Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Cowardly censoring scum attack blogs that favor God and Conservatives

I had to have a knee operation, and while I was away some miserable filthy rotten scoundrel hacked into blogspot and sent anyone trying to read my blog to some spam site called "" so that they could not stay on or read this blog.   I found out that a lot of conservative, Christian and Catholic blogs were attacked.   Naturally I figured out how the micreant did it and corrected it.   But I don't want to hear any more crying from trolls about your lame censorship whines when one of yours tried to shut my site down altogether.   Whoever did this was a lowlife who deserves to be caught and "corrected" by one of the mil-bloggers.

I have removed "Darwinist" from the headline and likely from blame.  Although it is true that Catholic and conservative and Christian blogs were taken down, oddly enough some atheist blogs were attacked as well?   So I realized this was not an attack on my blog or those like mine but rather the motivations of the hackers are now unclear.    Is he a pet rock worshipper?  

Sunday, August 28, 2011

The unintended hilarity of Richard Dawkins and the "Magic" of Darwinism

Richard Dawkins wrote a book entitled "The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True."  Yep, Richard Dawkins!   What is interesting is that he has put "Magic" into the title.  The reason this is humorous is, for one thing, Darwinism is the surfboard Dawkins has ridden to fame and Darwinism absolutely depends on magic to exist.  Since we know that Darwinst macroevolution is statistically impossible and that the natural spontaneous generation of life has been disproven by years of laboratory experiments, then magic is really all Darwinism has going for it.  If there is anything in this world that is all hat, no cattle, it is Darwinism!

We've seen that the supernatural has a great fascination for those who accept Darwinism.  Television programs feature folks with psychic powers, supernatural powers, the ability to manipulate time and other such nonsense.   The paranormal is very fascinating to the public even though they have been brainwashed with Darwinist propaganda from the time they first set foot in school.  Is it because there is in the human heart an intrisic understanding that there is a supernatural component to reality?  Or is it because the Darwinist dependence upon magic aka magick has caused the popular culture to embrace such mysticism and incorporate it into daily life?  

Dawkins likes to make fun of the mythology of various cultures but in fact most cultures have an underlying creation account and a flood account that has often been "Chinese telephoned" into something unreasonable.   But in fact the Creation account of the Bible is scientifically accurate and, since all people came from those who knew that creation account, when people were scattered across the globe after the Tower of Babel they all carried oral accounts of creation and the Flood with them.  But only the Jews carefully recorded the account in written form and went to great lengths to keep that account accurate.  The Bible says the same things now it said in the First Century, AD and the Old Testament portion has been complete for around 2,500 years. 

The science that Dawkins depends upon, ironically enough, continually changes.  If you depend upon the wisdom of man you cannot actually have an unshakable foundation upon which to stand because the story keeps changing.  Those scientists who accept the Bible as evidence and considers what it says along with the discoveries of modern science (many of which are made by Bible believers) have had a pretty consistent story that only requires a few tuneups here and there.   On the other hand, secular science continually has to throw away their assertions and make brand new ones.   In the days of Darwin the view of the cell, the view of the sedimentary rocks of the Earth and the accepted age of the Solar System, the Earth and the Universe were entirely different than what secular science asserts today. 

You who ignore the Bible, a book that is the most read and most quoted book of all time.  It told the ancients that the Earth was round and was hung in space.   It told them that God had made the light before the sources of the light and that He had stretched out space.   It told the ancients that God had spoken all creation into existence but had very personally formed man and breathed into the nostrils of Adam the very breath of God.  It told the ancients that God had formed man in His image and it is true that mankind is quite different from all other organisms.  We have reasoning capabilities that are beyond other creatures and we also have an eternal spirit that can never be quenched.   For those who seek and find God this is great news, for we know that the door of death is only one that opens to eternal life in a better form in that we will be able to see and even comprehend God.  For those who doubt or hate God this is terrible news, news they want to ignore, for they will defy God until death and then face judgment for their deeds on Earth. 

One cannot test for the existence of God, one can only examine the evidence we can see in the material realm and, in cases of forensic science, one must make hypotheses and suppositions.  We cannot travel back in time.   Therefore we will never PROVE the existence of God or the lack thereof.  We cannot PROVE that the Noahic Flood happened although the evidences for that event are quite strong.  Certainly Darwinists cannot PROVE that macroevolution ever happens because it is never observed to happen.  I know that this cannot be proved because it is not a possibility.   Mutations and copying errors do not drive an organism uphill toward more organization, if they do enter into the gene pool they are going to generally obey the Laws of Thermodynamics and will be deleterious.   Darwinists glibly like to say it only takes a favorable mutation now and then to advance organisms from simple to complex but in fact organisms are full of very complex systems and organs that would require a few dozen if not hundreds of mutations, all favorable and all magically working together as if designed to advance the organism.  This would have had to happen uncounted millions of times to produce life on Earth from that one mythical first "simple" organism which, like all organisms, has a very complex coding system stuffed full of specific information to exist at all.  Preposterous!

As the Tree of Life Tumbles: Now, the "Public Goods" Hypothesis

Even as Richard Dawkins informs presidential candidate Rick Perry that "evolution is a fact," many evolutionary biologists are quietly (or not so quietly) abandoning what Dawkins claims as the central aspect of that fact, namely, the Tree of Life (TOL) hypothesis. In his bestseller The Greatest Show on Earth (2009), Dawkins writes that "today we are pretty certain that all living creatures on this planet are descended from a single ancestor" (p. 408). But this textbook picture, widely accepted since Darwin's time, is increasingly being dumped by biologists, in favor of very different histories.

You can follow the action by visiting the lively open access journal Biology Direct. This journal is exceptional because it includes the referee reports, along with the authors' replies to the referees, at the end of each paper. This admirable practice enables the reader to follow the details of scientific debate, usually hidden from public scrutiny.

As an example, check out a paper published this week (still in manuscript form), "The public goods hypothesis for the evolution of life on Earth," by four European evolutionary biologists (James McInerney, Eric Bapteste, Davide Pisani, and Mary J. O'Connell). McInerney et al. argue that the TOL is "becoming increasingly implausible." Although the TOL "has been stretched to fit the data" in various ways, "given our knowledge of the data, it seems that the elastic limit of the original hypothesis has been passed." Time to try a different picture.

