An 'Agnostic Spring'?

While reading an article about Jonathan Wells' new book The Myth of Junk DNA (the preface of which can be read by clicking here), I came across this gem from self-identified agnostic James Kirk Wall entitled Creationism is biblical, Intelligent Design is agnostic. Are so-called 'free thinkers' actually starting to think for themselves?

"Creationism is a Christian expression to argue against certain elements of evolutionary theory that do not coincide with biblical scripture. Intelligent Design (ID) is not tied to biblical scripture; it is an agnostic term in regards to supernatural intelligence outside of any religion.

Many atheists claim ID and Creationism are the same thing. They are not, even though some Christian groups are trying to use ID to bring religious scripture into the classroom. Intelligent design outside of any specific religious text is the only agnostic argument to be had on all of life not simply happening by blind chance.

If ID were somehow proven to be true, it would no more prove Christianity than it would Hinduism. It would not prove life after death, or an interactive God. Many questions may be answered, but many would be unanswered.

The people currently living without God, as in no worship or prayer, would likely continue to live as they are now. Any proof of a supernatural intelligence would still leave the question of what exactly that intelligence is and the implications, if any, toward our daily lives."

Kudos to Wall for exposing what so many of us already know. David Klinghoffer mentions that over at pandasthumb.org there seems to be some serious discussion "that ID seems to imply not theism but dualism, the notion that there's a separate realm of the mind and of ideas that may interact with the physical world and influence or direct it but is not reducible to material terms."

All of this gives one hope that there will be serious discussion on the subject. I'll truly be impressed when those at Pharyngula and Talk.origins start correctly defining Intelligent Design and addressing arguments on the subject like adults instead of actingly like highly dismissive screechy monkeys

Osama Bin Laden; Man of the Left

While ethicists seem to be in agreement that the killing of Osama Bin Laden by American Forces earlier in the week is justice served, columnist Mona Charen points out the many similarities in ideology between OBL and those on the American left...

"The rest of us wondered [post 9/11] how Muslims could be so fired with hatred of Americans considering that the last three wars we had fought had been on behalf of suffering Muslims: in Kuwait, Bosnia, and Kosovo.

The usual suspects blamed Muslim hatred of the U.S. on our support for Israel (though that issue ranked below "infidel" troops on Saudi soil on bin Laden's list of grievances)...


By allowing ourselves to be too distracted by the turbans and the pietistic language, we may have missed that -- and in the process overestimated the role of Islam in Islamism.

In 2007, in his longest videotaped message to the world, bin Laden mouthed some of the familiar invocations of "Allah, the most high," but much of his message to the American people could have come straight from the pages of the Nation.

He decried global warming, the "greed of major corporations and their representatives," "globalization," and "capitalism." Here's his explanation of the war in Vietnam:

"In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers.

“And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation. And so Kennedy was killed ... those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing."

Oliver Stone couldn't have said it better.

Yes, the late Osama bin Laden was a religious fanatic. But if religious zeal were his only motivation, he might have turned his hatred toward China -- a consistent persecutor of Muslims (and others) or India (which some Islamists have attacked -- though without justification).

But bin Laden's garrulous videos reveal someone who had drunk deeply from the well of hatred for America that nourishes everyone from Hugo Chavez to Vladimir Putin. It's a well with springs that originate right here."

I fully agree that the list of Bin Laden's greivances against the US are basically leftist talking points except for his complaint against globalism, which, in my experience, seems to be basically a conservative gripe. One point that Charen left out that would more firmly place Bin Laden in the camp of the left would be his wholehearted support of John Kerry in the 2004 elections. I guess thats one endorsement Obama won't be sweating this upcoming election cycle.

Reexamining Constantine

Just prior to fighting forces loyal to Maxentius Daia in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on Oct 28th, 312 AD, it is reported that Constantine saw in the sky the image of the labarum, (above picture). The labarum was among several images placed used by the early, persecuted Christian church to designate Christian house churches and meeting places in an esoteric manner. The labarum consists of superimposing the Greek letters Chi, which resembles an "X" and the Greek letter Rho, which resembles a "P". These letters form the first the first two letters of the word "Christ".

