Roundup

The Addiction: Novelty; The Cure: Preach the Worddoes your church preach from the Bible or from novelty?

10 Reasons to Love Eggs —  Mmmmmmm . . . eggs – it is unfortunate that eggs had a bad rap for so many years.

We often hear people complain that it is too expensive or challenging to eat healthily. The truth is that there are many real food options that are nutrient rich and won’t break the bank. A perfect example – eggs.  When it comes to convenient, affordable and nutritious foods, eggs deliver the perfect package. Eggs play a significant role in mind and body energy, weight management, muscle strength, brain function, eye health and more!

Here are ten reasons eggs should be a part of your daily diet:

1. Eggs are real food – They come unprocessed, in their original packaging, and let *you* decide how to prepare and eat them. Pair them with fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat dairy foods and small amounts of heart healthy oil, as part of an overall healthy diet.

2. Nutrient-dense – Eggs have an awesome protein to calorie ratio. One egg contains 6 grams of high-quality protein and all 9 essential amino acids, all for just 70 calories.

. . .

9. Fast and easy – An egg meal or snack is quick and easy. Simply beat an egg in a small bowl or coffee mug, place on high heat in the microwave for 60 seconds and add it to a toasted whole-grain English muffin. Top with low-fat cheese and a slice of tomato for a balanced meal. It takes less than two minutes to prepare!

10. Eggs make cents – Eggs are very affordable compared to other high-quality protein foods. At just $0.15 each, eggs are the least expensive source of high-quality protein per serving.

‘Camp Epic’: Gay California Teacher Molested Boys as Young as 11 —  But this will never happen with the Boy Scouts, right?

Obama Regime Calls for Wooden Skyscrapers to Stop Global Warming – As Dave Barry has noted, wood is great for buildings because it can both rot and burn.  It is hard to believe anyone would even consider this nonsense. 

New study, new confirmation that dumping money into schools doesn’t fix themnot a surprise.

Evolutionary biologists say: Darwin’s tree of life “is wrong” – Hey, we agree!

Muslims Subject Christians to Ritual SacrificeYet another truth you won’t find in the mainstream media.  Doesn’t fit the narrative.

31 Days of Purity: Rejoice in the Wife of Your Youthgood message.

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. (1 Corinthians 7:2)

We hear it all the time, practice “protected sex”! But for the Christian man, protected sex means something much more significant and wonderful than birth control. Enjoying your wife sexually (and inviting her to enjoy you!) is a God-installed sentry for guarding your heart in the fight for purity. Think of it as one of your first lines of defense. God says, “because of the temptation to sexual immorality,” I’m giving you protection—it’s called your spouse. Rather than squandering your sexual desire in pornography and lust, fulfill it by having wonderful, God-honoring sex with your wife. Love her sacrificially and enjoy her often!

A must-see about the global warming / climate change scam.

Pope Francis seems to be misunderstood quite a bit.

Things like this make me feel sorry for Darwinists

Take a close look at the wings of a particular kind of fruit fly.  They contain clear images of ants. Then keep this example handy when Darwinists insist that macro-evolution is true.

Via Fruit fly with the wings of beauty.

When threatened, the fly flashes its wings to give the appearance of ants walking back and forth. The predator gets confused and the fly zips off.

Now the Darwinists would have you believe that these changes were the result of small, random, gradual changes over time that are almost always destructive yet just happened to end up with precise pictures of ants on both wings in this case.  As I often note at work when summarizing investigations involving highly implausible claims, you are welcome to believe that if you like.  I don’t.

Of all the resplendent beauties in the insect kingdom, few might look to the humble fruit fly for its delicacy or charm.

But a closer examination of the transparent wings of Goniurellia tridens reveals a piece of evolutionary art. Each wing carries a precisely detailed image of an ant-like insect, complete with six legs, two antennae, a head, thorax and tapered abdomen.

“The image on the wing is absolutely perfect,” says Dr Brigitte Howarth, the fly specialist at Zayed University who first discovered G tridens in the UAE.

It is a member of tephritidae, a family – there are two – of 5,000 species of fruit flies whose colourful markings have earned them the name “peacock flies”.