To replace the TOL, McInerney et al. favor what they call "the public goods hypothesis." Borrowing a term from the economics Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson, they argue that many (but not all) genes and proteins are "public goods," meaning entities that belong to no one in particular. These genes and proteins are thus available for use by all, and their presence in any lineage does not necessarily indicate common ancestry. As they explain,

According to this hypothesis, nucleotide sequences (genes, promoters, exons, etc.) are simply seen as goods, passed from organism to organism through both vertical and horizontal transfer. Public goods sequences are defined by having the properties of being largely non-excludable (no organism can be effectively prevented from accessing these sequences) and non-rival (while such a sequence is being used by one organism it is also available for use by another organism). The universal nature of genetic systems ensures that such non-excludable sequences exist and non-excludability explains why we see a myriad of genes in different combinations in sequenced genomes.

The radical consequences of this hypothesis are easy to imagine -- but we leave that as an exercise for the reader.


As a reader, I can see the implications clearly.   While working in the auto industry, we made parts for virtually every automobile and truck manufacturer you can name.   There were perhaps 9 or 10 production lines that produced every kind of part needed for our part of the industry.   We made sound-deadening and lining materials and parts.   One department in our plant made padding material similar to blanketing.   There were lines that made asphalt and rubber-based products, we had some that used fiberglass and we also incorporated plastics and foil and produced both cured and non-cured padded materials and sometimes coated them with other substances and often stamped and cut them into specific shapes.   Some lessons drawn from this - we had lines that made the same kind of materials that went out to every auto manufacturer we serviced.   We might change shapes or thicknesses or other factors for each manufacturer but every one of them obtained rubber or asphalt-based parts from us and most of them also obtained padding-based parts. 

One very interesting fact was that some automakers used exactly the same part in many different automobiles.  We would make a run of several thousand General Motors padded and cured parts and it made no difference if they were going into a Chevrolet or an Olds or a Buick or a Cadillac, the same part went into all of them.   We would make a run of another kind of part that would go into every Chrysler corporation minivan, whether labeled Chrysler or Dodge or Plymouth.  Our parts were general purpose items common to all vehicles.   Now we see that genetic materials are the same, which is an indication of design.   Designers tend to use the same basic components in all of their vehicles.  I can look at a disk brake system without seeing the automobile and recognize the GM or Ford or Chrysler style, or at least I could on models made in 2000 and before.   Back then I was not only in the auto industry but I also did my own mechanical repairs.  However, the same brake style would be used by Fords and Lincolns and Mercuries of various models because Ford had one style they used for their automobiles.   

A severe back injury caused me to change careers and also to outsource most automobile maintenance and repair to mechanics.   I still have all the tools but my time is better used working at my job and also many mechanical repairs require one to twist and turn and do things dangerous to my spinal health.  But that does not change the fact that I once worked in every aspect of the automobile supplier business both union and management, in engineering and auditing and maintenance and quality control and management as well as working every single line the company had and every part of that line from front to back.  I have also worked on virtually every system on automobiles other than the automatic transmission.   So I have a great understanding of design and production of automobiles and I can tell you honestly that God did it first and did it better but His models of production and His systems have always been templates that man has copied.   We make electric motors but e. coli has a better one.   No matter how we have engineered wing and flight systems, we find we can still learn from nature.  Nature is full of intricate designs and systems.  We study the feet of the gecko and the wing motions of bumblebees and the echolocation of bats.   We realize that many creatures have navigation systems and built-in algorithms we find mysterious.   We continue to learn from nature.   That makes perfect sense if nature is designed by a Greater Mind than our own.   But it is completely preposterous to imagine that such sophistication was born from a long series of accidents and mistakes and pure dumb lucky breaks far beyond any statistical possibilities.

From the Discovery Institute's website, I also copied this excerpt of an article about a talk made in Seattle by Oxford professor John Lennox.

Excerpts from the article and from the Amazon webpage from whence I pre-ordered the book:

Writing about atheist oracle Stephen Hawking's Discovery Channel program "Did God Create the Universe?," an episode of Curiosity, the L.A. Times reviewer candidly threw up her hands in surrender.
[Hawking's] attempts to explain how, exactly, the big bang emerged from a state of nothingness required an understanding of physics that was beyond me. "If you are not a math head," he concedes far too late in the proceedings, "this may be hard to understand." Indeed.

So, like its alternative, belief in Hawking's premise is an act of faith.
What you really need to evaluate the strength of Hawkings's argument, presented in his 2010 book The Grand Design, is either a head for math or, better still, an actual mathematician. Enter John C. Lennox, Oxford University professor of mathematics, who conveniently will speak in Seattle this Friday night, August 19.

John LennoxYou couldn't ask for a more expert "math head," not to mention a highly endearing, funny and accessible speaker. Imagine your old Irish grandad if he was an Oxford don. He'll be speaking at 7:30 pm on Friday at University Presbyterian Church. The title of his talk: "Do the laws of physics make God unnecessary?" More information here. Yes, it's free.

In his own about-to-be-published book God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is it Anyway?, Dr. Lennox sweeps Hawkings's obscurities and obfuscations before him. Hawking's signature argument is that because there's such a thing as the law of gravity, the universe was guaranteed to self-create.

As Lennox makes clear, that makes about as much sense to the mind of a mathematician as it does to anyone else's: "Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists."

Also, the review posted on the Amazon site:

"As far as I am concerned, John Lennox wins this bout with a knockout.

Lennox notes Hawking's statement that "philosophy is dead," and hopes that Hawking does not mean that logic and all that are dead. Lennox also notes that Hawking goes on to do a great deal of "philosophizing," a field in which he is (like Richard Dawkins) a newborn babe.

How could any rational person say that the law of gravity caused the universe to create itself? What the heck does that mean? Natural laws do not make anything happen. I can repeat the laws of arithmetic to my heart's content, but that won't put a penny in my bank account. The laws of motion do not make pool balls move: someone with a cue needs to strike them, and then the laws of motion will predict quite exactly how the pool balls will move.

Like Dawkins, Hawking goes through incredible contortions to avoid the idea he is allergic to, the idea that God created the universe. Hawking wanders off into pure speculative metaphysics and a nearly infinite number of alternative universes, and apparently thinks that the incomplete and unproven "M-theory" will explain everything. Dawkins would rather believe that little purple people from another planet created life on earth, rather than even consider the idea that God might have done it.

This is a short, lucid book which I am guessing you will enjoy!