Along with the claimed vision, reportedly Constantine heard the words (In Latin) "In hoc signo vinces" (in this sign, victory). Constantine ordered the symbol to be painted on shields, helmets and all manner of military hardware and banners and by the end of the subsequent battle, the weight of the retreating, thoroughly routed forces of Maxentius caused the pontoon bridge he had constructed over the river Tiber to collapse, killing many retreating Maxentian soldiers. Victory was decisively in favor of Constantine who, in 313 AD, would then issue the now famous Edict of Milan, effectively ending the persecution of the Christian church by Roman authorities. Although if one wished to be technical, it was actually under the emporer Theodocius that Rome officially became Christian in 380 AD.

Historians debate whether or not Constantine himself was truly a Christian, even when his acceptance of baptism on his deathbed is considered. However an article out today by Mark Tooley provides some interesting insights and hypotheses into the life of the roman emperor....

"Constantine is often derided as a brute who usurped the church to enhance his own rule over the empire. His critics note that that he governed and waged war bloodily like all such emperors, and that he purportedly executed his wife and son. The more extreme conspiracists, echoing the Da Vinci Code's fiction, accuse Constantine of imposing theological orthodoxy, even Christ's divinity, upon an obedient Council of Nicaea. Anabaptists typically fault him for turning previously pacifist Christians into willing soldiers for Rome and all subsequent empires. The neo-Anabaptists are most distressed by Christians who support today's American "empire."

In response, Presbyterian theologian Peter Leithart has penned a very important book, Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom. He not only competently restores Constantine's reputation but also thoughtfully and polemically rebuts the Anabaptists, specifically including John Howard Yoder. A senior fellow at new Saint Andrew College in wonderfully named Moscow, Idaho, Leithart argues that Constantine's conversion was sincere, that his legalization of Christianity was a tremendous relief to the persecuted church, that his Christian inspired legal reforms ameliorated some of Rome's pagan savagery, that he respected the church's autonomy, and that he desacralized the empire and began the end of all civic pagan burnt offerings once so universal. Leithart also persuasively disputes that the early church was decisively pacifist. Despite Anabaptist claims, especially by Yoder, there simply is not sufficient evidence to show the early church had ratified a teaching on military force. Leithart points to the usual New Testament examples of Jesus and His apostles not objecting to force by civil authorities. He also describes the pagan sacrifices once required within the Roman military, probably enhanced in reaction to Christianity's growth, and which prohibited service by Christians who otherwise did not object to legitimate force. Constantine's abolition of state-imposed pagan sacrifices removed this barrier for Christian military service."

I invite anyone who is an amatuer history buff like myself to examine the article in it's entirety and offer up their thoughts in the comment box.

Royal Wedding Special

It must be a royal wedding when the Mrs. gets out of bed at 3:30 AM and I do also because, well, I can't get back to sleep. Luckily these things come up only every once-in-a-great-while so I guess I can't complain.

Special thanks to Bavarian Orange Order for the highly original commemorative button idea as he has been offering up his thoughts on the blessed union over at his site.

Thoughts on the Birth Certificate

While Barack Obama has released his birth certificate, there still seems to be unanswered questions. Jerome Corsi (the man who added the verb "swiftboated" to the American lexicon) shares his thoughts the day after the release of this document.

"A key problem for Obama is that birth certificates issued to twin girls born one day later at Kapi'olani hospital, the Nordykes, are the Rosetta Stone of deciphering both Obama's previously released short-form Certification of Live Birth and the newly released purported copy of his long-form birth certificate.

As WND reported, the long-form birth certificates issued by Kapi'olani to the Nordyke twins have certificate numbers lower than the number given Obama, even though the president purportedly was born at the same hospital a day earlier than the Nordykes.

Note, Susan Nordyke, the first twin, was born at 2:12 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10637, which was filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Gretchen Nordyke, the second twin, was born at 2:17 p.m. Hawaii time Aug. 5, 1961, and was given certificate No. 151 – 61 – 10638, which was also filed with the Hawaii registrar Aug. 11, 1961.