In the UAE alone, 27 picture wing species are known. Some have wings bearing simple shapes but others, like G tridens, are far more complex.

Dr Howarth first saw G tridens on an oleander shrub in northern Oman. “I was looking at the stem of the leaves and I noticed that there were some insects crawling around. When I sort of honed in I started to notice what I thought was a couple of ants moving around.”

At first she suspected an infestation on the fly’s wings. “But it was so symmetrical that I thought, ‘oh this is not possible’. When I got it under the microscope I realised that these were insects painted onto the wings.”

In contrast to its wings and brilliant green eyes, the fly’s body is a dull greenish grey – “almost cryptically coloured,” says Dr Howarth – that blends into the leaves where it is found.

When threatened, the fly flashes its wings to give the appearance of ants walking back and forth. The predator gets confused and the fly zips off.

This defence mechanism may also make the fly attractive to potential mates – something that is less of a concern for the average housefly.

“A lot of flies, if a male sees a female that is suitable it just flies up and tries to latch on,” said Dr Howarth. But G tridens has an altogether more amorous courtship, showing off its wings in a colourful dance. And Dr Howarth believes it is no exception.

“If you look at the behaviour, it tells you a lot about the functionality,” said Dr Howarth. “Not everybody gets to mate. The ones that do have something about them that make them more attractive.

“Is it the same in other invertebrates, who knows? It’s very possible that those are in fact for courtship behaviour.”

This elaborate behaviour may be a response to the fly’s restrictive environment. “Something that can survive anywhere doesn’t need to have as many protection factors,” said Dr Howarth.

The more realistic the picture on the wing, the better its chance of survival and reproduction.

“It’s all about optimising your possibilities of survival. There’s always variety and some individuals, for whatever reason, have more of a success because of that variation.”

Really, Darwinists, please give it up.  Whether it is the highly ordered, specified information of DNA, gears that allegedly evolved, fruit fly wings, or millions of other examples, the universe screams out design.

And despite the assumptions of Darwinists, even if Darwinian evolution was true, it wouldn’t disprove God.  They haven’t come close to explaining how life could have come from non-life, or how the universe came into existence from nothing.  In fact, they are so desperate on the latter point that they have started pushing the multiverse theory (aka the Atheist Concession Speech).

Here is a good summary of Intelligent Design: “The simplest living cell includes highly sophisticated, functionally integrated information-processing machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms and their implementation.”  If you believe that the universe came from nothing, that life came from non-life and that it evolved to what we see today, then you are the person described here:

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

More bad news: You’ll be judged on the standard of Jesus, not by comparing your best traits to your neighbor’s worst traits.  All your deepest, darkest secrets will be brought to light.

Romans 2:15-16 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

It is foolish and rebellious to think that you get to define whether God exists and what He must be like.  Repent and believe while you still have time.  Eternity is a mighty long time to suffer for your foolish pride.  Seek God on his incredibly gracious terms and not only will your past, present and future sins be completely forgiven, but you will have the righteousness of Christ imputed to you.

Hat tip: Uncommon Descent

Also see:

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer

Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels – J. Warner Wallace

Poor arguments to make with theists

circle-slash.jpgA favorite updated for your reading pleasure.

This is a companion piece to Poor arguments to make with atheists.  I deliberately used theists instead of Christians to keep things simple, though I did use some Christian examples below.  I accumulated these from various atheist web sites or comments made here.

I enjoy questions with people who are willing to have a charitable dialogue.  I don’t waste time with people who come by with poorly reasoned sound bites they picked up from their Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris trinity or the Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites.

Also see a list of 300 disproofs of God’s existence (a parody on the common lines of reasoning often used by atheists).

1.  There are lots of denominations within Christianity and lots of religions with differing truth claims.  There must be a solid majority with complete agreement for God to be real, so this is evidence that there is no God.

And where did they arrive at this piece of spiritual truth?   But if the truth is determined by a majority vote, then there must be a God.  There are far more religious people than atheists.  But the truth is the truth no matter how few agree, and a lie is a lie no matter how many agree. And if the majority rules with respect to truth claims then atheism is false, because most people believe there is a God.

