graph. Why did it start in 1900? NCDC has data going back to 1880. As you can see below, temperatures dropped from 1880 for about 30 years, which reduces the long term slope considerably.

Now let’s compare his graph vs. Had-Crut, which goes back to 1850. Had-Crut is shown in green, and NCDC V3 is shown in red, at the same scale. Note that there is a huge divergence over the last ten years vs. Had-Crut. The Had-Crut long term trend is 0.45C/century, about half of what Tom Karl is claiming.

It appears that someone is hiding the decline at both ends of the graph.

Brayin Candy sez:


…they LOVE to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men cal them ‘Rabbi.’ Matt 23:7

Premier Hussain declares at one of his bromides, “at some point you have earned enough.” Never mind the obvious question, since when does anybody in America let alone the President tell anybody they have earned enough? Perhaps he can go to his financiers like $oro$ or the Saudis and tell them they have made enough? How bout he tells most of his cabinet or the congress they have earned enough or how much of his $10 million worth of graft is he going to give away? No this is another one of his statements to allow him to nationalize the banking industry while punishing those who are his enemies. His hypocrisy is highlighted by his involvement w/the Chicago Climate Exchange and the Joyce Foundation, two of the most corrupt organs in the Country.

The CCX was originally formed from an idea developed by Al Gore and Enron’s Ken Lay who was charged w/fraud from an energy scheme. During the late 90’s on a Hawaiian convention Gore worked w/Lay on a Sulfur Dioxide credit scam during the Acid Rain fraud. Enron was a huge energy brokerage house that invented energy credits primarily in Electrical and Natural Gas. They owned large blocks of NG and were looking for a way to increase demand for the NG market and wanted to force the development of NG power plants. The main problem was Coal which was plentiful and cheap. Coal costs around 2 cents per Kilowatt to produce and NG is around 8 cents, not hard to figure which is the right choice. Enron needed a way to increase the cost of coal, enter the Acid Rain hoax.

To drive the cost of coal up they needed to vilify the coal industry and coal generation so the environazis came to the rescue. They used their scientists to do what they do best which is to vilify industries by saying coal plants produced large amounts of sulfur dioxide which stayed in the atmosphere creating acid rain. Never mind there wasn’t any real proof other than a few dead trees and hysteria making those plants the evil villain destroying mother earth as their allies in the Establishmedia magnified their message making coal the producers of acid rain.

Ken Lay and Enron then began the concept of pollution credits for these plants and electrical companies. They would allow a plant to buy extra pollution credits which would be purchased from a company which didn’t produce any sulfur dioxide while Enron took their cut. He and Gore invented this concept which served them in two ways, making them some nice scratch while making coal a bit higher to produce power making Enron’s NG a bit more competitive. They then thought if they could do this w/Acid Rain what if they could do this w/a pollutant which was produced in massive quantities but what pollutant could they find? Hello CO2!

They had to convince America and the world CO2 is a dangerous pollutant but how could they promote such an outrageous fraud? They found a little know study at East Angelia University called global warming which they promoted w/egores Fraudumentary and a cult was hatched. Once the movie was made they found some funding through British Shell and Goldman Sachs then needed to find a way to market their Carbon Credits which is where Obama and the CCX comes into being. Once Fat Al’s movie became a worldwide hit he knew he had a scam which was a multi Trillion $$ industry so all the big players were interested to make him more money than he ever dreamed.

At this point Ken Lay had died from a convenient heart attack and was out of the picture so algore was able to manage this scam himself. Shell was pumping $$ into EAU and other climate research universities as was the federal gummit while Goldman was developing the marketing and brokerage side of this business. Could there be a more lucrative commodity than air? This is the perfect commodity making diamonds out of thin CO2. The gummit saw it as a way to generate unlimited amounts of taxes as well as the ultimate control of its citizens making energy more expensive and forcing people into a more sedentary lifestyle, working more and more for the state. This would force people to live their utopian Soviet lifestyle, five families to an apartment. In addition the raised taxes would be blamed on the evil energy companies while the $$ ends up in the Fed Reserve, the perfect tax. Of course its all to make America less dependent on foreign oil and coal. All the powers were centralized in one place and all they needed was for the people to go along w/the fraud.