"Physical laws cannot create anything. They are a description of what normally happens under certain given conditions." "- Geoff Puterbaugh

I expect the book to be a great read, but it shouldn't be too hard to put the wood to the backs of both Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.   They are examples of the great lengths to which supposedly intelligent men will go to avoid the implications of design in the Universe.   Occam's Razor and common sense are abandoned in a desperate attempt to save a failed hypothesis from centuries before.
You can be sure Richard Dawkins would not dare to debate Lennox in a public forum, he knows when he is overmatched.  Ben Stein, no scientist, famously schooled (or now they say pwned) Dawkins in his interview during "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."  Imagine what Jonathan Sarfati or John Lennox or Ian Juby would do do him? 

Went out Saturday night with my wife and my oldest daughter to go sing Karaoke and I was pretty happy my voice is coming back.  I could sing the lowest lows on "I Can't Help Falling In Love With You" and also the high notes on "Hold On Loosely aka Good Lovin' Gone Bad" (.38 Special) and Journey's "Lovin', Touchin', Squeezin' " too.   My daughter came up to sing harmony on the "na na na na na's" at the end of the Journey song (gotta have the harmonies at the end!) but it was great to be able to sing low baritone and hit those rock singer tenor highs, too without resorting to falsetto.  Big fun!   My wife and I do a great and nasal "I Got You, Babe" by the way.   I get a kick out of sounding like Sonny and Debbie's Loren Bacall-style voice is perfect for Cher.  None of that has anything at all to do with the post above, but it made me think of another Journey song and so I want to encourage those of you who believe in God and Creation that you can keep on keeping on and DON'T STOP BELIEVING!

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Barack Obama. Could the "birthers" actually be right?

I have always been reluctant to pay much attention to "Birthers" or "Truthers" during the last few years because I believe Barack Obama's record should have kept him from being elected and certainly should guarantee he is not re-elected.  His Presidency has been a massive failure economically and geopolitically.  The main issue now is whether the Republicans can get a reasonable ticket to run against him in 2012.
"Truthers" lost me when they began claiming things like "This is the first time in history that fire melted steel", a declaration of such colossal ignorance that I could not bring myself to pay much attention to them thereafter.  But, being in the IT industry I have been convinced after watching a You Tube poster named orangegold take the time to go step-by-step through the document and showing where the forged entries were placed and precisely how he can identify them as forged entries.  I will give you one of the several You Tube entries by this poster to begin your search into the issue:

If you watch the entire series by orangegold you will see every doubt is addressed fully by this poster and so the claims of mainstream media that the document is not faked are debunked.

Therefore the birth certificate released to the public for Barack Obama is forged, according to experts in documentation.  I have seen extensive coverage on this issue by other experts in documentation.   After many weeks of pondering the issue, it seems as if there is no getting around it, that indeed the document is absolutely forged.   Along with the mysterious Connecticut Social Security number associated with Obama that was associated with another is an article that is a kind of overview of the forgery information. 


From A to Z: What's wrong with Obama's birth certificate?

Examine for yourself mounting evidence that president's document isn't genuine

Posted: May 13, 2011
12:15 am Eastern
© 2011 WND

After years of stonewalling and fighting in court to keep his long-form birth certificate under wraps, President Barack Obama has publicized an image of the document he claims should resolve his birthplace once and for all.

But is it the real deal?

In his speech announcing the birth certificate's release, Obama quickly tried to silence critical analysis of document:

"I know that there's going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest, but I'm speaking to the vast majority of the American people," Obama said. "We do not have time for this kind of silliness."

But Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, the only news agency that has waged a relentless investigative campaign on questions swirling around Obama's constitutional eligibility, warns those questions shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

"The news media and the political establishment were quick to rush to judgment regarding Obama's eligibility in 2008, without any basis," Farah said. "It would be a big mistake for everyone to jump to a conclusion now based on the release of this document, which raises as many questions as it answers."

Jerome Corsi's new book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?," is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore.
Some of those questions have already been resolved – such as rumors WND debunked claiming the name of the hospital on the document was fictitious – while others present significant challenges to accepting the birth certificate's validity.

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, the chief of Stand Up America, a national security expert and Fox News contributor, says the "Certificate of Live Birth" released in April by the White House is a forgery, but the FBI is covering the fraud and no one in Congress is willing to tackle the situation because of fears of a "black backlash" if the failings of the nation's first black president are revealed.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely

In an interview with Greg Corombos for WND, Vallely, who previously has expressed concerns about whether the Obama administration is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, said, "His actual birth certificate has never been found in Hawaii nor released from Hawaii hospital there, Kapiolani hospital there, if it in fact did exist."

"We've had three CIA agents, retired, and some of their analytical associates look at it, and all came to the same conclusion, that even the long-form was a forged document," Vallely said.

"No members of Congress will take this on. The word I get out of Washington is that they don't want to challenge this because it would be in fact a felony offense and in some cases may be even treasonous and [they are] afraid of a black backlash from some of the urban areas," Vallely said.

"But that's a very poor excuse for not taking necessary steps to make sure this president in fact is a legitimate president under Article 2 and he is a born U.S. citizen."

The departments of government designed to uncover wrongdoing, in this case, are on the wrong side, he said.
"I think they're (the FBI) covering for this administration. I think the corruption within this administration is so proliferated through the agencies of government now, we're just in a bad situation here. I think the lack of confidence in our government is growing and many feel that not only all the members of Congress but even our courts are corrupted at this time," he said.

A multitude of questions over Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the requirements in the Constitution that call for a "natural born citizen" have been raised since before he was elected.
In a detailed analysis, a nationally recognized computer expert who has served as contributing author and technical editor for more than 100 books on Adobe and Microsoft software says the Obama long-form birth-certificate image released by the White House is a fake.

"The PDF file released by the White House contains evidence of manipulation suggesting that one or more forgers utilized existing Hawaiian birth certificates to assemble fraudulently for Barack Obama a document the president presented to the world as authentic," Mara Zebest told WND.

Zebest has prepared a full analysis of the image that was presented April 27 by Barack Obama to the world as a copy of his original birth documentation in the state of Hawaii.

Read the full analysis of the Obama long-form birth certificate image released to the public.
The image released online is a copy of Obama's copy of the original, as are the paper copies that were handed out to reporters.

Zebest's analysis begins by documenting inconsistencies in the pixels and bitmap text that display throughout the Obama file, for instance, in the birth certificate number 10641, as seen in Exhibit 1:

Exhibit 1. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Viewed in Adobe Acrobat at 1200 percent zoom

Exhibit 2 offers more examples of the telltale inconsistencies Zebest found. First, defining her terms, Zebest explains that "antialiasing" is the transition of pixel colors that occurs when differing color tones bump into each other in an image. It offers a smooth line (to the eye) when viewed at the normal zoom. Viewed in a closeup mode it appears as an angled pattern. She explains, "Without antialiasing, the edges appear jagged or bitmapped." Bitmapping is a specific computer format used for images that gives them a more choppy appearance when zoomed.