Christianity claims to be the narrow road.  Jesus didn’t expect a majority to follow him.  And the Bible addresses many false teachings and warns of others to come.
Also, as one atheist noted when trying to rally people to do “raiding parties” on theist sites, “Atheists as we all know from bitter arguments on this site, embrace a pretty broad range of views.”  So by their logic they must have a false worldview, right?

2. Why is it that religious people resort to imaginary answers (faith) built on the circular reasoning that the bible provides those answers? Does god exist? Yes, because the bible says so. D’uh!.

That is an actual quote.  I got this a lot from the Dawkins’ blog “raiding party.”  I call this the fallacy-within-a-fallacy argument.  They make a straw man argument about us making a circular argument.

I never made that claim about the Bible other than noting that the Bible does claim 3,000 times to speak for God and that it is a sort of necessary condition to be considered the word of God.  We have lots of reasons to believe it is the word of God, but we don’t need circular reasoning for it.

He also uses a non-Biblical definition of faith.  We have faith in something, and it isn’t a “blind faith” or a faith in spite of the evidence.

3. Arguing from incredulity: You just have a made-up invisible friend in the sky, etc., etc.  Do you probably believe in santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?

This charming ad hominem attack works both ways.  I submit that A is far more incredible to believe than B, and could have expanded on A for days.

A. The universe was created from nothing without a cause and organized itself into the spectacular level of complexity we see today, including life being created from non-life, and it evolved to create the “fictions” of morality and consciousness.

B. The universe was created by an eternally existent God.

We have lots of evidence for the existence of God: Cosmological (”first cause”), teleological (design), morality, logic, the physical resurrection of Jesus, etc.  If atheists don’t find that compelling, then so be it. I’m on the Great Commission, not the paid commission. But to insist that we have no evidence is uncharitable in the extreme and makes reasoned dialogue virtually impossible.

4. Arguments from ridicule (also see #3).  You can sprinkle in some ridicule to make an argument more entertaining, but using it as your primary argument is weak and fallacious.  Having visited quite a few atheist websites this seems to be their main line of reasoning.

5. As a Christian, you deny all gods but one. As an atheist, I deny all gods. We’re practically the same.

This is a cute but horribly illogical argument.  Saying there is no God isn’t a little different than saying there is one God, it is the opposite.  That’s like saying, “You deny all other women as your wives except one, so you’re practically the same as a single person.”

6. You don’t have empirical evidence for ____ (God, the resurrection, etc.).

To quote Bubba: “Can one prove that only empirical evidence is trustworthy? Better yet, can one prove this by using only empirical evidence?”

The answers, of course, are no and no.

The argument is a “heads we win, tails you lose” trick.  They say that you can only consider natural causes for the creation of the universe, and since they have nothing to test then there could not have been any supernatural cause, right?

And we do have lots of evidence for the resurrection.

7. Parents shouldn’t be allowed to indoctrinate / brainwash their children with religious beliefs.

The brainwashing must not be working, because so many people leave the church.  And why isn’t it brainwashing when the schools do it with evolution and their sickening strategies to take away the innocence of young children?

I find it interesting that with such low church attendance, general Biblical illiteracy and the monopoly that materialism has in public education that most people still don’t buy the macro-evolution lie.  No wonder evolutionists are so frustrated!

Some parents may go overboard with the fear of Hell thing.  But parents have rights, and more importantly, strong warnings are only inappropriate if the consequence in question is not true.

8. The Bible teaches _____ [fill in hopelessly (and deliberately?) wrong interpretation].

Please learn more about the Bible and the faith you are trying to criticize.  Straw-man arguments are unproductive.  This is perhaps the most common error I come across.  It seems like a week rarely goes by without someone using the “shrimp/shellfish argument,” which is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument.

9. Christians disagree on what the Bible teaches (or Muslims disagree on the Koran, etc.) so there can’t be one right answer.

Just because a book is capable of being misunderstood doesn’t mean it is incapable of being understood.  Disagreements in science don’t mean everyone must be wrong.

If you have actually studied the Bible you’ll note that it addresses many false teachings and warns that there will always be false teachers.  So the concept that people disagree on what the Bible says isn’t exactly newsworthy.  It is Biblical, in fact.