Yet, according to the Certification of Live Birth displayed by FactCheck.org during the 2008 presidential campaign – and now according to the long-form birth certificate the White House released today – Barack Obama was given a higher certificate number than the Nordykes.

Note, Obama was given certificate No. 151 – 1961 – 10641, even though he was born Aug. 4, 1961, the day before the Nordyke twins, and his birth was registered with the Hawaii Department of Health registrar three days earlier, Aug. 8, 1961."

An anomaly for sure. I'm sure there is likely a valid explanation for this, I am also sure that there will be no explanation forthcoming from the president or his supporters.

Now that we presumably know who Mr. Soebarkah's Soetoro's Obama's parents are, the debate can now begin as to whether he truly is qualified to be president of the US as defined by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution which reads...

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

And how is the term "natural born citizen defined"? Under the circumstances of Obama's account, it doesnt look good for the guy.

"Let’s cut through all the opinion and speculation, all the “he says”, “she says”, fluff, and go right to the irrefutable, constitutional authority on all terms and phrases mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: the Supreme Court of the United States.

First, let me note that there are 4 such cases which speak of the notion of “natural born citizenship”.

Each of these cases will cite or apply the definition of this term, as given in a book entitled, The Law of Nations, written by Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss-German philosopher of law. In that book, the following definition of a “natural born citizen” appears, in Book I, Chapter 19, § 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . .

The French original of 1757, on that same passage read thus:

Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . ."

It will be interesting to see if enough people in this country are sufficiently interested in pressing the issue. Maybe, or maybe not. We'll see.

I would only like to add that in my opinion, it wasn't really so much Donald Trump that forced Obama's hand in this situation as it was the Oklahoma legislature and Jerome Corsi's upcoming book set to be released in a couple of weeks.

I would like to throw out a question for discussion? Why didnt Obama release this document any sooner? If I had to venture a guess I would say elitism and a sense of entitlement. What are your thoughts?

Nothing says 'Happy Easter!' Quite Like Radical Gay Activism

While many of us flocked to our respective churches to commerate out Saviour's resurrection, Clay Waters over at Newsbusters informs us that some people can't let go of the homosexual agenda for one minute, even on the holiest day of the year...

"The New York Times’s coverage of Easter Sunday was sparse, but the paper did mark the Christian holiday in its own inimitable way, by spotlighting anti-traditional gay rights activism.



Reporter Liz Robbins was at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan on Sunday morning to hear Archbishop Timothy Dolan delivers his Easter homily to nearly 3,000. St. Patrick’s also marked the “finish line” of the Easter Day parade. But her story Monday, “A Sermon Of Rebirth, And a Rally For Rights,” was pre-occupied by a tiny band of protesters in support of gay marriage, “A small group of about 25 people stood while temperatures soared near 80 degrees.” For Robbins, two dozen people standing outside in “near 80 degree” heat (was it really that onerous?) was worth both special mention and 364 of the story’s 634 words."

Really. Can't we give a rest on just ONE day out of the year? I can see the need to show off any newly aquired spring fashions but National Coming Out Day is just around the corner in early October and I hear tell that Tom Ford is pulling out all the stops and breaking new ground for his upcoming fall lineup.



This segues neatly into an earlier, unanswered objection raised by GS.....

"you'd (JD) withhold marriage from monogamaous and disease-free lesbian couples in Ohio because 46% of gay men (in San Francisco) say that they prefer open relationships"

My first point would be to let me ask you a question GS. Are you aware of any coordinated effort whatsoever amongst the gay community to uncouple those who advocate multiple partners with the minority that are more monogamous? I'm not aware of a single one at all and it seems like there is this sort of "all-or-nothing" attitude among gay partners. Feel free to point out where I am wrong though.


Secondly, what benefit would endorsing such lesbian "marriages" have on a society? One could argue that such a lesbian coule could raise a child, through artificial semination or adoption. However this author slaps down that idea as something much less than favorable...

"One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female...



Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.




The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos."

So you'll have to pardon me if I give pause to the notion and I consider it's eventual effects on society rather than succumbing to full support for it out of blind emotionalism to do what I at first may think would help the group in question and society in general. I would rather approach such wholesale change with careful thought.