According to Zebest:

  • Bitmap text versus antialiasing text: Notice the bitmap X checkbox in question compared to the antialiased X checkbox in question "e" – major inconsistency.

  • Additionally, the checkboxes are slightly different widths and positioned differently. (Pixels of checkboxes on the bottom right overlap line pixels below, almost as if the boxes were copied and pasted and manually positioned).

  • Some letter characters are identical, pixel for pixel, almost as if they were copied and pasted and then moved into position. For example, the lowercase "i" in the word Inside is identical to the first "i" in judicial. There are many similar identical instances as there are dissimilar typesetting examples of different fonts – both suggesting compilation of a document digitally.

  • Irregular typesetting spacing which is not consistent with proportional spacing used by computers or monospacing used by typewriters in 1961 – but is consistent with copy and pasting and moving letters around. Example: The word "Yes," which has too much space between "Y" and "e" and not enough space between "e" and "s."
"A normal document scanned and saved as a PDF file would not display these inconsistencies unless the document had been digitally altered," she said. "A digitally altered document is by definition a manufactured document, or in everyday parlance – a forgery."

Exhibit 2. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Evidence of Font typesetting inconsistencies

Exhibit 3 demonstrates mixed solid bitmapped character elements combined with antialiased elements in the signature of Ann Dunham and in the text of the form immediately above her first name, Stanley, enclosed in parentheses.

Exhibit 3. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Inconsistencies within signatures

"Typed characters in the birth certificate form appear to have been altered digitally by the forgers whenever signatures overlapped or bumped against printed text characters in the form,” she said.
Figure 4 shows the dates stamped into boxes 20 and 22 on the form displaying different color tones within the date stamp, such that some of the digits are dark black – especially the last digit "1" in both instances – while other digits are a light gray.

Exhibit 4. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Inconsistencies in pixel colors and spelling errors

"My guess is that the creator of this document was inexperienced when it comes to a multitude of concepts in using Adobe software," Zebest said. "Whoever forged the Obama birth certificate might have known enough to be dangerous, but not enough to know how to cover up their tracks."

Exhibit 4 also notes the misspelling of "THE" in the rubber stamp placed on the document by the Hawaii State Register Alvin Onaka, Ph.D., and an apparent smiley face drawn in the loop of the letter "A" on his signature – two anomalies on which WND previously reported.
As noted in Exhibit 5, Zebest also listed a number of questions about the Obama birth certificate that she believes demand explanation.

Exhibit 5. Obama birth certificate, 4/27/11. Overall information defies common sense

Her list of questions regarding Exhibit 5 included the following:

  • Why is there an odd, excessive typesetting space between the number 4 and comma in the birth date?

  • "African" is not a race. Would "American" be a race? It may not be politically correct, but in 1961, the option for race would have been Negro, not "African," which is another odd artifact out of place with the context of the historical time and place – an anachronism.

  • Speaking of anachronisms, in 1961, when typewriters were used, the typist would move to the next line, and items would be started in a standard left margin (unless the typist purposely tabbed over to a different location on the document); thus, most of the left margin text would consistently line up at the same point. Figure 13 is explained below, and can be used to compare the margin line text in the Nordyke certificate with Obama’s in Figure 12. Nothing is properly aligned in Obama’s document.

  • The certificate number is out of sequence. Wouldn’t a smaller certificate number be consistent with the earlier birth date and the earlier Date Accepted, the filing date? WND previously reported on the anomaly involving the Nordyke numbers.

  • Where is the state seal? Who has an official birth certificate document that is missing a seal?

  • Why is there a background pattern? The Obama administration claims the pattern was added for security purposes – but isn't that admitting to altering the document? Is the administration trying to create a frame of hiding the edits in plain sight by saying, "Yes, we edited the document to add security paper." And why would this even be necessary?

  • Why would the date at the bottom of the document display different type fonts? The font used for the year is clearly a different font than the one used for the day. Under what circumstances would you change fonts while typing a date? Even if a stamp were used to stamp a date, wouldn't the stamp be made with the same consistent font?
Zebest concluded her study with an analysis of the multiple layers evident in the White House-released PDF file.

She rejected the White House explanation that the layers were produced by scanning the document with OCR, or Optical Character Recognition, software turned on.

Examining the Onaka ink stamp, Zebest was able to determine that the object placed into the Obama document was scaled 34 percent and rotated 90 degrees. The result, she said, could be obtained only through digital manipulation and could not be an artifact of having scanned the document with OCR software activated.

"The text responds as if it were in a Microsoft Word document," she asserted. "The text can be selected, changed, copied and pasted."

Zebest concluded that whoever forged the Obama birth certificate probably did most of the digital manipulation required to construct the document using the program Adobe Photoshop.

Then, the manipulated document was transported to Adobe Illustrator for final touch-up before being released to the public.

She believes whoever created the forgery had insufficient expertise and did not realize that "flattening" the document in Photoshop Illustrator – a process that melds the layers – would still allow professionals to determine the layers required to manipulate the data in the process of forging the document.

"Overall, it's an amateur job," Zebest said. "The forgers obviously over-estimated their level of expertise in undertaking to forge a document that is destined to play a pivotal role in U.S. history."

She just the latest on a growing list of graphic artists and computer experts who have examined the online birth certificate and have concluded the image has been altered.

For example, Karl Denninger, the former CEO of MCSNet, a Chicago networking and Internet company, who also told WND he voted for Obama, demonstrates "kerning" on the birth certificate, a lining up of letters routinely done by computers but impossible on typewriters of the 1960s, implying the document was computer generated, not photocopied.

Denninger explains that in the image above, of the name of the hospital, the "a" and the "p" share vertical space on the line, an example of "kerning," which only modern computers can do.

Denninger's work follows the opinion from another analyst, Ivan Zatkovich of Tampa-based eComp Consultants, which consults on intellectual property for telecommunications, Web publishing and e-commerce. Zatkovich has 28 years experience in computer science and document management and for more than 10 years has been an expert witness in federal court in both criminal and civil litigation.

Zatkovich's analysis of layers in the PDF file, while dispelling some purported anomalies on the document, nonetheless confirms others, leading him to the conclusion, "The content clearly indicates that the document was knowingly and explicitly edited and modified before it was placed on the web."

