It's Not Easy Being Green

Some retired golfer named Kermit Zarley is the so-called Servetus the evangelical?

Kermit?

Like the frog?

James White has the breakdown

Useful Idiots

Maybe some of you folks heard about William Phillips, the kid in Arkansas who is being used as a useful idiot by his "progressive" parents (more than likely his mama), as their political extension into his class room to promote their leftist values. Along with talking back to his teacher and mocking authority by refusing to obey instructions, Will claims his protest is against our society's refusal to grant equal rights to gays to marry each other.

Laying aside his misguided understanding of homosexuality and the ramifications of same-sex marriage, I just wish to take a moment to illustrate the inconsistent hypocrisy of the left. Gays are the trendy minority group to defend now-a-days by the so-called progressive liberal. Yet the same progressives are not so quick to run to the defense of other minority groups who want the mainstream of American society to redefine the terms and subjects of marriage to match their convictions.

Here's the original story of Will's plight in Arkansas, reposted by me with a few modifications for illustration purposes.

Arkansas Times 11/18/09

A Boy and His Flag

Why Will won't pledge

Will Phillips isn't like other boys his age.

For one thing, he's smart. Scary smart. A student in the West Fork School District in Washington County, he skipped a grade this year, going directly from the third to the fifth. When his family goes for a drive, discussions are much more apt to be about Teddy Roosevelt and terraforming Mars than they are about Spongebob Squarepants and what's playing on Radio Disney.

It was during one of those drives that the discussion turned to the pledge of allegiance and what it means. Laura Phillips is Will's mother. “Yes, my son is 10,” she said. “But he's probably more aware of the meaning of the pledge than a lot of adults. He's not just doing it rote recitation. We raised him to be aware of what's right, what's wrong, and what's fair.”

Will's family has a number of Muslim friends. In recent years, Laura Phillips said, they've been trying to be a straight ally to the Muslim community, going to the local Mosque and standing up for the rights of their Muslim neighbors. They've been especially dismayed by the effort to take away the rights of Muslims – the right to polygamy and the right to perform female circumcision. Given that, Will immediately saw a problem with the pledge of allegiance.

“I've always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don't feel that there's currently liberty and justice for all.”

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will's mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day. Each day, the substitute got a little more cross with him. On Thursday, it finally came to a head. The teacher, Will said, told him that she knew his mother and grandmother, and they would want him to stand and say the pledge.

“She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up,” Will said. “I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ‘With all due respect, ma'am, you can go jump off a bridge.' ”

Will was sent to the office, where he was given an assignment to look up information about the flag and what it represents. Meanwhile, the principal called his mother.

“She said we have to talk about Will, because he told a sub to jump off a bridge,” Laura Phillips said. “My first response was: Why? He's not just going to say this because he doesn't want to do his math work.”

Eventually, Phillips said, the principal told her that the altercation was over Will's refusal to stand for the pledge of allegiance, and admitted that it was Will's right not to stand. Given that, Laura Phillips asked the principal when they could expect an apology from the teacher. “She said, ‘Well I don't think that's necessary at this point,' ” Phillips said.

After Phillips put a post on the instant-blogging site twitter.com about the incident, several of her friends got angry and alerted the news media. Meanwhile, Will Phillips still refuses to stand during the pledge of allegiance. Though many of his friends at school have told him they support his decision, those who don't have been unkind, and louder.

“They [the kids who don't support him] are much more crazy, and out of control and vocal about it than supporters are.”

Given that his protest is over the polygamous rights of Muslims, the taunts have taken a predictable bent. “In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they've been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me a terrorist,” he said. “It's always the same people, walking up and calling me an Osama.”

Even so, Will said that he can't foresee anything in the near future that will make him stand for the pledge. To help him deal with the peer pressure, his parents have printed off posts in his support on blogs and websites. “We've told him that people here might not support you, but we've shown him there are people all over that support you,” Phillips said. “It's really frustrating to him that people are being so immature.”

At the end of our interview, I ask young Will a question that might be a civics test nightmare for your average 10-year-old. Will's answer, though, is good enough — simple enough, true enough — to give me a little rush of goose pimples. What does being an American mean?

“Freedom of speech,” Will says, without even stopping to think. “The freedom to disagree. That's what I think pretty much being an American represents.”

Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson smiles

A little levity for the day

From the Onion:

Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions

Bob Sled

Musing from An Evolutionist

Bob the evolutionary apologist and Jesus hating atheist has challenged us ignoramus Christians in a series of never ending comments from a few weeks ago.

Bob is like a gift that keeps on giving for us bloggers...