Of all the coincidences, obozo was on the Joyce Foundation board at this time passing out grants to his favorite commie agitator causes when up comes a request to fund the newly forming CCX. He was so impressed w/the possibilities of this exchange he granted two startup grants for $1.1 million each. He saw the possibilities of the destruction of this Country through the increasing of energy as well as the destruction of the energy industries,. Even though he had no idea at the time he would be President he got on this train as fast as he could and became a major player in the CCX concept. He was a large proponent in Congress and now is going to push Cap and Kill Capitalism w/CCX being the main exchange for this law.

Right now the CCX is stealing Trillion$ and if Cap and Kill America passes the Sinate like it passed the House it will increase the value 100X. I axed my congresscrook why did it have to pass so quick? He said, “We’ve been working on it for 30 yrs” which tells you how bad the commiecrats want this to enslave us through higher energy costs. It will make algore as well as all their cronies involved w/this fraud instant Billionaire$. After all the lectures Premier Achmed has given on the evils of greed on Wall St, Oil, Auto, Banking and the Rich how is it he has no problem with those involved in this scandalous fraud, stealing outrageous amounts of $$ from the avg Americans. Apparently, “at some point you have earned enough.” are simply words which apply only to his enemies and not to his allies.

Pray for America

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

The Anthropic Principle/fine tuning of the Universe

Scientists in many different disciplines realize that design is all around us. Suppose for a moment that all scientists had no worldview at all but simply looked at the evidence, what would they say? Well, they try to avoid "design" so they say "order" or "functional" and yet the very specific and very precise design of the massive Universe and the simple cell both are obvious examples of design. What excuse will scientists who deliberately ignore the obvious evidence give to God at the end of it all? They will not be able to say that God hid Himself. His signature is everywhere. DNA, duh. Fine tuning of the Universe and the laws of physics and on and on and on...

Our Finely Tuned Universe

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

Printer version | Email this article

Imagine donning a gown and mask, and walking into the operating suite of a Level One trauma center. That cool, sterile environment exudes extreme order and neatness—after all, surgeons need to have instant access to a multitude of surgical supplies. Lives are at stake, and time is of the utmost importance. Now, consider for a moment if someone were to suggest that this precisely ordered surgical suite happened by mere chance, and that every single item just “happened” to find its way there by chance. Sound ludicrous? Well, then, consider for a moment how ludicrous it is for men dressed in starched white lab coats to stand before college students and proclaim that this finely tuned Universe just “happened” without any intervention. It is an undeniable fact that the Universe is delicately ordered and intricately complex—far more so than any operating room. Yet, we continue to be told that we, and the Universe around us, are the end result of some vast, inexplicable cosmological accident that occurred 13.7 billion years ago.

How can this be—in light of the impressive amount (and quality) of design that we routinely see all around us? Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies, in his book, The Cosmic Blueprint, opined:

There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all.... It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe.... The impression of design is overwhelming (1988, p. 203, emp. added).

Our Universe is indeed “fine-tuned” in such a way that it is impossible to suggest logically that it simply “popped into existence out of nothing” and then went from the chaos associated with the inflationary Big Bang Model (as if the Universe were a giant firecracker!) to the sublime order that it presently exhibits. Nancey Murphy and George Ellis discussed this very point in their book, On the Moral Nature of the Universe:

The symmetries and delicate balances we observe in the universe require an extraordinary coherence of conditions and cooperation of laws and effects, suggesting that in some sense they have been purposely designed. That is, they give evidence of intention, realized both in the setting of the laws of physics and in the choice of boundary conditions for the universe (1996, p. 57, emp. added).

The suggestion that the Universe and its laws “have been purposely designed” has surfaced much more frequently in the past several years. For example, the late British cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question (1982, 20:16).

In his book, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Davies made this amazing statement:

If nature is so “clever” as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world’s finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance? (1984, pp. 235-236, emp. added).

