Why not all Christians agree with "intelligent Design"

Christians all agree that God created each one of us, and that we are each giving a unique set of qualities, that we call gifts, that make us each unique. We are each a unique object of God's love.

But a recent proposal called "intelligent Design" (ID) promoted by some Christians is not accepted by all. The general idea behind ID is that at the biochemical and organelle level in living organisms, there are structures and biochemical processes that are so complicated that they could not have evolved according to the rules of Darwinian evolution, but must have been created by an intelligent creator. The ID theory does not say evolution does not occur, nor that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago.

Because of this, ID lies half way between the strict and literal view of the Bible where the world was created about 6000 years ago (5766 years ago according to the Hebrew calendar) in 6 days, and that any appearance of greater age was also created, and the completely atheistic view that the universe was not created by any God, but formed and changes strictly due to action of natural laws.

Since a good many Christians believe in the strict literal view of the Bible, there is by no means universal acceptance of ID among Christians. Also, many Christians take another view of the Bible, also highly respecting its authority as the Word of God, but interpreting the Genesis story as metaphoric, dealing not with the question "how did the world come to be?", but rather
"why did the world come to be, and what is our relationship as creatures, to God, the Creator?" These Christians do not seek to find literal concordance between the science of biology and the Word of God, because scientists seeks to answer different questions than those God is answering in the Scripture.

So adding the two types of Christians together: the Bible as Scientific Fact Christians and the science and Bible are not required to be identical Christians, you may end up with quite a large majority of Christians who do not accept ID.

As science, ID has one major shortcoming. The statement "because I cannot explain some complex biochemical process without assuming God, God must exist" is a logical fallacy. In the future, a discovery may occur that does not require God to be the source of the biochemical process. If such a proof is found, it does in no way disprove the existence of God. Because I cannot disprove the existence of God in this way, I did not actually prove the existence of God in the first place. I would need to first prove that not only can I not explain the biochemical process without assuming God, but that it is impossible that anyone will ever be able to do so. That proof that has not made.

Finally, many Christians feel that scientific proof of God is not attainable, because God's plan for the salvation of humanity requires faith, and faith, by definition, requires belief in things that cannot be proved (or disproved.)

Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd Differences Threaten to Break Up Iraq

Sunnis represent 20% of Iraq's population but have ruled the country with ruthless oppression since its founding. Now there is a lot of hand wringing about how Iraq might break up if "federalism" is enacted over Sunni objections.

Why is that bad? Iraq is not an authentic nation: it has no contiguous history and natural bonds between the peoples who live there. It is an artificial construction. Iraq created as a map drawing excerise by the British. If it breaks up into a more rational set independent states that represent true bonds between the people living there, it will be more stable, not less.

Sunnis will no longer be able to use the huge profits from oil taken from others to support their reign or terror over the other peoples in the country. If the Shiites are more aligned with Iran than with the Kurds, that is probably because it is a more natural and stable alliance. If the U.S. or the British press don't like it, too bad. The Iraqi people don't exist to make the U.S. or British press feel good.

I am happy to be proven wrong, but as long as the Shiites and Kurds cannot defend themselves against infiltration and murder by the terrorist Sunnis, there will be no stability in Iraq.

Racism in the news media

From the LA Times:

Katrina Takes a Toll on Truth, News Accuracy

Rumors supplanted accurate information and media magnified the problem. Rapes, violence and estimates of the dead were wrong.

By Susannah Rosenblatt and James Rainey, Times Staff Writers

First, I am not African American. My grandfather was "passing", but everybody else in my family is white except for a little Native American on my father's side several generations ago. But when I learned, as an adult, what my grandfather went through to become a teacher and then a school principal during the segregated '30's, I was shocked by the stupidity and racist mindset of people who lived "back then". Now, once again, I am shocked at the racism in the news media. You would never hear breathless reporting about baby rape in the aftermath of an earthquake in Japan, or landslides in La Conchita, California, so why did they spread such horrible lies about African Americans?

I'm sick of it all.

IRA has scrapped its arsenal

NEWS STORY: IRA has scrapped 'entire arsenal'

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1997332005

The world is getting to be a better place.  