And KJCT-TV of Grand Junction, Colo., reported the opinion of graphic artist James Colby, who said, "There is no doubt it has been edited and quite significantly."

Several other factors bring the birth document's authenticity into question:
  • The objectivity of "experts" cited by the mainstream media to verify the birth certificate is suspect, including that of Fox News Channel's Jean-Claude Tremblay, who assured America they "should not be suspicious" of the document, but who, WND discovered, had heralded Obama's election victory in an online post.
  • Stunningly, Tremblay later told WND that he wants the Fox News story corrected, claiming it deliberately misquoted him and continues to ignore his repeated requests. He said none of his comments would permit the conclusion that the Obama birth certificate is an authentic document. "I no longer trust Fox News," he said, expressing anger verging on disdain for the way he feels the network treated him. "Despite my protests, Fox News will not allow me to correct their story."
  • Obama's posted birth certificate contains the same anomalies as a well-known forgery that claimed he was born in Kenya, suggesting the anomalous markings came from the same source. "How could Obama's 'real' birth certificate share these unique characteristics with an obvious forgery?" asks Farah. "For the life of me, I can't figure out an answer other than they were created by the same person or persons."

  • The birth certificate's reported delivering physician, Dr. David Sinclair, differs from previously published reports and even the myth-busting's original entry, which named Dr. Rodney T. West as the doctor of record.
  • Obama's purported birth certificate contains over a dozen differences in form from the verified, Hawaii copy of the birth certificate issued to the Nordyke twins, born the next day at the same reported hospital.
  • Another YouTube participant, 37, who identifies himself as orangegold1 and a computer image expert, posted a video trying to persuade watchers that the White House either was ignorant in scanning and posting a document, or was submarined by someone inside the walls who wanted people to be suspicious of the document: 

  • His concerns rest with the layers that are in the document, and he claimed some of the images on the document actually were added via computer.

    "I do this for a living," he said, adding that the document is "obviously faked."

  • The local registrar listed in the Nordyke twins' birth certificate is notably different than the local registrar on the Obama birth certificate.

Birth certificate of Gretchen Nordyke, one of two twin sisters born at what was known in 1961 as the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.

In addition, the website notes several additional irregularities with the Obama birth certificate that do not appear on the Nordyke twin's birth certificates:
  • In Box 3, "This Birth," there are two "Xs" above "Twin" and "Triplet" – why are these "Xs" here and what do they signify?

  • What is the meaning of the smudges in the Obama birth certificate in the box containing the name of the attending physician?

  • What is the significance of the numbers, seen vertically, on the right side of the Obama birth certificate?

Hawaii officials say they have Obama's original birth certificate and made copies for the president. One of the copies then was scanned and posted on the White House website.

But Denninger is among those who say there are still too many questions to simply examine an online image.
He contends, "There's only one way we're going to get the truth – a forensic document examiner is going to have to go look at the certificate and authenticate it. The real one – not a printout."

The White House had trumpeted the release of the document, calling it "proof positive" Obama was born in Hawaii, as if that would answer all of the questions about his presidential eligibility.

In another swipe at the validity of the White House release, an international expert on scanners and document-imaging software filed a 22-page criminal complaint with the FBI, charging that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is criminally fraudulent.

"What the Obama administration released is a PDF image that they are trying to pass off as a Certificate of Live Birth Long Form printed on green security paper by the Hawaiian Health Department," Doug Vogt writes, "but this form is a created forgery."

Vogt's criminal complaint asserts: "I have irrefutably proven that the Certificate of Live Birth that President Obama presented to the world on April 27, 2011, is a fraudulently created document put together using the Adobe Photoshop or Illustrator programs, and the creation of this forgery of a public document constitutes a class B felony in Hawaii and multiple violations under U.S. Code section Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Sec.1028, and therefore an impeachable offense."

When the Obama birth certificate "forgery" comes to the public's attention, Vogt continues, "It will surpass all previous scandals including the Watergate scandal of the Nixon administration."

Since 1993, Vogt has owned Archive Index Systems Inc., in Bellevue, Wash., a company that sells a wide variety of document scanners worldwide and develops document imaging software.
Before that, Vogt owned Nova Typesetting for 11 years.

He has several concerns, including the curved and non-curved lines of type:

As seen in Figure 1 below, the word "Sex" on the printed form curves into the binder, while the typed word "Male" does not, Vogt argues.

Vogt observes that the word "Sex" printed on the form slants more to the left than the typed-in word "Male" below it.

He claims to have found another parallax problem in line 6c, "Name of Hospital or Institution."

Vogt contends that the forger placed the typed-in text over the printed copy, creating a composite from a variety of original birth certificate forms.

He also expresses worry over the "halo" around lettering, which under a typical scan should not be there:

He then compares the above example to a grayscale scan in which there is no halo effect:

There also was a question raised because of the recent release of Barack Obama Sr.'s immigration file.
That's because while he reportedly was born June 18, 1934, the senior Obama began listing the year of his birth as June 18, 1936, on U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service forms two years after arriving in the U.S.

The long-form birth certificate released by the White House lists Obama Sr's. age as 25, corresponding to a 1936 year of birth.

The INS file documents that until Obama was born, Barack Obama Sr. stated that he was born in 1934. But after the birth of Obama Jr., he claimed a birth year of 1936 on some documents and 1934 on others.
But even if Obama's Hawaiian birth were proven and verified, many contend the country's founders understood a "natural born Citizen" – as listed by the Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution as a requirement to hold the office of president – to be a person born of two American parents.
Barack Obama Sr., who is listed as the father, was not a U.S. citizen.

The president himself even seemed to acknowledge the relevance of parental citizenship when he co-sponsored a resolution to address Sen. John McCain's presidential eligibility that implied a "natural born Citizen" must be born to "American citizen" parents.

The list of other questions also being raised is long:

Just two weeks before Obama finally released his "long-form birth certificate," Hawaii's former Health Department chief Chiyome Fukino – the one official who claimed to have examined Obama's original birth document – was interviewed by NBC News' national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, who reported that Fukino told him she had seen the original birth certificate and that it was "half typed and half handwritten."
However, the document released by the White House was entirely typed. Only the signatures and two dates at the very bottom were "handwritten." What Fukino described is apparently a different document from what Obama released to the public.

The typography expert who played a key role in ending the career of CBS News anchor Dan Rather confirmed he has strong suspicions the Obama document is a fraud. Joseph M. Newcomer, who exposed the "Killian documents" as fraudulent in 2004, said it deserves a professional forensic examination. "There is something deeply wrong here," he said.