While your "Ohio lesbian" couple may get along fine, statistics paint a very different picture...

"Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners. A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.

The statistics speak for themselves: If homosexuals of either gender are finding satisfaction, why the search for sex with a disproportionately high number of strangers? In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation." Link

I'll let Ann Coulter have the last word on this one...

"Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose. Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!"

The Problem of Evil

While I use the blog a a repository of information to access while invloved in online argumentation, I came across two stupendous articles this week. These articles pertain to the commonly raised objections by skeptics (and even some Christians) as to the existance of evil and suffering in the world.

First, Vox day weighs in with his thoughts on the matter...

"For centuries, philosophers have wrestled with the so-called problem of evil. They have attempted to define the nature and the character of evil and to provide explanations for the persistence of its existence. Many of them have been Christians and, indeed, the problem of evil is a major stumbling block to belief in the existence of God for many individuals. It is not uncommon for those struck by tragedy to question their faith, or even to lose it, since they are unable to balance the notion of personal suffering with the existence of a God who claims to love them.

The problem with this reasoning is that it is fundamentally at odds with the very heart of Christianity. Christianity does not postulate that the world is a good place. Jesus repeatedly declared that the world hated him and it would hate those who loved him. Christianity does not claim that God is presently in control of events; when Satan offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, Jesus rejected the offer but did not claim that it was spurious. And, indeed, Jesus twice spoke of "the prince of this world" as a being who was coming to kill him but would ultimately be driven out by Jesus' death.

Christianity does not have a problem of evil because it requires evil for the great historical event celebrated yesterday to have any meaning at all. Just as I wrote last week that the Crucifixion and Resurrection make no sense if man is not at risk of hell, they make no sense in a world that is not given over to evil. But if Christianity has no problem of evil, Christians most certainly have a problem with evil."

So we see, the Resurrection only makes sense if we view that event from the starting point that we live in a fallen world and man is in a fallen state. day goes on to mention.. "The great irony is that despite the world's rejection of God and its foolish embrace of evil, those who find themselves suffering the promised consequences of their actions will end up blaming God for them. Such are the perils of free will."



I would posit "the perils of free will" are part of the problem of understanding evil. Evil is typically an act that is committed. When one has free will over a wide variety of actions that one can perform, then the fallen state of man can easily be seen by some of the heinous acts that our fellow human beings commit.

Father Dwight Longenecker (who I link to on the right side of the page), had this to say recently about suffering...

"Suffering--as terrible as it is--therefore validates our existence. My suffering affirms my eternal destiny. "This is so bad that it must point me to the good. My pain screams out to me and defines the joy I am lacking." How do I know I exist? How do I know my humanity? Because of my pain. The pleasures of this life are ephemeral, and may be produced within me through all sorts of illusory and self-induced phenomena. They are therefore untrustworthy as validation of my existence. But I do not bring pain onto myself. I avoid pain. Therefore, pain is the sensation that not only makes me believe in the existence of pleasure, but it also makes me believe in the existence of me. Pain validates me. Not "I think therefore I am" but "I scream therefore I am."

The cynical nihilist may still turn around and say, "That pleasure and reasonable answer you dream of is an illusion. It is wishful thinking. There is no such thing. Pleasure, like pain, is simply an animal sensation.--a primitive instinct of survival." To which we reply, "Then why do I rage against the unreasonableness of it all? Why not simply whimper and crouch down and lick my wounds and run from the pain like a beast? Instead I rage against God for allowing this suffering and I demand an answer."

There would be no such thing as thirst unless there were such a thing as water. Man could not reason unless there was such a thing as Reason. We could not ask questions if there were no such thing as answers. This is why Christianity puts suffering right at the heart of our faith. We do not avoid it. We do not come up with philosophical or theological theories. We do not say that suffering is an illusion and that we must simply rise above it. Instead we behold the cross. We preach Christ crucified."

So maybe there is a deeper meaning to pain and suffering and we are provided with only a brief glimpse on the overall historical timeline that accentuates the negative. With Christ's victory over death at the cross, we have the example of the empty tomb that there will be comfort and greater understanding in the end for those who seek Him.