Eight years later, in 1992, Davies authored The Mind of God, in which he remarked:

I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.... Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here (1992, p. 232, emp. added).

That “we are truly meant to be here” is reminiscent of the statement made by physicist Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study. In his semi-autobiographical book, Disturbing the Universe, Dyson stated:

...[T]he universe is an unexpectedly hospitable place for living creatures to make their home in. Being a scientist, trained in the habits of thought and language of the twentieth century rather than the eighteenth, I do not claim that the architecture of the universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that mind plays an essential role in its functioning.... The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming (1979, pp. 250,251, emp. added).

The idea that in some sense the Universe “must have known that we were coming,” is the same sentiment expressed by two prominent cosmologists, Frank Tipler and John Barrow, in their 1986 book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, which discussed the possibility that the Universe seems to have been “tailor-made” for man. Interestingly, a mere eight years after that book was published, Dr. Tipler authored another book, The Physics of Immortality, in which he professed:

When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics (1994, preface).

In 1995, NASA astronomer John O’Keefe stated in an interview:

We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.... If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in (as quoted in Heeren, 1995, p. 200).

Then, thirteen years after British molecular biologist Michael Denton published his 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, he shocked everyone—especially his evolutionist colleagues—when he published his 1998 tome, Nature’s Destiny, in which he acknowledged:

Whether one accepts or rejects the design hypothesis...there is no avoiding the conclusion that the world looks as if it has been tailored for life; it appears to have been designed. All reality appears to be a vast, coherent, teleological whole with life and mankind as its purpose and goal (p. 387, emp. in orig.).

Fred Hoyle, in addressing the fine-tuning of the nuclear resonances responsible for the oxygen and carbon synthesis in stars, observed:

I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part of a deep-laid scheme. If not, then we are back again at a monstrous sequence of accidents (1959, emp. added).

When we (to use Hoyle’s words) “examine the evidence,” what do we find? Michael J. Murray answered:

Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe—for example, the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial distribution of matter and energy—is balanced on a razor’s edge for life to occur.... Scientists call this extraordinary balancing of the parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe the “fine-tuning of the cosmos” (1999, p. 48, emp. added).

But what is the evidence for that “fine-tuning of the cosmos”? Consider just a small sampling of the many pieces of evidence that are available.

Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. The precision of the Universe, and the exactness of these laws, allow scientists to launch rockets to the Moon, with the full knowledge that, upon their arrival, they can land within a few feet of their intended target. Such precision and exactness also allow astronomers to predict solar/lunar eclipses years in advance, or to determine when Halley’s Comet can be seen once again from the Earth. Science writer Lincoln Barnett observed:

This functional harmony of nature Berkeley, Descartes, and Spinoza attributed to God. Modern physicists who prefer to solve their problems without recourse to God (although this seems to be more difficult all the time) emphasize that nature mysteriously operates on mathematical principles. It is the mathematical orthodoxy of the Universe that enables theorists like Einstein to predict and discover natural laws, simply by the solution of equations (1959, p. 22, parenthetical item in orig.)

While many evolutionists willingly concede complexity—and even order—they are not prepared to concede design because the implication of such a concession would demand a Designer. Is there evidence of design? The person who does not believe in a Creator claims no such evidence exists. The individual who acknowledges the existence of that Creator, affirms that it does, and offers the following information in support of such an affirmation.

We live in an incredibly large Universe. While its outer limits have not been measured, it is estimated to be as much as 20 billion light-years in diameter. [A light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one year at a speed of slightly more than 186,000 miles per second. Distances expressed in light-years express the time that light would take to cross that distance.] There are an estimated one billion galaxies in the Universe (Lawton, 1981), and an estimated 25 sextillion stars. The Milky Way galaxy in which we live contains over 100 billion stars, and is so large that even traveling at the speed of light would require 100,000 years to cross its diameter. Light travels approximately 5.88 x 1012 miles in a single year; in 100,000 years, that would be 5.88 x 1017 miles, or 588 quadrillion miles just to cross the diameter of a single galaxy. Without doubt, this is a rather impressive Universe.

