Search This Blog

Monday, January 30, 2012

You can't legislate morality? Really???

LAST (probably) in the mini-series on abortion, which is just a word liberals use to mean baby murdering.  The practice causes intense pain to the child, and it is wrong.

credit

At 20 weeks they are babies!  See above and below!

Unborn babies can feel pain

Scientific evidence reveals that unborn babies do, indeed, feel pain


The evidence of fetal pain


With the advent of sonograms and live-action ultrasound images, neonatologists and nurses are able to see unborn babies at 20 weeks gestation react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch. The sense of touch is so acute that even a single human hair drawn across an unborn baby's palm causes the baby to make a fist.  

Did you know that this 20-week-old unborn child can feel pain?
Surgeons entering the womb to perform corrective procedures on tiny unborn babies have seen those babies flinch, jerk and recoil from sharp objects and incisions.

“The neural pathways are present for pain to be experienced quite early by unborn babies,” explains Steven Calvin, M.D., perinatologist, chair of the Program in Human Rights Medicine, University of Minnesota, where he teaches obstetrics.

Medical facts of fetal pain

Anatomical studies have documented that the body’s pain network—the spino-thalamic pathway—is established by 20 weeks gestation.

• “At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting to receive pain signals from the body, and their electrical activity can be recorded by standard electroencephalography (EEG).”
— Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto

• An unborn baby at 20 weeks gestation “is fully capable of experiencing pain. … Without question, [abortion] is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”
— Robert J. White, M.D., PhD., professor of neurosurgery, Case Western University
Unborn babies have heightened sensitivities

Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults. This is a “uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop,” according to Dr. Ranalli.

“Having administered anesthesia for fetal surgery, I know that on occasion we need to administer anesthesia directly to the fetus, because even at these early gestational ages the fetus moves away from the pain of the stimulation,” stated David Birnbach, M.D., president of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology and self-described as “pro-choice,” in testimony before the U.S. Congress.

Given the medical evidence that unborn babies experience pain, compassionate people are viewing abortion more and more as an inhumane and intolerable brutality against defenseless human beings.

The unborn baby at 20 weeks

Fetal development is already quite advanced at 20 weeks gestation:
• The skeleton is complete and reflexes are present at 42 days.
• Electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded at 43 days. This is usually ample evidence that “thinking” is taking place in the brain.
• The fetus has the appearance of a miniature baby, with complete fingers, toes and ears at 49 days.
• All organs are functioning—stomach, liver, kidney, brain—and all systems are intact at 56 days.
• By 20 weeks, the unborn child has hair and working vocal cords, sucks her thumb, grasps with her hands and kicks. She measures 12 inches.

Abortion at 20 weeks

Despite the unborn child’s advanced development at 20 weeks, the following painful abortion procedures are used:

 Partial-birth abortion (D&X): The unborn baby is delivered feet first, except for the head, which is punctured at the base of the skull with a sharp object. The brain is then suctioned out, killing the child. (This method was outlawed in the United States in 2007.)

• Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist and tear the baby’s body into pieces, which are then removed from the womb.

• Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother’s abdomen. The unborn baby swallows this fluid, is poisoned and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours. The toxic saline solution causes severe burns over the unborn child’s entire body.

Minnesota law recognizes fetal pain

MCCL helped to pass Minnesota’s Woman’s Right to Know law in 2003, which, among other things, informs women that their unborn child can feel pain at 20 weeks gestation. MCCL also strongly supported the Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act, which became state law in 2005. The law requires that abortionists and referring physicians inform women that pain-reducing medication is available for their unborn baby. Pregnant women must sign a form to either request or refuse the administration of pain-reducing drugs to their unborn child prior to an abortion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An aborted 9 week old baby.  How is this not murder?

The silliest pro-abortion argument ever (is one you hear all the time)

January 17, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - Tell me if this has ever happened to you.
It’s lunchtime. You are eating at your desk at work and decide to look at Facebook. It’s as exciting as ever. Your aunt had a burrito for lunch. A girl you haven’t seen since college got a new tattoo. Someone is super happy it’s almost Friday.

Then you see that a virtual stranger (there’s a double meaning in that) has commented on one of your posts. And she has said something so asinine that you put down your fried pickle (’cause you’re in Texas and you eat stuff like that) and respond.

It’s daunting, the task before you. Do you even want to undertake this? Can you really change someone’s mind about abortion in one Facebook comment?*

Well, you’re gonna try. So you launch into refuting whatever dumb thing the person just said. “There’s no scientific concensus that life begins at conception!” “If we make it illegal, they’re gonna do it anyway!” “If you’re against abortion, you should be against war, too!” It could be any of these things, or something else.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion


So you drop a couple knowledge bombs, go back to your life, and hours later you find the following response:


“Well, maybe you’re right, but we can’t legislate morality.”
You look around for a candid camera. Is this an elaborate joke? No. Someone actually said that. Again. You sigh. And you type this:

Really? We can’t legislate morality? What do you call it when we tell people they can’t murder? Rape? Steal?


The Ten Commandments: All up in your business since circa 1440 B.C.
Let’s do some Criminal Justice 101, shall we? There are two types of laws: malum in se and malum prohibitum. Malum in se is a Latin phrase meaning “wrong in itself.” Most of us feel that murder is wrong, therefore there is a law against it. Malum prohibitum means something is wrong because it is prohibited. For example: in the United States we have to drive on the right side of the road, not because driving on the left is inherently evil (I’m lookin’ at you, England!) but because good order meant we had to pick one side. Because we’ve picked right, if you drive on the left, you’re gonna get stopped. Try it, you’ll see.**

Malum in se laws are based on morality. Our laws here in the U.S. grew out of English Common Law, which in turn was based on Judeo-Christian morality. Now, old-timey English lawmakers did not sit around and go, “Hmmm, what should we base our laws on?” And then come up with the Bible because it had an attractive leather cover. Judeo-Christian morality was a part of the culture since the 7th century, and has in fact formed Western culture, culminating most recently in our humble little former colony, the United States.