10. Why do religious people keep quoting bits out of a book written long ago by stone aged (or bronze aged) and ignorant men?

The men who wrote the Bible were quite intelligent.  The Apostle Paul, for example, was well educated, articulate and a clear thinker.  Go read the book of Romans and see what I mean.

The age of the book is completely irrelevant, of course.  If God wrote it the message would be timeless.  And of course, if it were written last week they’d complain that it was too late.

The complaint that our responses are old is also invalid.  The objections are old as well.  The funny thing is that over the last 2,000 years brilliant theists have wrestled with the same questions the New Atheists have, except with more clarity and thoughtfulness.

11. Why do religious people not understand the scientific and philosophical arguments against the existence of god which clearly refute its existence?

This commenter didn’t share any of those arguments or refer to any sources, so it is difficult to answer even if the objection didn’t have a flawed premise (it is basically a “have you stopped beating your wife” type of question that anyone on any side of an issues could use).  Many of us know and understand the arguments and how to respond to them.

12. I can’t understand or conceive of why God would set things up this way, so He must not exist.

We call this “creating God in your own image.”  See the 2nd Commandment.  The atheists making claims like that paraphrase are actually making ironic theological statements, because they claim to know what God should “really” be like.

If you create your own universe with working DNA and such, you can make your own rules.  But whether you like it or not you play by God’s rules in this universe and you’ll have to give an account for your life.  Ignorance is not an excuse.  If you suppress the truth in unrighteousness you will experience God’s wrath for eternity.  You will be judged by God for all your sins, including your darkest, most shameful secret thoughts and deeds.  And the standard won’t be some other sinner like me, it will be the perfect righteousness of Jesus.

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Romans 2:15-16 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

13. Some people who call themselves Christians do and/or say stupid things, so Christianity is false.

That doesn’t disprove Christianity any more than atheists doing and saying stupid things proves that there is a God.

In fact, Christians saying and doing stupid things probably bothers us more than it does atheists.  Believe it or not, we have some common ground there.

14. Religion poisons everything!  What about the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.?!

That is unproductive hyperbole.  Religion has done many great things – helping the poor, building hospitals and schools, great art, etc.

You don’t judge an ideology based on the actions of those who violate its tenets.  Click the link above for more.

The Salem Witch trials killed 18 people.  The Inquisition killed about 2,000.  That is 2,018 too many, to be sure, but keep in mind two things: The perpetrators did the opposite of what Jesus commanded and 2,018 murders was a slow afternoon for atheists like Stalin and Mao.

Here’s a quote from a guy trying to rally atheists to their cause by raiding theist blogs like this one – to rescue the world from this religious poison, I suppose.  Messiah complex, anyone?

In a very real (but perhaps overly dramatic sense) the fate of the planet is at stake.

Uh, yes, “perhaps.”  But if atheism is true then who cares if the planet dies?  You must use empirical evidence to prove why it would be a bad thing :-).

I have noted that these critics focus almost exclusively on Christianity.  When you point this out to them they squirm and say it is the one they are most familiar with.  But with the growth of radical Islam and the perversions of the caste system in India you’d think they’d spread their evangelical atheism out a bit.

15. Religion gets in the way of scientific progress.

That is simply untrue.  The Galileo story that people usually refer to has many mythical elements.  And how many people can cite an example besides Galileo?  And who knows, maybe Einstein’s presupposition of a static universe caused his error with the cosmological constant.  After all, an expanding universe certainly gives more support to a theist model than a static one.

Darwinistic philosophy caused errors like assuming that “Junk DNA” was really junk.

16. You don’t use reason and we do.

That is just patently false.  Atheists just don’t like the reasons.  Christianity in particular encourages and applauds the use of reason.  Countless great thinkers and scientists were Bible-believing Christians.  Darwinistic philosophy can’t even account for reason, because macro-evolution would select for survivability, no truth.

Closing thoughts: As frequent commenter Edgar has pointed out so well, even if every religion is completely false and atheism is true, then naturalism is to blame.  So it is irrational to get mad at religion or religious people.  We’re just doing what our genes tell us to.