Yet while the size itself is impressive, the inherent design is even more so. The Sun, which is like a giant nuclear engine, gives off more energy in a single second than mankind has produced since the Creation. It converts eight million tons of matter into energy every single second, and has an interior temperature of more than twenty million degrees Celsius (see Lawton, 1981). The Sun also produces radiation, which, in certain amounts, can be deadly to living things. The Earth, however, is located at exactly the correct distance from the Sun to receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to permit life as we know it. We should be grateful that we live so far from the Sun, because the 93 million miles of empty space between the Earth and the Sun help stop the destructive pressure waves produced by the Sun as it converts matter to energy. If the Earth were much closer to the Sun, human life could not survive because of the horrible heat and pressure. If the Earth were moved just 10% closer to the Sun (about 10 million miles), far too much radiation (and heat) would be absorbed. If the Earth were moved just 10% farther from the Sun, too little heat would be absorbed. Either scenario would spell doom for life on the Earth.

Fortunately, creatures living on Earth receive some protection from the Sun’s radiation because in one of the layers of the atmosphere (known as the mesosphere—about 12 to 18 miles above the Earth), there is a form of oxygen known as ozone, which filters out most of the ultraviolet rays from the Sun that would be harmful (or fatal) in larger amounts. In addition, the Sun constantly sends out an invisible wind that is composed of protons and electrons. These particles approach the Earth from outer space at an extremely high speed, and could be very dangerous to humans. Fortunately, most of these protons and electrons are reflected back into space because the Earth was created like a giant magnet that pushes away the solar wind and makes life on this planet both possible and comfortable.

The Earth is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, and moving around the Sun at 70,000 miles per hour (approximately 19 miles per second), while the Sun and its solar system are moving through space at 600,000 miles per hour in an orbit so large it would take over 220 million years just to complete a single orbit. This rotation provides periods of light and darkness—a phenomenon necessary for sustaining life as we experience it. If the Earth rotated much faster, fierce cyclones would stir over the Earth like a kitchen food-mixer. If the Earth turned significantly slower, the days and nights would be impossibly hot or cold. Venus, for example, turns only once every 243 days—a fact that accounts in part for daytime temperatures reaching as high as 500 degrees Celsius (water boils at 100° C). The Earth’s orbital speed and tilt are “just right.” Just by accident? The Earth completes its orbit roughly once every 365.25 days—the time period we designate as a year. This, together with the fact that the Earth is tilted on its axis, allows for what we refer to as seasons.

The Earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle, however, but is elliptical. This means that sometimes the Earth is closer to the Sun than at other times. In January, the Earth is closest to the Sun; in July, it is farthest away. When it is closer, the Earth “speeds up” to avoid being pulled into the Sun; when it is farther away, it “slows down,” so that it remains in a position in space that is “just right.” How does the Earth “know” to do all of this?

Interestingly, as the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, it departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every eighteen miles. If it departed by one-eighth of an inch, we would come so close to the Sun that we would be incinerated; if it departed by one-tenth of an inch, we would find ourselves so far from the Sun that we would all freeze to death (see Science Digest, 1981). What would happen if the rotation rate of the Earth were cut in half—or doubled? If it were halved, the seasons would be doubled in their length, which would cause such harsh heat and cold over much of the Earth that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to grow enough food to feed the Earth’s population. If the rotation rate were doubled, the length of each season would be halved, and again it would be difficult or impossible to grow enough food to feed the Earth’s population.

The Earth is tilted on its axis at exactly 23.5 degrees. If it were not tilted as it is, but instead sat straight up in its orbit around the Sun, there would be no seasons. The tropics would be hotter, and the deserts would get bigger. If the tilt went all the way over to 90 degrees, much of the Earth would switch between very cold winters and very hot summers.