Detractors will say English Common Law formed in the 5th century, before Christianity took hold in Britain. But the law as we know it didn’t stop forming then. Christian men such as Henry de Bracton in the 13th century in England and Sir William Blackstone in the 18th century in the United States have had a tremendous impact on creating the laws we know today.

(Radar note.  Blackstone and the Bible were the two most referenced sources by the Founding Fathers when they were writing the Constitution and the Bible more than Blackstone.)

Whether you like it or not, the culture that created you is a Judeo-Christian culture. All the things you think are right and wrong were formed by Judeo-Christian principles. Why do you think it’s wrong to have slaves? Western culture is just like most other civilizations in that it engaged in slavery, but unique in that it is solely responsible for ridding the world of it. What about having a harem of concubines? That was common in pre-Christian cultures, not so much in the West today. Sacrificing virgins? No big deal to the pagans, but frowned upon in our time.

The idea of loving people more than ourselves, sacrificing for the poor, turning the other cheek… these ideas were so revolutionary to the Roman world in which Christianity was born that they were scandalous. The tenets of Christianity made Christians so different they were almost universally hated. They were persecuted and killed all over the Roman Empire, until the Emperor Constantine had a vision. But I digress.

So those who cry that morals have no place in public policy are a little too late. Judeo-Christian morals created our public policy, created our culture, were the basis for our founding documents, guided the formation of our nation through the beliefs of our founders, and make up the fabric of our society.

Recently, a postmodern deconstructionist tendency to wipe American law clean of “traditional” morality has created not a sparkling tabula rasa, but a libertine morass. You don’t have to be a Jew or Christian to recognize there is such a thing as right and wrong. Lately, it seems like the only evil people will recognize is believing in evil.

Ironically, the abortion advocate who tells us to keep our morals off her body is herself expressing a moral belief, a belief in liberty. I also believe in liberty, but I believe that in the phrase “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” life comes first for a very good reason: you can’t have liberty without life. I believe a baby’s right to be alive trumps his mother’s right to kill him for any reason she sees fit. Because, as we all know, there are limits to liberty. My liberty ends where, for example, it infringes upon another person’s right to live. Hence, I am free, but not free to murder. I am free to drive, but not into someone’s restaurant. I am free to watch TV, but not “Jersey Shore” at Kristen’s house. And so on.

The next time someone tells you, “We can’t legislate morality,” tell them, “Sure we can! It’s fun and easy! Like Mad Libs!”

But seriously: this is another argument you can easily shoot down with just a little bit of knowledge. Now you know. And knowing is half the battle.***

*No. But one day I’m gonna set a world record and do it in three.

**Please do not try this.

***G.I. Joe

Reprinted with permission from LiveAction.org

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Abortion follow-up. How to make the end of abortion the end of unwanted children.

"I have always thought there was something indescribably beautiful about the act of taking a stranger into your home and making him part of your family. It is proof of the generosity and love inherent in the human soul." - Kristen Walker

 

I know several families who have adopted children.  It is NOT true that babies are unwanted!

In our little church alone there are a few families who have adopted children.  My wife and I have six so we did not really need to adopt.   We have had enough kids and friends of kids to have had a parade of younger folks stomping through the house, particularly during the teen years.  For awhile my house was the "cool" house to hang out for teenagers.  Now as our kids have entered adulthood the traffic has slowed considerably, but there are a couple of handfuls of young adults who know they are welcome in our house like our very own!

Back to these families.   One family has three children born to them and two children they adopted.  They are a white couple who adopted a couple of mixed-race boys, brothers, and those two guys assimilated into the family and the youth group and the church and school no problem.   Since this family still has three teens, it is like my house used to be, a place zillions of teens can come in, hang around, eat through the food supply and be at home.   Great family!   I love all of their kids and they come in more than one size and shade of melanin, but who cares?   They are people and they are family.   What if those two brothers had been aborted?   Their friends would have missed out on knowing them, their schools would have missed out on their talents and everyone would have missed out on their personalities, humor, fun, determination, sincerity, intelligence and all of that.  

Another family is a mixed race marriage with their own wonderful children who adopted the husband's niece, born in Africa and with a mother who died and a father who because of the political climate could be killed at any time.  So with the church praying for them, they somehow managed to cut through all the red tape and adopt that little baby and she just had her first birthday in the USA this past week.   Awesome!

Yet another family adopted one of our youth group girls, another one adopted a pair of Asian-heritage babies and yet another is doing foster care, taking in the kids others cannot handle and seeking to help them find peace and consistency for once in their lives.    

There there is a couple who have been on missions trips, they are young, they want their own children but so far no go.   So they are thinking that they will adopt in order to have children.   Of course we hope they can have their own biological offspring but they just want children to love and raise and will be willing to jump through all the hoops to get them and adopt them.

In this country there are millions of babies being aborted every year and, at the same time, so many couples trying to adopt children and finding that paperwork and costs are daunting.   Why don't we make it easy for mothers to have babies and give them to couples who want them?   As a society we are stuck on stupid!!!   There are black families and white families and brown families and mixed families all looking to adopt.  There are couples who want to become a family by adding children they cannot have.   There is an unmet need that these babies could meet if only they were allowed to live.

Thank God that in our church we have people of many shades of skin color, many shapes, many sizes, many ages, many different talents and personalities.   Some of the young people have been adopted or taken in as foster kids.   I have the honor of being a youth group staff member.  That means I write a recommendation letter for a young man seeking a scholarship, or take a few guys out for a sandwich, or pray with one to somehow work in his parent's marriage, or we pray for a grandparent or parent fighting a disease.   We laugh, we play, we get serious - I get to invest in their lives.   I never care about what color hair or skin or eyes they have or how big or small they are!   

But I am warning you, America!   You are killing the innocents and God does not like that.   If this country fails, it will fail in part because socialist morons like Barack Obama are allowed to spit on the Constitution but even more so because the Supreme Court spat on the Ten Commandments when they rendered the wrong decision in Roe versus Wade.    We had better work hard to fix that.   We have murdered more innocents than Hitler did, and probably as many as Stalin and Mao did.   Given ten more years and the nation we call America will have taken more innocent lives than the maddest Roman Caesar, Communist tyrant or Nazi dictator!   Are you proud of this?   Will you do something about it?