The facts I listed are based on something called EVIDENCE. Can you say that word? Why don't you give it a try. Evidence, evidence, evidence. Please practice saying and understanding that important word.

As I mentioned in my very first post to Bob, evidence has to be interpreted. Can Bob say that word? Why doesn't he give it a try: interpreted, interpreted, interpreted. Bob is like all atheists -- really, all non-thinking people in society -- who believes evidence is self-defined and raw. In other words, because chimps have hair, eyes, a mouth, and fingers like people, why the two must be related in some way. Of course it's not that simplistic, but the idea is that the evidence for evolution is so plainly clear that one only denies it if he has been brainwashed by god-fairy non-sense as Bob calls it.

That, and he hasn't read the right books.

ERVs also known as Endogenous RetroViruses...

How does a creationist explain those ERVs found in the exact same place in two different species?...

The Disco retards say ERVs are functional, and therefore they are not evidence for evolution. It does not matter if ERVs are functional or not.

What matters is a ERV, which is inserted into the DNA of an individual animal long after that species first appears, and is inherited and can eventually spread throughout an entire species, and it becomes a DNA marker that identifies that species. What is interesting is many of the ERVs found in human DNA also appear in the exact same location in chimps. How is that possible? Well, since molecular biologists know ERVs are inherited, the only possible explanation is those ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor, the common ancestor of the two ape species, chimpanzee apes and human apes.

Here is a great example of the importance of interpreting evidence. ERVs, for the uninitiated, are considered to by evolutionary dogmatists to be inherited retroviruses that had infected a host and then integrates in the germ cell where it is then passed along in the following generations. As another atheist puts it: left over bits and pieces of retorviruses that have infected sperm and egg cells millions of years ago. They are considered to be part of the so-called "junk DNA" that supposedly comprises a good portion of our DNA. And, contrary to the confident claims of Bob, scientists are still at a place where they are baffled by the effects of ERVs and their purposes in the human genome.

Because, as Bob so aptly points out, some ERVs found in human DNA appear in the exact location in chimps, it is concluded this is proof of common descent. Evolutionists also attribute creative abilities to ERVs, such as our genome stealing from ERVs the ability to make a placenta for birth in mammals.

However, what seems to be conveniently ignored by Bob, as well as many evolutionists who hold up ERVs and other similar pieces of junk DNA as proof of common descent is the very thing Bob mocks the Discovery Institute articles of noting: That being, the more and more molecular biologists dig into the genome and our DNA, the more they are discovering these ERVs have a function. That means they aren't junk DNA left over from our past. Additionally, that would mean they aren't inherited, because functionality would invalidate the random insertion claim made by evolutionists. How could something be said to be "inherited" if it needed to play functional part of a complex biological system in order for it to even survive?

As a small minded, god fairy believing creationist, I would expect animals who share similar biological structures to have similar DNA patterns, if you will. Rather than demonstrating a common ancestor, I believe it demonstrates a common creator who has built into His creation the ability to survive and adapt in a large, diverse, and shared biosphere. And don't get me started on asking Bob where the genetic information for a ERV to function in a germ cell originated. Another sniggling "science of the gaps" detail Bob refuses to explain.

Bob, of course, rejects my interpretation out of hand, because he hates his Creator to begin with. Yet the more his glorious priest class of scientists unlock the mysteries of life, the more their secular fundamentalism runs afoul of reality, and the more those "Discotards," as Bob calls them, are vindicated.

Maybe Bob can see if he can invoke the first amendment to enforce the separation of church and technology?

*A little more about ERVs HERE

Why am I not surprised?

Anti-gay church sets its sights on Jews

Go figure...

Atheist Morals

Phil Johnson preached at big church yesterday on the first commandment.

Very well done.

As illustration of atheism, he talked a bit about the wretched demise of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the infamous crack-pot atheist woman who got prayer removed from school and founded American Atheists.

I would love to see a bio mini-series made on this woman's life that illustrates the folly of atheism.

The Murder of Madalyn Murray O'Hair: America's Most Hated Woman

Dembski's Theodicy

It has been my observation that when individuals must resort to strained definitions of biblical words in order to defend strange interpretations of scripture, they have an agenda in mind. Hence, if your theology is not derived exegetically from the text, more than likely you are out alone in left field drawing circles in the dirt.

Such is the case with well known ID champion William Dembski and the means by which he defends his particular theodicy, or "answer to the problem of evil." Originally his theodicy was presented in an on-line article that has since been turned into a book, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World. A book that is regrettably endorsed with gushing remarks from other such apologetic luminaries like Hank Hanegraaff and J. P. Moreland. Steve Hays offers his overview of the book HERE.