A private investigator, Takeyuki Irei, in Hawaii has reported state employees in Hawaii said three Hawaiian birth certificates for Obama were forged to "screw with birthers." The 57-year-old detective said he was stunned when he discovered that the purported copy of Obama's document released by the White House was more or less an exact image of one of the forgeries. Irei said the document Obama released document looks just like another document he saw purporting that Obama's birth place was an Queens Medical Center, not Kapiolani.

Doubt also seems to be fueled by revelations such as the report that noted Congress tried eight times over the time frame from 2003-2008 to eliminate or change the constitutional requirement that a president is a "natural born Citizen." The report says Congress eventually gave up on eliminating the requirement, but then changed the focus of the argument to Sen. John McCain, in a resolution that addresses his eligibility. Obama's eligibility never was similarly evaluated.

Some no longer even are considering the issue of eligibility: they are just calling for impeachment. Among those groups is the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC. Spokesman William Gheen said Obama "is no longer the legitimate president of the United States."

The American public has been moving more and more toward the idea that there's something wrong. A full half of the American public said in a recent poll that Congress needs to investigate Obama.

There also have been reports that a number of radical supporters for Obama have openly admitted to forging Obama birth certification documentation.
Paul Irey, a retired professional typographer with 50 years experience in his business, also said the fact that the typed letters on the document are different make it a forgery. "My analysis proves beyond a doubt that it would be impossible for the different letters that appear in the Obama birth certificate to have been typed by one typewriter." 

Billionaire entrepreneur Donald Trump even said his own computer expert told him it was a computer-generated document.
"You may have thought Barack Obama ended the eligibility debate, and certainly the birth certificate debate," said Farah, "with his release of what purports to be his long-awaited, long-form document.

"But it's not over," he added. "Not by a long shot."

WND Editor Joseph Farah is available to discuss today's breaking stories on eligibility. Contact

When Dan Rather released what turned out to be forged documents questioning the military career of George Bush, the immediate reaction of the news media was to believe the documents and this issue was the lead story all over the networks and cable news networks...until it was shown to be an obvious forgery.  Even then, Rather had difficulty letting go of the story and the mainstream media reluctantly and eventually had to admit that fraud was involved and the entire set of documents was faked.  The phrase "Faked-but-accurate" entered for a brief time into popular culture, if you recall?  Eventually a few CBS employees were fired and Dan Rather had to step down from his position for doggedly pressing forward with obviously faked documentation pushed by one of the CBS producers, Mary Mapes.

With this President, the issue is that the document is obviously faked and yet not one peep from the mainstream news media.   If George Bush had a faked birth certificate we would be hearing it everywhere from MSNBC to the major news networks and the View and so on and so forth.   Never has the double standard been so obvious.   Democrats get the benefit of the doubt, Republicans get hammered at the first sign of trouble.  Even Fox News has been part of the cover-up.

You can find "progressive" websites that dismiss the birth certificate story by claiming that OCR will tend to cause such anomalies in a document.  But do a search for You Tubes on the subject and experts in Adobe will show you that this assertion is untrue.   The document is forged.  

Why?  If Barack Obama was a Republican, this would be the subject of intensive scrutiny.   But you are a thinking human being.  Check out the output by orangegold online (another example) before you decide the issue is of no consequence. 

For all this time I have felt that the sketchy background of Barack Obama/Otero was a side issue compared to his obvious desire to radically change WHAT the United States is, from a Federal Republic to a Socialist Statist nation ruled by a small set of elitists.   Nevertheless, the story of this President is quite possibly built upon a set of dominoes and it appears that, should the right one be toppled, the entire narrative might well fall apart and we would discover that he is a man whose story has been written by a group of creative ideologues rather than a genuine history of a life.  Shouldn't the American public demand and get a thorough examination of this issue rather than the rapid sweeping under the rug that the Huffington Post and a guy named Tremblay would prefer?

The question that hangs in the air and remains unanswered is simple.  Why?

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Friendly Fire? (Not really) continued...with a twist!

When I found myself becoming an octopus rather than a man and trying to do eight things at once, I realized priorities put work ahead of blogging.   Fortunately, it was a good time to discuss metaphysical aspects of the Darwinism versus Creationism debate.  

Intelligent Design is entirely an operational science-based attempt to analyze evidence without bringing a worldview into the discussion.  

Darwinism presumes Naturalistic Materialism must be the cause of all causations. 

Creationism assumes a Creator God.  

Today we give Dr. Charles Wood his part two of the dissertation and then bring a non-Christian in at the end to give yet another point of view.


     OK, lets’ admit it, I didn’t get finished on Tuesday, sensing that the post was growing too long.  So, here’s some more on the subject. I probably didn’t handle my references to professors past as well as I should have.  This is an area of memory from more than half a Century ago and is therefore subject to some potential unintentional inaccuracies.  Actually, I had about a half dozen teachers who allowed for (a very different word from accepted or embraced) the idea of the creative days being long periods of time.  There was one of them, who shall remain unnamed, that I really believe accepted the idea (but only as a plausible theory - and that was not Dr. Leon Wood).

     All of these men, however, were not motivated by the idea of making concessions to science or allowing time for the theory of evolution to work itself out.  So-called “Theistic Evolution” was around (and actually being taught at a well-known college that was considered a bastion of Biblical orthodoxy), but it was not the “hot ticket” item among evangelicals that it is today.  In fact, it was considered aberrant in the places where I was educated.  The motivation of my Professors, as nearly as I can remember, was that it did provide a possible answer to the questions raised by the apparent age of the earth - questions that still linger and now apparently drive some self-professed believers to embrace the “facts” of science as an explanation.

     It was some time after - I believe in 1961 - that The Genesis Flood first made its appearance. That sounds like yesterday, but it was fifty years ago, the year after I finally completed my graduate work.  I read it almost immediately upon publication and was generally impressed by it.  My main problems came in areas when Henry Morris, a Hydrologist by background, addressed Bible claims (particularly in the linguistic field) and when John Whitcomb, a widely-recognized Theologian (who is still living and speaking around the country) addressed scientific claims.  I did find in that work the best and most - to me at least - intellectually and practically satisfying explanation of fossils and the fossil record that I have seen since.  While not perfect, the book did provide a viable, generally intellectually consistent alternative to other theories that sought to explain the earth's apparent age.  Lacking in a solid scientific foundation, I found the general theme of the book a satisfying point of embarkation on my own journey to maintain my commitment to historic orthodoxy without dismissing those scientific claims that from time-to-time prove to have demonstrable validity.  Although I have a few areas of reservation, I would readily plead guilty to the accusation of holding a “Flood Geology” position in regard to the age of the earth.