 

How to make the end of abortion the end of unwanted children


by Kristen Walker Wed Jan 25 

We need to educate couples about adoption.
January 25, 2012 (LiveAction.org) - Recently I’ve been discussing the correlation between the problem of emancipating slaves in the American South, and the problem of ending abortion in our country. While most pro-lifers agree abortion must be ended as soon as possible, it doesn’t change the fact that an extra one million babies per year, many born to mothers with limited resources or parenting skills, will put a great strain on federal assistance and social welfare programs.

The first part of the solution to this problem is far-reaching and, admittedly, far-fetched. It involves changing the way young people view personal responsibility, morality, and sex, which involves changing the hearts and minds of adults so that they raise their children with better instruction and more traditional values.

While it’s essential that we continue to lead by example and advocate for higher sexual standards, it’s also important that we realize unwanted pregnancies are still going to happen, and lots of them.

According to the U.S. Census, single parenthood increased from 3 million families in 1970 to nearly 14 million in 2010. That’s almost a 100% increase per decade. An unsurprising 84% of single parents are mothers. The advent of the sexual revolution in the 1960s led to a decline in the number of “nuclear” families and a growing dependence on the state to act as father and provider for children without one. Today, a staggering 70% of black children are born out of wedlock.

When women mistook sexual libertinism for independence, they shrugged off the horrible yoke of having a husband who provided for them in favor of a different burden: that of parenting alone. I was raised by a single mother. She did the best she could, and I love her for it and applaud her courage and fortitude. However, my brother and I would have been better off with a present father.
Don’t take my word for it. Ask Mark Mather, PhD.
The effects of growing up in single-parent households have been shown to go beyond economics, increasing the risk of children dropping out of school, disconnecting from the labor force, and becoming teen parents. Although many children growing up in single-parent families succeed, others will face significant challenges in making the transition to adulthood.
The Telegraph also reported on a study of 14,000 children born in Britain between 2000 and 2002:
Some 12 per cent of children brought up by one parent displayed serious behavioural problems by the age of seven, it was disclosed, compared with just six per cent of youngsters raised by both natural parents.
Several years ago, controversial writer Ann Coulter made headlines when she quoted these statistics, although they had already been published in a left-leaning magazine:
A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes ‘are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.

She also added the following shocking information:
By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers.
As a pro-lifer, I firmly believe that we must respect the sanctity of life for unborn humans. I also know that any chance at life is better than none. I am glad my mother, who found herself pregnant with twins as an already-single mother of two, decided to keep my brothers and raise them. Fortunately, despite making a few less-than-stellar decisions, she was an excellent mom with a head on her shoulders who took good care of us. She also had a support system of family and friends to rely on.

Not every pregnant woman has these advantages, and that is why, by the time that beautiful day arrives when abortion is ended, we must have already begun to educate the people of our country — especially the young people — about the priceless gift of adoption.

My mother was adopted, my grandfather was adopted, and my best friend was adopted. I have always thought there was something indescribably beautiful about the act of taking a stranger into your home and making him part of your family. It is proof of the generosity and love inherent in the human soul.
Adoption is a little understood process. Unfortunately, most potential adoptive parents dismiss it as too expensive or time-consuming, while most women experiencing unplanned pregnancies view it as a difficult, mysterious, agonizing prospect.

We need to educate couples about adoption. We need them to know it is easier and less expensive to adopt than most people think.

Most of all, we need to begin to elevate adoption as a joyous and rewarding process for the pregnant mother. She is giving her child not only the gift of life, but the gift of a better life than the one she can probably provide.

Soon I’ll tell you a little bit more about adoption, and why it’s our best hope for ensuring that as many children as possible are raised by loving, capable parents who can give them the opportunities they deserve.

Click “like” if you want to end abortion!
Reprinted with permission from the LiveAction blog.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am going to mention an issue that goes side-by-side with abortion One reason we are allowing innocent babies to be murdered is because we have become an immoral society and one reason we have allowed this is because honesty is becoming unfortunately rare.  Virtues like honesty and purity and common decency are falling by the wayside.  When you systematically remove God from society, the virtues associated with Godliness soon dissipate.  


The Death of Honesty

The failure to cultivate virtue in citizens can be a lethal threat to any democracy. 

Editor's note: The essay below is from the online volume Endangered Virtues, a publication of the Hoover Institution’s Task Force on the Virtues of a Free Society.

For a number of reasons, people do not always stick to the truth when they speak. Some of the reasons are justifiable—for example, humane considerations such as tact and the avoidance of greater harm. Reassuring an ungainly teenager that he or she looks great may be a kind embroidery of the truth. In a more consequential instance, misinforming storm troopers about the whereabouts of a hidden family during the Nazi occupation of Europe was an honorable and courageous deception.
 honesty an endangered virtue
 Illustration by Barbara Kelley 
Honesty is not a wholly detached moral virtue demanding strict allegiance at all times. Compassion, diplomacy, and life-threatening circumstances sometimes require a departure from the entire unadulterated truth. Some vocations seem to demand occasional deception for success or survival.

Politicians, for example, are especially hard-pressed to tell the truth consistently. Perhaps this is because, as George Orwell once observed, the very function of political speech is to hide, soften, or misrepresent difficult truths. Orwell was clearly skeptical about any expectation to the contrary. In “Politics and the English Language,” he put it this way: “Political language—and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists—is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Although in this case Orwell himself may have been guilty of overstatement for purposes of rhetorical effect, his claim cannot be totally dismissed. It would be naïve (or cynical) for anyone in today’s world to act shocked whenever a politician tries to hide the real truth from the public. For ordinary citizens, keeping up with the daily news means a constant process of speculating about what the politicians really meant by what they said and what they actually believe. It certainly does not mean taking what any of them say at face value.