Stopping Junk Faxes 1

Today I took the first step in stopping junk faxes. This morning I got 5 junk faxes in a row from a company who addressed a fax to "All Employees who own homes in California".

I called the number to ask them to stop faxing me and got put on automatic hold.

I called my State Senator's office, Tom McClintock, and asked what legistlation there was to prevent this sort of attack on my business, and was told a bunch of garbage that looks like it came directly from the Junk Fax Lobbyist Association.

I called the phone company, and was told there was nothing they could do.

Junk faxes take time, materials, and tie up capital equipment. It is not time to make them stop.

They drew first blood.

Exit Plan? Let's be careful about this

In the '70's we were deceived by the communists into believing that we could not win a war against communism in Southeast Asia, and we bailed out of Vietnam. Among the many horrible results of the quick and violent coming to power of the communists was the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge--The Kampuchean Communist Party. Between 1975 and 1979 the communists killed over 1 million people. They were not killed due to U.S. military action: they were killed, mostly in secret, by the Kampuchean Communist Party.

Now we have people with great political and demogogic influence demanding that we leave Iraq, but they are not thinking through the consequences of leaving before a democratic govenrment is in place. There are no good options to democracy. Imagine the consequences to Japan if after we defeated Japan we did not occupy the country and enforce democratic reform. Whatever your view of the reasons for going to war in Iraq, technically the formal war is over and we are there to enforce the development of democracy by keeping the murderers who want to excercise absolute political power from having their way.

If you want to hate Bush and his decisions, you are free to do so, but before you demand an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, tell me how you plan to create democracy after we are gone.

Make your life better

I'm an older guy: 51 years old, a Berkeley graduate, so still sort of a hippie from a now lost generation. When in high school I was an advocate for environmental protection. I went on to get a degree in soil science, a true ecology major. But over the years I have been kind of worn out by silly environmental activists who don't think through their positions. So I don't want to be thought of as an environmentalist, but as a conservationist. God has given us only so much, and we are required to conserve.

This week in central California where I live, gas is topping $3.00 per gallon. That's about $0.80 per liter, so it still isn't absurdly expensive, but being that California has historically been an oil producer and home to many refineries, it is much more than most of us are used to.

Anyway, still being a conservationist, I can't see a reason to burn gas just to go a few miles a day to work. So I looked at my old bike, and thought perhaps I could commute by bicycle. I live in a community with very many steep hills, and my old bike is not right for commuting, so I went out and bought a new bike for the purpose. Now for two weeks I've been riding to and from work, a total of 10 miles a day, with the last mile a tough hill climb. My legs are killing me, but I am getting a workout everyday without paying gym fees.

In the mornings I usually ride past a husky motorcycle cop with his radar gun. On almost every day after I wave hello to him he immediately pulls out to chase down some poor soul who was speeding.

I have to ride by an Andy Gump portable potty and a field spread with manure. I also ride by strawberry fields, and houses cooking breakfast in the morning and dinner in the evenings. I couldn't enjoy the aromas of the outdoors when I as driving in my car.

I can see children playing in the yards and on the streets. I see neighbors working in their yards, and hear the birds. I also see all the flattened road kill and the cigarette butts and garbage littering the streets.

I see other bicyclists, most of whom wear those tight fitting clown costumes that bicyclists like to wear. My bike, shown above, is your standard black bike with a luggage rack, headlight and a little bell, and I wear my business attire (very geeky--I look like a Morman missionary except for the aloha shirt I wear on Fridays). So I don't look like the other bicycle riders, and in fact I think I have only seen one other guy commuting on his bicycle.

But I am saving gas, improving my health, and enjoying the ride. My legs are always sore, because I keep timing my ride home and trying to improve on it, but, hey, I'm a guy and most guys have a testosterone problem that makes us this way.

Such are the little pleasures of riding to work. So get a bike and make you life better.

How to stop Islamic terrorism now

If a 800 pound tiger were sitting in the room with you, would it make sense for you to ignore it? After the London bombing last week, there have been many talking heads telling us the best way to protect ourselves from terrorism, and how we are doing a bad job of it now. But they are ignoring the cause, and there is really only one cause.