     I mentioned my concern that there has not been more “push back” from solidly conservative evangelical sources.  As I said, New York Pastor Timothy Keller has spoken out, and a book has been written by a Professor at Covenant Seminary.  Al Mohler has also chimed in, and I am sure there are other opponents, of whom I am not aware, who have expressed themselves publicly.  There are, however, several organizations that are ”set for the defense” of the Bible against the inroads of the religion of Evolution, the best known of which are probably the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.  Since my long-time friend, Duane Gish, is no longer an active principal in the Institute, I have not had much contact with it (I did notice on Amazon that Henry Morris Jr. has written a book that appears to update the original Genesis Flood and to treat the many issues that have arisen in the last fifty years, and they have a great web site with enough information to keep a blog surfer busy for half a day).  I am much more familiar with Answers in Genesis and the work of its leader, Ken Ham.  I have visited the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky and came away from that visit very impressed with what I saw and heard (and I do know enough about science to appreciate much of the intense labor that has been expended on making that the fascinating experience it really is).  I also get a weekly email from AIG which I do not devour but do scan and read articles that stand out to me as within the sphere of my interests.  I sometimes find articles that have a bit of intellectual arrogance about them, but generally speaking, I am impressed with the treatment of the subjects and the general intellectual competence shown by the authors.  I was especially gratified by the very sane answer given to a woman who wrote in a question that I considered almost below the level of being worthy of an answer.

     Some say that they are not impressed by the work of ICR and AIG, but I am not impressed with the work of BioLogos.  At least the former two institutions begin with the Bible and seek to interpret science in a way consistent with its teaching and historic theological evaluation, whereas BioLogos appears to begin with science and seeks to re-interpret Scripture in such a way as to conform it to the ever shifting “facts” of evolution.  Again, given a choice (which I really am not), I will chose Scripture over science every time.

     Mark Farnham, a Professor at Calvary Baptist  Theological Seminary (Lansdale, PA) has posted a quote from a leading theologian who would hardly qualify as a fundamentalist (or even to most as a conservative evangelical). that speaks quite eloquently to the controversy:

    “The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. And it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but also of who God is and whence the universe has come. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the Word of God that you can separate its so-called religious and moral instruction from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.” 

    The source?  Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed. Edited by K. Scott Oliphint (P&R, 2008), 29.

    Ann Coulter is hardly a scientist (and I am not aware of her having claimed any faith in Christ as Savior), but she is very intelligent and extremely cogent in her writing.  Her Town Hall Column of today is worth reading.  Don’t let your presuppositions concerning her - or even her questionable status regarding the faith - keep you from catching her main points:

    “The definition of hell is being condescended to by idiots. It will probably be MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Contessa Brewer sneering at you for all of eternity for not believing in evolution.

    "Roughly one-third of my 2007 No. 1 New York Times best-seller, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, is an attack on liberals' creation myth, Darwinian evolution. I presented the arguments of all the luminaries in the field, from the retarded Richard Dawkins to the brilliant Francis Crick, and disputed them.  But apparently liberals didn't want to argue back.

    "Despite Matthews' obsessive fixation on the topic, manifested by his constantly asking elected Republicans if they believe in evolution, in a one-hour interview with me on Godless -- the very book that is chockablock with attacks on Darwinism -- Matthews didn't ask me a single question about the subject. No liberal did. Matthews doesn't even know what evolution is.

    "Just a year later, at a 2008 Republican presidential candidates' debate, Matthews asked for a show of hands of who believed in evolution. No discussion permitted! That might allow scientific facts, rather than schoolyard taunts, to escape into the world.

    "Evolution is the only subject that is discussed exclusively as a 'Do you believe?' question with yes-or-no answers. How about conservative journalists start putting mikes in front of liberal candidates and demanding, 'Do you believe in the Bible -- yes or no?' 'Is an unborn baby human -- yes or no?' and 'Do you believe teenagers should have sex -- yes or no?'

    "This is the flash mob method of scientific inquiry. Liberals quickly surround and humiliate anyone who disagrees with them. They are baffled when appeals to status (which would work on them) don't work on everyone else.

    "Now that Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has said there are 'gaps' in the theory of evolution -- or 'gas' as The New York Times originally reported, before issuing a correction -- we're in for another round of fact-free mocking of fundamentalist nuts.
In fact, however, it has not been advances in Christianity (which is pretty much settled), but in science that have completely discredited Darwin's theory of evolution.

    "This week, we will consider one small slice of the mountain of scientific evidence disproving this mystery religion from the Victorian age.  Most devastating for the Darwiniacs were advances in microbiology since Darwin's time, revealing infinitely complex mechanisms requiring hundreds of parts working together at once -- complex cellular structures, DNA, blood-clotting mechanisms, molecules, and the cell's tiny flagellum and cilium.

    Darwin's theory was that life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which by random mutation, sex and death, would pass on the desirable mutations, and this process, over billions of years, would lead to the creation of new species.

    "The (extremely generous) test Darwin set for his theory was this: 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.'

    "Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.

It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum -- forget the 200 parts of the cilium! -- could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards marrying Rielle Hunter, the "ground zero" of the impossible. Nor would each of the 30 to 40 parts individually make an organism more fit to survive and reproduce, which, you will recall, is the lynchpin of the whole contraption.

    "As Michael Behe, biochemist and author of Darwin's Black Box explains, even a mechanism as simple as a three-part mousetrap requires all three parts to be working together at once. Otherwise, you don't get a mousetrap that catches half as many mice -- and thus might win a survival of the fittest competition -- you don't get a mousetrap at all.

    "The more we have learned about molecules, cells and DNA -- a body of knowledge some refer to as "science" -- the more preposterous Darwin's theory has become. DNA is, as Bill Gates says, 'like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created'(Plus DNA doesn't usually crash when you're right in the middle of reproducing.)  Evolution fanatics would rather not be called on to explain these complex mechanisms that Darwin himself said would disprove his theory.  Instead they make jokes about people who know the truth. They say that to dispute evolution means you must believe man walked with dinosaurs.  Galileo's persecutors probably had some good guffaws about him believing in Fred Flintstone.