Yet to recognize that honesty is not an absolute standard demanded for every life circumstance—and that we can expect a certain amount of deceit from even our respected public figures—is not to say that the virtue of honesty can be disregarded with impunity. A basic intent to be truthful, along with an assumption that people can be generally taken at their word, is required for all sustained civilized dealings.

Teaching honesty is no longer a priority in our schools.

No civilization can tolerate a fixed expectation of dishonest communications without falling apart from a breakdown in mutual trust. All human relations rely upon confidence that those in the relations will, as a rule, tell the truth. Honesty builds and solidifies a relationship with trust; and too many breaches in honesty can corrode relations beyond repair. Friendships, family, work, and civic relations all suffer whenever dishonesty comes to light. The main reason that no one wants to be known as a liar is that people shun liars because they can’t be trusted.

Honesty’s vital role in human society has been observed and celebrated for all of recorded history. The Romans considered the goddess Veritas to be the “mother of virtue”; Confucius considered honesty to be the essential source of love, communication, and fairness between people; and of course, the Bible’s Old Testament prohibited bearing false witness. It is also noteworthy that the two most universally heralded U. S. presidents (George Washington, who “could not tell a lie,” and Abraham Lincoln, who was known as “Honest Abe”) were widely acclaimed for their trustworthiness.

In a similar vein, religious leader Gordon Hinckley has written that, “where there is honesty, other virtues will follow”—indicating, as did the Romans, the pivotal role of truthfulness in all moral behavior and development. Hinckley’s comment was made in the context of his alarm-sounding book on “neglected virtues,” and it points to the problematic status of honesty in our society today. Although truthfulness is essential for good human relationships and personal integrity, it is often abandoned in pursuit of other life priorities.

Indeed, there may be a perception in many key areas of contemporary life—law, business, politics, among others—that expecting honesty on a regular basis is a naïve and foolish attitude, a “loser’s” way of operating. Such a perception is practically a mandate for personal dishonesty and a concession to interpersonal distrust. When we no longer assume that those who communicate with us are at least trying to tell the truth, we give up on them as trustworthy persons and deal with them only in a strictly instrumental manner. The bounds of mutual moral obligation dissolve, and the laws of the jungle reemerge.

Our serious problem today is not simply that many people routinely tell lies. As I have noted, people have departed from the truth for one reason or another all throughout human history. The problem now is that we seem to be reaching a dysfunctional tipping point in which an essential commitment to truthfulness no longer seems to be assumed in our society. If this is indeed the case, the danger is that the bonds of trust important in any society, and essential for a free and democratic one, will dissolve so that the kinds of discourse required to self-govern will become impossible.

A basic intent to be truthful is required for all sustained civilized dealings.

What are the signs of this in contemporary society? In professional and business circles, a now-familiar complaint is, “It used to be your word was good, but those days are gone.” In print, broadcast, and online news coverage, journalism has lost credibility with much of the public for its perceived biases in representing the facts. In civic affairs, political discourse is no longer considered to be a source of genuine information. Rather, it is assumed that leaders make statements merely to posture for effect, and not to engage in discussion or debate. In such an environment, facts may be manipulated or made up in service of a predetermined interest, not presented accurately and then examined in good faith. This is troubling, because civic leaders set the tone for communications throughout the public sphere.

Most troubling of all is that honesty is no longer a priority in many of the settings where young people are educated. The future of every society depends upon the character development of its young. It is in the early years of life—the first two decades especially—when basic virtues that shape character are acquired. Although people can learn, grow, and reform themselves at any age, this kind of learning becomes increasingly difficult as habits solidify over time. Honesty is a prime example of a virtue that becomes habitual over the years if practiced consistently—and the same can be said about dishonesty.
Honesty is the character virtue most closely linked to every school’s academic mission. In matters of “academic integrity,” which generally revolve around cheating, schools have a primary responsibility to convey to students the importance of honesty as a practical and ethical virtue. Unfortunately, many of our schools today are failing this responsibility.

Of all the breeches that can tear deeply into the moral fabric of a school, cheating is among the most damaging, because it throws in doubt the school’s allegiance to truth and fairness. Cheating in school is unethical for at least four reasons:
1) it gives students who cheat an unfair advantage over those who do not cheat;
2) it is an act of dishonesty in a setting dedicated to a quest for truthful knowledge,
3) it is a violation of trust between student and teacher; and
4) it disrespects the code of conduct and the social order of the school.
As such, one would expect that cheating would provide educators with an ideal platform for imparting the key moral standards of honesty, integrity, trust, and fairness.

Incredibly, some teachers have actually encouraged students to cheat.

For educators looking for opportunities to help students learn from their mistakes, there is plenty of material to work with: research has shown that almost three-quarters of American college students (that is, students who have made it through high school) admit to having cheated at least once in their pre-college academic work. Donald McCabe, the most prominent contemporary researcher on school cheating, has concluded that “Cheating is prevalent, and…some forms of cheating have increased dramatically in the last 30 years.”

Yet many teachers, in order to avoid legal action and other contention, look the other way if their students copy test answers or hand in plagiarized papers. Some teachers excuse students because they believe that “sharing” schoolwork is motivated by loyalty to friends. Some teachers sympathize with student cheaters because they consider the tests that students take to be flawed, unfair, or too difficult. Such sympathy can be taken to extremes, as in the case of one teacher, observed by an educational writer, who held that “it was the teacher who was immoral for having given the students such a burdensome assignment...” when a group of students was caught cheating.

Incredibly, some teachers actually have encouraged students to cheat; and some have even cheated themselves when reporting student test scores. In July 2011, a widely-reported cheating scandal erupted in school systems in and around Atlanta, Georgia. State investigators found a pattern of “organized and systemic misconduct” dating back for over ten years. One-hundred-and-seventy-eight teachers, and the principals of half of the system’s schools, aided and abetted students who were cheating on their tests. Top administrators ignored news reports of this cheating: a New York Times story described “a culture of fear and intimidation that prevented many teachers from speaking out.” 