And, of course, you would have absolutely nothing to be proud about.  You haven’t accomplished anything and haven’t generated any brilliant or meaningful ideas.  You are just a bag of chemicals that thinks you have.  Congratulations!  You have no reason for bitterness or grandstanding.

All fun aside, those who can stay away from time-wasting arguments and who want to engage in an actual dialogue are welcome.

I hope that atheists reconsider their views.  Eternity is a mighty long time.  The true God of the universe delights to show forgiveness and mercy, but you must come to him on his terms: Repenting and trusting in Jesus.

If a tragedy led you to atheism, then it wasn’t really a tragedy.

This was a comment from a (drunk) atheist (although you’ll get the same thing from lots of sober people):

. . . he repeatedly said he knew God didn’t exist because of life’s general tragedies.

If atheists say they disbelieve because of tragedies, then they weren’t really tragedies. That is, they have no logical grounding to refer to them as truly tragic. They would just be purposeless and meaningless results of Darwinian evolution. That he calls them tragedies is evidence for God, not for the absence of God.

Atheist Bertrand Russell said, ”No one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God.”  But that proves nothing.  The Christian worldview has answers for that situation, no matter how difficult.  But what does the atheist say?  Tough luck?

Of course we know that many things really are tragedies.  But pretending there is no God fixes nothing.  You are consciously abandoning the only one who could make sense of the tragedies and provide eternal solutions to our problems.

Ray Comfort defined atheism as:

My own definition of the word “atheist” is someone who pretends that there’s no God. Atheism therefore is the delusion that God doesn’t exist.

I would tweak that this way, a la Romans 1 below: An atheist is someone who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and pretends that there is no God.  

Make no mistake: Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Sure, those gears in living organisms just happened to “evolve”

insect gear

It takes a lot of blind faith to believe that the universe came into being from nothing without a cause, that life came from non-life and that it evolved into everything we see today, including having highly ordered information in DNA that could not have been brought about by chemical reactions.  Oh, and highly functioning gears.

Via Mechanical gear fund in living organism — Behe’s IC still a challenge for Darwinism | Uncommon Descent.

With two diminutive legs locked into a leap-ready position, the tiny jumper bends its body taut like an archer drawing a bow. At the top of its legs, a minuscule pair of gears engage—their strange, shark-fin teeth interlocking cleanly like a zipper. And then, faster than you can blink, think, or see with the naked eye, the entire thing is gone. In 2 milliseconds it has bulleted skyward, accelerating at nearly 400 g’s—a rate more than 20 times what a human body can withstand. At top speed the jumper breaks 8 mph—quite a feat considering its body is less than one-tenth of an inch long.

This miniature marvel is an adolescent issus, a kind of planthopper insect and one of the fastest accelerators in the animal kingdom. As a duo of researchers in the U.K. report today in the journal Science, the issus also the first living creature ever discovered to sport a functioning gear.

How does selection arrive at such coordination? What good is one gear without the corresponding gear? The challenge of IC for Darwinism remains.

There has never been a valid reason for denying God’s existence.  How much more so is this true with the vast amount of evidence we have today?

Romans 1:18–20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Roundup

Women’s morphing need for male investment — a interesting analysis of women and men, how they are behaving and why.  Sadly, so many women are opting for sleeping around now with no intentions of marrying, thinking they can still marry a great guy years later on their terms.  Bad idea.

This is a terrific and free online resource — An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments.  They should teach these to everyone in school.  Hat tip: Apologetics315.com.

Family Terrorized as Michigan Teachers Support Colleague Who Molested Boy —  the guy is lucky to be alive.  He molested him for three years!  One time should be enough for life in prison.  Any guesses as to the political party of teachers from Michigan who support a child molester?

Oberlin College Hate Hoax Exposed — Uh, if there is so much real racism like this why do these spoiled Obama supporters have to make things up?  These things are more common than you’d think.  Click the link to see a long list of them.  And consider how malicious and hypocritical the perpetrators are.  They make minorities think the situation is much worse than it is. And for what gain?

Arab Spring: Worst Soap Ever — A terrific summary of how (deliberately?) badly Obama has handled foreign affairs.  Where are the protesters?