Dr. Terry Mortenson also responds with a critique of Dembski's original article that not only interacts with his main arguments, but demonstrates why they fail to answer the question and how only a young earth creationist perspective can adequately explain the problem of suffering in the world.

Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science: A Young-Earth Creationist Response to William Dembski

The PDF is available HERE.

A few highlights:

I submit that this focus on “Christian theology” or “Christian theism” is an inadequate target to begin with. The goal ought to be to develop a theodicy that is consistent with properly interpreted biblical revelation. ...

In reality, the debate about the age of the universe is a conflict of worldviews—a conflict between the evolutionary, naturalistic, uniformitarian interpretations of some of the scientific data, on the one hand, and on the other hand the exegetically strong and historically orthodox young-earth creationist understanding of Scripture and the interpretations of the same data and more data based on biblical assumptions. These evolutionary interpretations are based on anti-biblical philosophical assumptions that dominate the modern scientific enterprise. But the scientific methods do not require these secular assumptions nor was modern science developed on the basis of these assumptions. Rather, it developed in the womb of the biblical worldview (Hooykaas 1972)....

It is a troubling mystery that in his acceptance of old-earth geology and astronomy Dembski, as a philosopher, seems to ignore this critically important philosophical point that young-earth creationists have been making for years in both scholarly and popular literature and in DVDs.

Living on a Prayer...

And too many beers...



HT: Dan the Man

Darwin's Children

Commenter Escovado links to a rather profound article exploring the moral wasteland of the philosophy derived from natural selection.

Charles Darwin and the Children of the Evolution

Knowing how Bob loves to cite the certainty of evolutionary evidence, note these selection from the article and keep an eye out for the use of "scientific":

For many years after his death, Darwin’s racial theories remained the consensus position of the international scientific community. In 1906, the director of the Bronx Zoo decided to give New Yorkers an object lesson in human evolution by putting a 23-year-old Congolese pygmy on public display in his monkey house. The pygmy, Ota Benga, shared his cage with an orang-utan. The spectacle drew enormous crowds. Before long, they were asking the questions the exhibitors hoped they would: was Ota Benga an ape or a man? Or, as the zoo-keeper himself speculated, was this perhaps a transitional form between the two, the elusive missing link?

And

Darwinian ideas, eugenics and its ugly sister, eugenic euthanasia, were accepted by the mainstream of the German scientific and medical professions. Indeed, so convinced were the staff of the clinic at Kaufbeuren-Irsee in Bavaria that they were acting rationally that, even after Germany’s surrender in 1945, they carried on killing handicapped people under the American occupation, until a US officer led a squad of GIs to the hospital and ordered them to desist.

Bob and Weave

Musings from An Evolutionist

Bob the evolutionist stopped by here a couple of weeks ago to regale us with his genius. We are truly blessed to have such a compassionate person of towering intellect to lower himself to unshackle us dimwitted creationists from the stupidity that has ensnared our minds.

The fact is chimpanzee apes, who developed from the same ancient ape ancestors we developed from, have many similarities to the modern human ape species, including both our good and bad qualities. That's just plain fact. You should read about Jane Goodall for more information.

Bob makes grand, sweeping claims regarding the explanatory power of evolution. He does this without providing any genuine evidence. He merely cites favored authorities, pronounces them correct, and declares me an idiot because I have never performed open heart surgery.

Bob, like many atheists I have encountered, is a master of the non-sequitur.

Yet, like most atheists I have encountered, Bob also suffers miserably from a self-inflicted myopia to the consequences of his own philosophical perspective. I had specifically pointed out the problem of why evolutionary atheists are grieved when a loved one, say a young wife and mother of four children, dies of cancer. Here we have a prime example of natural selection taking its cruel course -- of evolution in action -- weeding out the weaker members of a species. So why do humans, even atheists, grieve this loss? More to the point, why do atheists get angry with God when such things happen?

Bob suggested it was because we are biologically related to chimpanzees. Chimps show emotion when one within their group dies. Just like chimps, we humans are merely expressing a shared, biological response when one of our group dies. But, as I noted, and as a commenter confirmed, chimps eat their young, cannibalize their dead rivals, and gang rape females. However, we humans are repulsed viscerally by those behaviors among humans and critically judge any one who engages in such behaviors to the point of inflicting the death penalty. Why with chimps does such behavior make for a gruesome BBC documentary, yet with humanity we have law courts, build prisons, and put a man in the electric chair for such behavior?

This is the disconnect Bob keeps bobbing and weaving around. As much as he confidently argues the "evidence" shows chimps and humans to be related, there is a rather large bat smacking such a notion in the head: That hard why question. Bob, the secular bigot, has yet to give a meaningful account for this problem.