Nor was this an isolated incident. In a feature on school testing, CBS News reported the following: “New York education officials found 21 proven cases of teacher cheating. Teachers have read off answers during a test, sent students back to correct wrong answers, photocopied secure tests for use in class, inflated scores, and peeked at questions then drilled those topics in class before the test.”

With such prominent and recent instances of cheating among students and teachers today, one would expect a concerted effort to articulate and promote the value of honesty in our schools. Yet school programs regarding academic integrity consist of little more than a patchwork of vaguely-stated prohibitions and half-hearted responses. Our schools vacillate between routine neglect and a circle-the wagons reaction if the problem boils over into a public media scandal. There is little consistency, coherence, or transparency in many school policies.

It is practically impossible to find a school that treats academic integrity as a moral issue by employing revealed incidents of cheating to communicate to its student body values such as honesty, respect for rules, and trust. In my own observations, I have noticed a palpable lack of interest among teachers and staff in discussing the moral significance of cheating with students. The problem here is the low priority of honesty in our agenda for schooling specifically and child-rearing in general.

In former days, there was not much hesitancy in our society about using a moral language to teach children essential virtues such as honesty. For us today, it can be a culture shock to leaf through old editions of the McGuffey Readers, used in most American schools until the mid-twentieth century, to see how readily educators once dispensed unambiguous moral lessons to students. Nowadays, when cheating is considered by some teachers to be an excusable response to a difficult assignment, or even a form of pro-social activity, our society risks a future of moral numbness brought on by a decline of honesty and all the virtues that rely on it. As the Founders of our republic warned, the failure to cultivate virtue in citizens can be a lethal threat to any democracy.


William Damon is a professor of education at Stanford University, director of the Stanford Center on Adolescence, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For the past twenty-five years, Damon has written on character development at all stages of life. Damon's recent books include Failing Liberty 101 (Hoover Press, 2011); The Path to Purpose: How Young People Find their Calling in Life (2008); and The Moral Advantage: How to Succeed in Business by Doing the Right Thing (2004). Damon was founding editor of New Direction for Child and Adolescent Development and is editor in chief of The Handbook of Child Psychology (1998 and 2006 editions). He is an elected member of the National Academy of Education and a fellow of the American Educational Research Association.

Letters to the editor may be sent to definingideas@stanford.edu. Editors reserve the right to reject or publish (and edit) letters. 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Honestly?   Abortion is murder.  

Honestly?  Evolution is built upon a series of lies.   

Honestly?  God did create the Universe and all within it.  He has the right to declare what is right and what is wrong in the world that He made.  Darwinists rebel against authority and wish to make their own rules and are willing to tell any lies they can get away with to prop up their preposterous fairy-tale unattributed set of magical events unscientific clap-trap hypothesis which has been falsified by the discovery of information and design in organisms and in the Universe.   Will they admit it?  No, they will shovel mounds of excrement at you at top speed in an attempt to fool you.   

Abortion, the mores of society, evolution, atheism...they are all partners in crime.   Convince people that they are not a unique and wonderful work of God and then convince them that there is no certain morality and then convince them that there really is no great purpose to life or existence and then you can tear apart the moral fabric of society and then you can promote your own set of ungodly pursuits - homosexuality, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, murder, deceit, theft...the list goes on and on.  

You Darwinists who proclaim lies to be truth will meet your Maker.   Again I warn you that the road you are on comes to a place where the bridge is out and you will go over the edge and into destruction!   I do not want you to go there and I do not want you taking others with you.  The battle for truth is part and parcel to the war against terrorism and abortion and racism and every other evil thing.  

Saturday, January 28, 2012

More problems for a natural origin of life considered

I am most happy to say that I know Jonathan Sarfati.   He lives far from us and we have not spent a lot of time together, but when he and I and my wife got to hang out last year we were like three peas in one pod.  Jonathan is not an American (although perhaps he will apply for citizenship?) but he knows more about American politics and history and the Constitution than the average American.  He is an upper-echelon chess grandmaster, an author and a world-class scientist in more than one discipline.   He is absolutely a good guy with a wonderful sense of humor and a quick wit.  There are few people I would rather hang out with to discuss the issues of the day and the political climate and new discoveries in science.    Tonight I am publishing something he worked on back in 1998 and later we will consider later works.   This paper alone shows the unbiased reader that a natural source of life is not going to happen and never has happened.  

credit listed on cartoon

Origin of life: the polymerization problem
Royal Truman


A well-publicised paper by Claudia Huber and Günter Wächterhäuser in Science proposed a scenario for a materialistic origin of life from non-living matter.1 They correctly state:
The activation of amino acids and the formation of peptides under primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin of life.
Indeed it is. The reaction to form a peptide bond between two amino acids to form a dipeptide is:

Amino acid 1 + amino acid 2 → dipeptide + water

H2NCHRCOOH +H2NCHR’COOH → H2NCHRCONHCHR’COOH + H2O (1)

The free energy change(ΔG1) is about 20–33 kJ/mol, depending on the amino acids. The equilibrium constant for any reaction (K) is the equilibrium ratio of the concentration of products to reactants. The relationship between these quantities at any Kelvin temperature (T) is given by the standard equation:

K = exp (–ΔG/RT)

where R is the universal gas constant (= Avogadro’s number x Boltzmann’s constant k) = 8.314 J/K.mol
For reaction (1),

K1 = [H2NCHRCONHCHRCOOH][H2O]/[H2NCHRCOOH][H2NCHRCOOH]
= 0.007 at 298 K

where a compound in square brackets symbolises the concentration of that compound.

This means that if we start with a concentrated solution of 1 M (mol/l) of each amino acid, the equilibrium dipeptide concentration would be only 0.007 M. Since tripeptides have two peptide bonds, the equilibrium tripeptide concentration would be 0.0072 M or 5x10–5 M. For a non-specific polypeptide with 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids), the equilibrium concentration would be 3.2 x 10–216 M. NB: the problem for evolutionists is even worse, because life requires not just any polymers, but highly specified ones.

Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse, because there is more time for water’s destructive effects to occur. High temperatures, as many researchers advocate, would accelerate the breakdown. The famous pioneer of evolutionary origin-of-life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are ‘too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment’.2,3 A recent article in New Scientist also described the instability of polymers in water as a ‘headache’ for researchers working on evolutionary ideas on the origin of life.4 It also showed its materialistic bias by saying this was not ‘good news’. But the real bad news is the faith in evolution which overrides objective science.

Some evolutionary scenarios

The analysis above doesn’t mean it’s impossible to make polypeptides. Consider the expression for the equilibrium constant K: if [H2O] is lowered, then [polypeptide] must increase. One approach is to drive off the water with heat, as proposed by Sydney Fox.5 However, his experiments required a large excess of the trifunctional amino acids (i.e. they can combine with three other molecules), but these are produced very sparingly in typical simulation experiments.6 The heat also destroys some vital amino acids and results in highly randomized polymers. Another problem is that all the chiral amino acids are racemized, that is, a 50/50 mixture of left and right handed molecules is produced, which is unsuitable for life.7The large excess of trifunctional amino acids results in extensive branching, unlike biological polymers. The required heating and cooling conditions are geologically unrealistic—there is no known place on earth where amino acids could be dumped and polypeptides would result. Finally, Fox’s experiments required very concentrated and pure amino acids, while any hypothetical primordial soup would be impure and grossly contaminated with other organic chemicals that would destroy them.8

Another way to remove water is with certain high-energy chemicals that absorb water, called condensing agents. If the reaction between condensing agent C and water is:

C + H2O → D (2)
and if ΔG2 of reaction (2) is negative and large enough, it can couple with reaction (1):

H2NCHRCOOH + H2NCHR’COOH + C → H2NCHRCONHCHR’COOH + D (3)

ΔG3 = ΔG1 + ΔG2. If ΔG3 is large and negative, the equilibrium constant for reaction 3, K3, will be large, and this could conceivably produce reasonable quantities of polymers.

Some researchers used the condensing agent dicyanamide (N=CNHC=N) to produce some peptides from glycine, even claiming, ‘dicyanamide mediated polypeptide synthesis may have been a key process by which polypeptides were produced in the primitive hydrosphere.’9

However, the biggest problem is that condensing agents would readily react with any water available. 

Therefore it is a chemical impossibility for the primordial soup to accumulate large quantities of condensing agents, especially if there were millions of years for water to react with them. Yet the above experiment used a 30-fold excess of dicyanamide. And even with these unrealistic conditions, 95% of the glycine remained unreacted, and the highest polymer formed was a tetrapeptide.10

Organic chemists can certainly make polypeptides, using intelligent planning of a complex multi-stage synthesis, designed to prevent wrong reactions occurring.11 Living cells also use an elegant process to make polypeptides. This involves the use of enzymes to activate amino acids (and nucleotides) by combining them with the high-energy compound ATP (adenosine triphosphate), to overcome the energy barrier. Such high-energy compounds are not formed in prebiotic simulation experiments, and are very unstable.

Chain termination

To form a chain, it is necessary to react bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others. If a unifunctional monomer (with only one functional group) reacts with the end of the chain, the chain can grow no further at this end.12 If only a small fraction of unifunctional molecules were present, long polymers could not form. But all ‘prebiotic simulation’ experiments produce at least three times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.13 Formic acid (HCOOH) is by far the commonest organic product of Miller-type simulations. Indeed, if it weren’t for evolutionary bias, the abstracts of the experimental reports would probably state nothing more than: ‘An inefficient method for production of formic acid is here described …’ Formic acid has little biological significance except that it is a major component of ant (Latin formica) stings.

A realistic prebiotic polymerisation simulation experiment should begin with the organic compounds produced by Miller-type experiments, but the reported ones always exclude unifunctional contaminants.

Wächterhäuser’s theory

Günter Wächterhäuser is a German patent attorney with a doctorate in organic chemistry. He is highly critical of the usual primordial soup ideas of the origin of life. As the quote at the beginning of this article shows, he recognises that polymerization is a big problem. However, not willing to abandon his evolutionary faith, he proposes that life began as a cyclic chemical reaction on the surface of pyrite (FeS2). The energy to drive this cycle is said to come from the continued production of pyrite from iron and sulfur. However, he admits that this proposal is for the most part, ‘pure speculation’.14 Fellow origin-of-life researcher Gerald Joyce claims that the acceptance of Wächterhäuser’s theory owes more to his legal skills than to its merit.14 Stanley Miller calls it ‘paper chemistry’.15

In their latest well-publicised experiment, Huber and Wächterhäuser activated amino acids with carbon monoxide (CO) and reacted them in an aqueous slurry of co-precipitated (Ni,Fe)S using either hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or methanethiol (CH3SH) at 100° C at a pH of 7–10.

We should also note that Huber and Wächterhäuser started off with very favourable conditions for chemical evolution. Although ‘the researchers have not yet shown that this recipe can produce amino acids’,16  they used a strong solution (0.05 M) of left-handed amino acids (or the achiral glycine), with no other organic material. Of course, any ‘primordial soup’ would have been dilute, impure and racemic. It would have contained many unifunctional molecules and other organic compounds that would have destroyed amino acids. Stanley Miller also points out that Huber and Wächterhäuser used concentrations of CO far higher than are realistic in nature.16

Even under their favourable conditions (due to intelligent design!), all they produced was a small percentage of dipeptides (0.4–12.4%) and an even tinier amount of tripeptides (0.003%)—calculated from reported quantities. Huber and Wächterhäuser also reported that ‘under these same conditions dipeptides hydrolysed rapidly’!

The exclusive ‘left-handedness’ required for life7 was destroyed in the process. They excuse this by pointing out that some cell wall peptides have right-handed amino acids. But this misses the point—enzymes that break down cell walls are designed for exclusively left-handed amino acids, so an occasional right-handed amino acid is the perfect defence in a left-handed world.

A final irony is that one of their previous experiments converted CO into acetic acid (CH3COOH) under similar conditions with CH3SH and a (Ni,Fe)S slurry.17 Since acetic acid is unifunctional, this would prevent long polymers from forming under the conditions Huber and Wächterhäuser propose!