Let's take a hard look at the cause of terrorism. First, we are not being attacked because we are in Iraq or Afghanistan. That is a silly leftist political position that ignores the last 30 years of Islamic terrorism that I can remember. We are not being attacked because or our freedoms or our lifestyles or anything else like that. That is a crock of rightist hooey. The Islamic terrorists have no interest in our lifestyle or our democratic freedoms. There is only one reason we are being attacked, and it is the 800 pound tiger that everyone is trying to ignore: we support Israel, and the terrorists cannot tolerate that.

There is one plan that will not only stop terrorist acts against the U.S., but have Islamic women ululating in ecstasy in the streets for CNN, just like they did on September 11th. The mullahs will bless the U.S. and we will thought of as doing the work of Allah. They will love us instead of hate us.

What is this plan? Right now, the only country in the world that is powerful enough to attack and destroy Israel is the United States. If we were to destroy Israel and push the Jewish nation into the sea, all terrorism will stop. Any other approach will fail and the Islamic terror will continue.

So you have to ask yourself: Is this what we want? Do we want to destroy Israel?

Our only answer to that question is no. We have these choices: to battle in Iraq (a war for to build a democratic state in the Mideast besides Israel--and no, it is not about oil--don't be misled--the U.S. has access to plenty of oil without Iraq) and Afghanistan (a war to destroy a terrorist Islamic government) or sit here and accept that there will be inevitable terrorist attacks against us. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. Now, tell my why I am wrong.

Burn, baby, burn

The house has passed legislation making the burning of the U.S. Flag a crime.

Is the burning of a Koran a crime? It is in Saudi Arabia. It's probably punishable by death there. Is burning a Bible a crime? Not here. I have seen high school students rip the pages out of Bibles to roll marijuana cigarettes. Smoking the cigarette is a crime, but not ripping up the Bible to make it.

So we are asked to support elevating the U.S. flag to the level of a sacred object, more sacred than the Bible. We are expected to treat it with respect, and I do, but burning a flag is a very powerful political statement, and I can’t see what the public benefit is to prevent that statement from being made, other than I find flag burning offensive. But other than being offended, I am not harmed if someone burns a flag.

When I was young, the rallying cry of conservatives was "I may not agree with what my opponent is saying, but I would give my life for his right to say it." I could not conceive of burning a flag, but now the House is proposing to give more protection to the flag than to the Bible. Desecrating a flag cannot happen because the flag is not a sacred object. All that burning can do is offend patriotic Americans, like myself, BUT AMERICANS DO NOT NEED PROTECTION FROM BEING OFFENDED. We do demand protection of our right to free speech. We are going to need it to protect our country.

Issues of Life and Death

The deaths of Terri Schiavo and the Pope occurred within a few days of each other. The Pope, as one of his last acts, condemned the murder by dehydration and starvation of Terri Schiavo, who was murdered by her husband with the complicity of the State of Florida.

We can argue about the right to death, freedom of choice, right to life, and a number of other things, but I would like to propose one view that I have not seen elsewhere. That is, the husband, by several acts on his part, not the least of which was violating his marriage vows, should not have had the power of life and death over his wife.

A lot of noise has been made over the law in this matter. The law did not allow for the saving of the life of Terri Schiavo.

Confucius said: "If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good."

The parents had asked for custody. The relationship between the parent and the child is the foundation of virtue. This particular relationship between the husband and wife had no virtue, as Terri had been abandoned by her husband.

The claim of her being in a persistive vegetative state has several problems. First, the diagnosis is difficult to make, especially in a brief examination by a court appointed physician. Persons with brain damage sleep quite a bit more than they are awake, and when they are awake they do not exhibit all indications of consciousness. Therefore such a diagnosis can only be made after spending several days with the patient. No physician did that.

But it is irrelevant. If the parents want custody, it should be theirs, as they have a stronger claim to custody than a husband who wants to see their daughter dead. In given the choice between life and death, when the choice is given, choose life. It is rare enough for the choice to be given.

There are too many instances of abuse of wives by husbands, and this was one that ended in the death of a disabled daughter of parents who loved her and wanted her back. There is no virtue in this.