    "This is why the brighter Darwiniacs end up sounding like Scientologists in order to cling to their mystery religion.  Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, hypothesized that highly intelligent extraterrestrials sent living cells to Earth on an unmanned spaceship, a theory he set forth in his 1981 book, Life Itself.  Thus was God narrowly averted!  But Crick's solution obviously begs the question: How did the highly intelligent extraterrestrials evolve?

    Harvard population biologist Richard Lewontin said the Darwiniacs tolerate 'unsubstantiated just-so stories' of evolution and ignore 'the patent absurdity of some of its constructs' because they are committed to coming up with a theory that excludes God. 'We cannot,' Lewontin said, 'allow a divine foot in the door.'

   "Maybe if we called the Intelligent Designer 'Louis Vuitton' to avoid frightening the Godphobics, they'd finally admit the truth: Modern science has disproved Darwinian evolution."

     Finally Michael Behe’s Evolution’s Black Box is a must read for anyone really interested in the subject.  Behe holds to the Intelligent
Design view, and is not - to my knowledge - a believer, but the book is devastating to conventional Evolutionary thinking.


The work of Dr. Charles "Chuck" Wood
Retired pastor and educator
Current husband, father, grandfather, great grandfather,
Bible teacher, writer and contrarian
Now hidden away in Mishawaka, Indiana
August 25, 2011


Behe also wrote "The Edge of Evolution" in which he points out the limits that have been testable and repeatable in laboratory tests, limits of mutation as a possible agent of change in organisms.   Even presuming mutations bring a positive rather than a negative direction to organisms (which they don't) there is no way for a mass of mutations to appear and be passed on simultaneously.   Darwinism require this to happen and, not once, but millions upon millions of times.   It is not possible.


Now a word from the non-Christian side of things.   David Harsanyi is a blogger at times but his day job is journalist and columnist.

"Science" When It Suits Them

By David Harsanyi

By David Harsanyi

So every now and then, liberals are treated to a big self-righteous laugh at the expense of some backwoods Christian conservative candidate who "ignores science" by doubting evolution or global warming -- or, gasp, both.

Much, for instance, has been made of Texas Gov. Rick Perry's recent suggestion that evolution is a "theory that's out there" with "gaps in it." He even insinuated that evolution and creationism should both be taught in schools -- because folks are "smart enough to figure out which one is right."

Sanctimony to red alert!

Now, I have no interest in watching my kids waste their time with creationism, but unlike progressives, I have no interest in dictating what other kids should learn. Remember that these folks, bothered by the very thought of their offspring's hearing a God-infused concept in school, have no problem forcing millions of parents to accept bureaucrat-written curricula at government-run school monopolies. They oppose home schooling. They oppose school choice. They oppose parents choosing a religious education with their tax dollars.

As a voter, like me, you may find Perry's view on creationism disconcerting and a sign of an unsophisticated candidate. But the fact is that the progressives' faith-based devotion to government is far more consequential than Perry's faith-based position on evolution.

Despite the rare political dispute, in the real world, science -- real science -- is rarely controversial. It's politicized science that is prickly. And science is easy to politicize. Maybe if schools began teaching students that "life" begins at conception and that each zygote, embryo and fetus is a unique human being in some early stage of development just waiting to be born, liberals would see the point.

No, my kids haven't been chewing over Charles Darwin text or the Holy Bible in elementary school. There's simply no time. Not with global warming out there.

Perry, not surprisingly, was also recently asked about "global warming." He responded that "the issue has been politicized" and that pouring billions of dollars into "a scientific theory that has not been proven and ... is more and more being put into question" is not worthwhile.

It is interesting watching the nation's defenders of reason, empirical evidence and science fail to display a hint of skepticism over the transparently political "science" of global warming. Rarely are scientists so certain in predicting the future. Yet this is a special case. It is also curious that these supposed champions of Darwin don't believe that human beings -- or nature -- have the ability to adapt to changing climate.

Like 99 percent of pundits and politicians, though, I have no business chiming in on the science of climate change -- though my kids' teachers sure are experts. Needless to say, there is a spectacular array of viewpoints on this issue. The answers are far from settled. There are debates over how much humans contribute. There are debates over how much warming we're seeing. There are debates over many things.

But even if one believed the most terrifying projections of global warming alarmist "science," it certainly doesn't mean one has to support the anti-capitalist technocracy to fix it. And try as some may to conflate the two, global warming policy is not "science." The left sees civilization's salvation in a massive Luddite undertaking that inhibits technological growth by turning back the clock, undoing footprints, forcing technology that doesn't exist, banning products that do and badgering consumers who have not adhered to the plan through all kinds of punishment. Yet there is no real science that has shown that any of it makes a whit of difference.

So no doubt, it is reasonable for voters to query presidential candidates about their views on faith, religion, God, Darwin and science. It matters. Sometimes, though, it matters less than they'd like you to think it does.

Copyright 2011, Creators Syndicate Inc.


David Harsanyi is a nationally syndicated columnist and a columnist/blogger at The Blaze. He is Editorial Manager at Mercury Ink.

David’s writings on politics and culture have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Weekly Standard, National Review, Reason, Christian Science Monitor, Jerusalem Post, Toronto Globe & Mail, The Hill, Jornal O Globo, and numerous other publications. For nearly seven years he was a columnist at the Denver Post — and for three years a member the Post’s editorial board.

Harsanyi’s column, syndicated nationally through Creators Syndicate, is carried by newspapers, magazines and websites across the country, and has been featured by RealClearPolitics,,, New Hampshire Union Leader, Arizona Republic, Detroit News, Salt Lake City Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, The Columbus Dispatch, Philadelphia Inquirer, and many others.

Harsanyi appears on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, National Public Radio as well as dozens of radio talk shows across the country, discussing political and cultural issues. His first book, Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children (Doubleday/Broadway) was released in 2007.

Harsanyi has held positions as a producer, editor and reporter at media outlets like the Associated Press, New York Daily News, Sports Illustrated Online and Major League Baseball Advanced Media.


Extra credit information:  Access Research Network Michael Behe page...

Michael Behe

Professor of Biochemistry
Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University
  Michael J. Behe

Darwin's Black Box
Darwin's Black Box
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Audio Tape: Introduction to DBB
The Right Questions Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe

Intelligent Design

From the Big Bang to
Irreducible Complexity
Unlocking the
Mystery of Life
Irreducible Complexity

The Biochemical
Challenge to
Darwinian Theory.
Where Does the Evidence Lead?


Related Articles


Lecture Report

Responses to Critics

2005 Dover Trial Testimony Transcripts