Did scientists create life, or did the media create hype?

Newspapers around the world reported this experiment. Some went as far as claiming: ‘German chemists have produced living cells from a combination of amino acids …’18

If true, then this would be remarkable. Even the simplest decoded free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 482 genes coding for all the necessary proteins, including enzymes. These proteins are composed of about 400 amino acids each on average, in precise sequences, and all in the ‘left-handed’ form.19 Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must postulate an even more complex first living organism with even more genes.

However, as shown above, all Huber and Wächterhäuser produced were a few dipeptides and even fewer tripeptides. While they didn’t make the deceitful claim quoted above, their evolutionary faith means that they see far more significance in their experiment than it deserves.

The next day, the same newspaper wrote ‘WA Museum evolutionary biologist Ken McNamara said if life could be created artificially, it could emerge naturally given the right conditions.20 How absurd—does this mean that because we can create cars artificially (with loads of intelligent input), it proves they could emerge naturally (without intelligence!)?

People should not be surprised by such biased reporting. We should compare the hype about ‘Martian life’ with the near silence about the fact that this claim has been thoroughly discredited, even according to most secular scientists.21,22,23,24  

The cynical media disdain for truth was well illustrated at a symposium sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution. Ben Bradlee, editor of The Washington Post, said:
‘To hell with the news! I’m no longer interested in news. I’m interested in causes. We don’t print the truth. We don’t pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. It’s up to the public to decide what’s true.’25
A detailed survey of the political and social beliefs of producers, editors, writers, and staff in the television industry26  shows that they are biased against Christian morality. Two-thirds of them believe the structure of American society is faulty and must be changed. 97% say women should have the right to decide whether they want to have an abortion, 80% believe there’s nothing wrong with homosexual relations, and 51% see nothing wrong with adultery. And they openly admit that they push their ideas into the programs they create for their audiences. The media’s willingness to push evolutionary hype is consistent with their anti-Christian stance.

Conclusion

Despite over-optimistic science reports and very biased and hyped-up media reports, scientists have not even come close to ‘creating life in the test-tube’. Even if they do manage this feat, it will be the result of intelligent design. Ordinary undirected chemistry moves in the wrong direction—for example, as shown in this article, biological polymers tend to break apart, not form.

References

  1. Huber, C. and Wächterhäuser, G., 1998. Peptides by activation of amino acids with CO on (Ni,Fe)S surfaces: implications for the origin of life. Science 281(5377):670–672. Return to text.
  2. Miller, S.L. and Lazcano, A., 1995. The origin of life—did it occur at high temperatures? J. Mol. Evol. 41:689–692. Return to text.
  3. Miller has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days. Levy, M and Miller, S.L., 1998. The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933–38. Return to text.
  4. Matthews, R., 1997. Wacky Water. New Scientist 154(2087):40–43. Return to text.
  5. Fox, S.W. and Dose, K., 1977. Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life, Marcel Dekker, New York. Return to text.
  6. Glycine, the simplest amino acid, is by far the commonest amino acid formed. See Ref. 13 for some typical yields. Return to text.
  7. For more information on chirality and life, see Sarfati, J.D., 1998. Origin of Life: The chirality problem. CEN Tech. J. 12(3):263–266. See online version. Return to text.
  8. Such criticisms and more are found in Thaxton, C. B., Bradley, W. L. & Olsen, R. L., 1984. The Mystery of Life’s Origin, Philosophical Library Inc., New York. See online version (off site). Return to text.
  9. Steinman, G., Kenyon, D.H. and Calvin, M., 1966. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 124:339. D.H. Kenyon, also co-author of the evolutionary book Biochemical Predestination, has since become a creationist. Return to text.
  10. Gish, D.T., 1972. Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories of the Origin of Life: A Critique, ICR Technical Monograph No. 1, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, CA. Return to text.
  11. Streitwieser, A. and Heathcock, C.H., 1981. Introduction to Organic Chemistry, 2nd Ed., Macmillan, NY, ch. 29. Return to text.
  12. Volmert, B., 1985. Das Molekül und das Leben, Rowohlt, pp. 40–45. Cited in: Wilder-Smith, A.E., 1987. The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Theory: Information Sources and Structures, TWFT Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA, p. 61. Return to text.
  13. Dickerson, R.E., 1978. Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life. Scientific American 239(3):62–102. A chart on p. 67 shows a typical yield from one of Miller’s experiments. 59,000 mmol carbon in the form of methane yielded as the main unifunctional products: 2,330 mmol formic acid, 310 mmol lactic acid 150, mmol acetic acid and 130 mmol propionic acid. Four amino acids found in modern proteins were produced: 630 mmol glycine, 340 mmol alanine, 6 mmol glutamic acid, and 4 mmol aspartic acid. Return to text.
  14. Horgan, J., 1991. In the beginning. Scientific American 264(2):100–109. Quote on p. 106. Return to text.
  15. Horgan, ref. 14, p. 102. Return to text.
  16. Vogel, G., 1998. ‘A sulfurous start for protein synthesis?’ Science 281(5377): 627–629 (Perspective on Ref. 1). Return to text.
  17. Huber, C. and Wächterhäuser, G., 1998. Activated acetic acid by carbon fixation on (Fe,Ni)S under primordial conditions. Science 276(5310):245–247. Return to text.
  18. The West Australian, 11 August 1998. Return to text.
  19. Fraser, C.M., et al. 1995. The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium. Science 270(5235):397–403; Perspective by A. Goffeau. Life with 482 Genes, same issue, pp. 445–6. Return to text.
  20. The West Australian, 12 August 1998. Return to text.
  21. Scott, E.R.D., Yamaguchi, A. and Krot, A.N., 1997. Petrological evidence for shock melting of carbonates in the martian meteorite ALH84001. Nature 387:377–379. Return to text.
  22. Bradley, J.P., Harvey, R.P. and McSween, H.Y., 1997. No ‘nanofossils’ in martian meteorite. Nature 390(6659):454–456. Return to text.
  23. Holmes, R., 1996. Death knell for Martian life. New Scientist 152 (2061/2):4. Return to text.
  24. Kerr, R.A., 1998. Requiem for life on Mars? Support for microbe fades. Science, 282(5393):1398–1400. Return to text.
  25. Bradlee, B., 1989. Reported by Brooks, D., 1989. The Wall Street Journal, 10 October. Return to text.
  26. S. Robert Lichter, S.R., Lichter, L.S. and Rothman, S., 1992. Watching America: What Television Tells Us About Our Lives. Referenced in Ray, D.L. and Guzzo, L., 1993. Environmental Overkill, Regnery Gateway, Washington DC. Return to text.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The idea that life formed itself naturally is one of the most ludicrous scams so-called scientists have pulled on the unsuspecting public!