The Earth is poised some 240,000 miles from the Moon. This, too, is just right. The Moon helps control the movement of the oceans (tides). This movement is very beneficial to the Earth, because it provides a cleansing of shorelines, and helps ocean life to prosper. Tides are an important part of ocean currents. Without these currents, the oceans would stagnate, and the animals and plants living in the oceans and seas soon would perish. Our existence as humans depends upon the Moon’s tides as they help balance a delicate food chain in nature. If the Moon were moved closer to the Earth by just a fifth, the tides would be so enormous that twice a day they would reach 35-50 feet high over most of the surface of the Earth.

The Earth’s oceans are another good example of perfect design. Water covers about 72% of the Earth’s surface, which is good because the oceans provide a reservoir of moisture that constantly is evaporating and condensing. Eventually, this causes rain to fall on the Earth. It is a well-known fact that water heats and cools at a much slower rate than a solid land mass, which explains why desert regions can be blistering hot in the daytime and freezing cold at night. Water, however, holds its temperature longer, and provides a sort of natural heating/air-conditioning system for the land areas of the Earth. The Earth’s annual average temperature (56°F; 13.3°C) is closely maintained by the great reservoir of heat contained within the waters of the oceans. Temperature extremes would be much more erratic than they are, were it not for the fact that approximately three-fourths of the Earth is covered with water. In addition, humans and animals inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. On the other hand, plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. We depend upon the world of botany for our oxygen supply, yet we often fail to realize that approximately 90% of our oxygen comes from microscopic plants in the seas (Asimov, 1975, 2:116). If our oceans were appreciably smaller, we soon would be out of air to breathe.

Wrapped around the Earth is a protective blanket we know as the atmosphere. It is composed of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), and carbon dioxide (0.03%), in addition to water vapor and small levels of other gases. The proper balance of these gases is essential to life on the Earth. The atmosphere of Venus is too thick to sustain life; that of Mars is too thin. But the Earth’s atmosphere does several things. It scatters light waves so that you can read the words on this page. It captures solar heat so that it does not escape too rapidly. Without atmosphere, the heat would escape as soon as the Sun set each day, and nights would be unbearably cold. Frequently, meteors fall from space. Were it not for the fact that most of them burn up (from friction) when they strike the atmosphere, the Earth would be pounded almost daily by these unwelcome visitors. And, electronically charged particles (ions) in the upper atmosphere (referred to as the ionosphere) help make radio communications on the Earth possible. The Earth has an atmosphere that is “just right.” Just by accident?

Richard Dawkins once remarked: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer” (1982, 94:130, emp. added). Twenty years later, in an article on Nature’s August 13, 2002, on-line Science-Update, Philip Ball wrote: “Our Universe is so unlikely that we must be missing something.” We agree: evolutionists are “missing something.” But that “something” is actually a “Someone”—the intelligent Designer!


Asimov, Isaac (1975), Guide to Science (London: Pelican).

Ball, Philip (2002), “Is Physics Watching Over Us?,” Nature, [On-line], URL:, August.

Barnett, Lincoln (1959), The Universe and Dr. Einstein (New York: Mentor).

Davies, Paul (1984), Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Davies, Paul (1988), The Cosmic Blueprint (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Davies, Paul (1992), The Mind of God (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Dawkins, Richard (1982), “The Necessity of Darwinism,” New Scientist, 94:130-132, April 15.

Denton, Michael (1998), Nature’s Destiny (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Dyson, Freeman (1979), Disturbing the Universe (New York: Harper & Row).

Heeren, Fred (1995), Show Me God (Wheeling, IL: Searchlight Publications).

Hoyle, Fred (1959), Religion and the Scientists (London: SCM), as quoted in Barrow, John and Frank Tipler (1986), The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press), p. 22.

Hoyle, Fred (1982), “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20:1-35.

Lawton, April (1981), “From Here to Infinity,” Science Digest, 89[1]:98-105, January/February.

Murphy, Nancey and George F.R. Ellis (1996), On the Moral Nature of the Universe (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress).

Murray, Michael J. (1999), Reason for the Hope Within (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Science Digest (1981), 89[1]:124, January/February.

Tipler, Frank (1994), The Physics of Immortality (New York: Doubleday).

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.