Just as so-called evolution is inane the idea of life forming naturally is also ludicrous and unscientific.  There is absolutely NO scientific evidence for natural formation of life.   It is simply the hope of atheistic anti-theist who desperately need a way out of the idea of God.   Although we have a scientific law that is known as Biogenesis, Darwinists pretend it doesn't apply to "simple life."   As if there is some magic to pretend that there is such a thing.   The simplest of organisms have been proved to only come from other organisms - life comes only from life.   We have tested this since the 1600's and it is the SAME RESULT EVERY TIME!!!  Atheopaths may not like it, but it is true!

So I must ask the Darwinists this question.   Are you crazy, stupid or simply blind religious zealots?   Because science says life comes from life.  Period.  Game, set and match!


Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Quotes from Scientists about Evidence for the Creation by God Theory

Occam's Razor.   Do you ever just sit back and think about everything?

How can it be that there are naturalists in the world today?   

We had an unusual evening in which my oldest son and one of my teens,Kyle, from youth group just went out to eat and talk over some spicy foods and the background of the Bulls-Pacers game playing on various television sets in the Pizza joint.   The really unusual part was that the Bulls actually lost!   

My oldest son loves history and is working towards becoming a high school History teacher.  He is also a music lover and a big fan of comics and especially Marvel comics.    I am also big into history and music but far more into science than my son Rob.   Kyle is not much for sports but loves computers and mechanical things and is now thinking about being either an auto mechanic or a computer technician.   He obtained his initial Cisco certifications while a Sophomore in high school, so he really understands computer-related things.   We all considered how ridiculous the idea of evolution really is by thinking on what a man would think if he discovered a computer sitting out in a field.  Would he think it EVOLVED?  

We talked about all the components necessary to make a computer actually operational and then I said, wait, but it also has to find another computer and be able to mate with it and reproduce more computers!!!   I mean, a computer requires all sorts of different hardware and sophisticated components, a basic operating system for the underlayer to the programs that will run on it, power to make it all work and cooling fans to keep some parts from overheating.  But also someone had to write the programs to run on it and devised the code that could "talk" to the hardware and software and cause pieces of metal and silicon and plastic and other things to be able to convert the input of people via mouse and keyboard into a language that the software and machinery can respond or send that information on to be stored or perhaps interact with other computers over the internet.   If you break down all the logical and physical layers involved in networking and then consider how complex even one computer actually is, you know it cannot possibly have been a result of a bunch of random accidents and collisions and mistakes!

A human being is remarkably and infinitely more complex than the world's most powerful computer.   One of our cells is more remarkable than a big honking Dell rack server with the latest and greatest muliple-core Westmere processors and loads of Ram.

Some of the great scientists have stepped back, looked at the world and admitted that it could not be an infinite collection of miraculous accidents.   In some cases, despite themselves!!!   

 credit

 

Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe


by Rich Deem

Introduction

Does science lead us down a road that ends in the naturalistic explanation of everything we see? In the nineteenth century, it certainly looked as though science was going in that direction. The "God of the gaps" was finding himself in a narrower and narrower niche. However, 20th century and now 21st century science is leading us back down the road of design - not from a lack of scientific explanation, but from scientific explanation that requires an appeal to the extremely unlikely - something that science does not deal well with. As a result of the recent evidence in support of design, many scientists now believe in God. According to a recent article:
"I was reminded of this a few months ago when I saw a survey in the journal Nature. It revealed that 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God--and not just some metaphysical abstraction, but a deity who takes an active interest in our affairs and hears our prayers: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."(1)
The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of "supernatural plan" or "Agency" behind it. Here is what they say:

The quotes


Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "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." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "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". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "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." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "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." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)


References Top of page

  1. Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
  2. Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
  3. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
  4. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
  5. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
  6. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
  7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
  8. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
  9. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
  10. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
  11. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
  12. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
  13. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
  14. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
  15. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
  16. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
  17. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
  18. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
  19. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
  20. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
  21. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
  22. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
  23. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, "The Creation", U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
  24. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
  25. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
  26. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
  27. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 credit

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

He almost "gets it."  All science is intimately connected with religion.   Belief in naturalism is a religion in every way like a belief in creationism.   Both depend upon a beginning presupposition and both view the evidence from the point of view based on that presupposition.   Naturalists like to say their religion is "science" but they have no more right to the word than do I, in fact, since the inventors of modern science were creationists, they are in fact thieves of the word!   

Science used to be the investigation into how the world that God made worked, not how the world managed to make itself! Such a pursuit is a dog chasing it's tail, never amounting to anything other than a lot of wasted resources.   At least the dog has the good sense to quit and lie down now and then.  

Darwinists sound like a massive flock of crows in a small forest of trees, their continual cawing drowning out the rest of the noise of the forest and making no sense to anyone other than each other.  Thus encouraged, they go off to spread their nonsensical cries around the rest of the area...and we have to wash the cars again.  

Darwinists claim nothing made life, nothing made information, in fact they claim that nothing made absolutely everything by no means or method and in opposition to all natural  laws (the last part is especially amusing)!  Darwinism is built on nothing and then proceeds to pretend to add while subtracting.   Mistakes are given credit for marvelous designs, accidents for inventing intricate systems and producing astounding beauty, form and function!   Well, if you want to BELIEVE that you are free to do it, but it is in actuality a religion and a poor one at that.