If Obama Had A Son He Would Not Look Like Christopher Lane — Nothing from the White House.  Jesse grudgingly said it should be “frowned upon.”  This was obviously the worst kind of racism, yet the media is virtually silent.

Last Friday a young Australian was gunned down in Duncan, Oklahoma.

The facts are terrifyingly banal. Lane, who was in the United States on a baseball scholarship to East Central University in Ada, OK, was visiting his girlfriend in Duncan, OK, and decided to go for a jog. At some point he passed a house containing three young men: James Edwards, 15, Chancey “Baby Drake” Luna, 16, and Michael Jones, 17. They were bored – bored is what they told police — and decided to kill him. With Jones at the wheel they followed Lane in a car and, police charge, Edwards shot him in the back with a .22-caliber revolver. Edwards and Luna have been charged with murder, Jones as an accessory.

The critical part of this story involves the race of the killers. At least two of the killers, Edwards and Luna, are described as black.

This event has an interesting parallel to the Trayvon Martin case. The primary killer in this case as identified by police, James Edwards, has an internet presence eerily similar to that of Martin. He created a ganster-wannabe image, brandished weapons, etc. And like Martin, all three are “children.”

There the similarity ends. When George Zimmerman was attacked by Martin he was fortunate enough to be armed. Lane was not that lucky. And when Martin was shot, President Obama nearly injured himself getting in front of television cameras to proclaim his solidarity with Martin supporters. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” he emoted. (As an aside, I think that is probably true as Obama has treated the nation exactly the way Trayvon Martin treated George Zimmerman, he’s sitting on its chest and bashing its head against the metaphorical sidewalk.)

It was committed purely because of race. The blood is on the hands of the race-baiting people who are milking Trayvon’s death for profit and to foster division.

“On July 15, days after the George Zimmerman verdict, Edwards tweeted “Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol shit ima keep sleepin shit! #ayeeee.”

“Woods” is a derogatory term for white people.”

George Zimmerman was not racist. This crime clearly was, and in the killer’s own words he was attacking whites because of what he “knew” about the Trayvon case. So Sojo should run about 10 times the stories on it as they did for Trayvon, right? Or do they think blacks aren’t capable of self-control?

More here.

And three days before what police call the indiscriminate shooting, the suspect, 15-year-old James Edwards Jr., tweeted, “With my n****s when it’s time to start taken life’s” — a line from the Chief Keef rap song, “I Don’t Like.”Back in April, he tweeted, “90% of white ppl (people) are nasty. #HATE THEM.”

Russia defends anti-gay law in letter to IOC — Good for them!  The law is about not letting people push pro-LGBTQ lies on children and about adoptions.  It is tragic that we haven’t done the same.

Teens and Unrestricted Access: Time to Repent — Do you give your kids unrestricted Internet access? If so, you need to stop.

How Do Mother Butterflies Avoid the Poison? — As if the caterpillar ==> butterfly thing wasn’t enough, they do many other things to mock Darwinian evolution.

A great response to the case where Christians are punished for not providing services to gays:

My friends, the case of Elane Photography v. Willock has been decided. As I tell you regularly, you will be made to care.

The case centered around Elaine Huguenin, a Christian in New Mexico who owned a photography business. She was asked to provide services to a gay commitment ceremony between two lesbians, Vanessa Willock and her partner. Ms. Huguenin and her husband declined to provide their services because they are Christians and the orthodox tenets of their faith tell them that marriage is between a man and a woman. See e.g. Matthew 19.

Vanessa Willock, in an act of spite and retribution, decided to file a discrimination claim and punish Mrs. Huguenin for adhering to her religious beliefs. In a very profound decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and others must surrender the faithful practice of their religion in the name of citizenship.

In fact, Justice Richard Bosson in a concurring opinion, wrote,

At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others…. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people…. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship.

Note that the tolerance is one way. In the name of tolerance, Mrs. Huguenin can be compelled by state power on pain of punishment to provide her services to Ms. Willock against Mrs. Huguenin’s several thousand year old orthodox religious beliefs, but Ms. Willock is under no obligation to simply tolerate those who disagree with her and find someone who is happy to provide the service.

Ms. Willock proved herself vindictive. Imagine other angry gay rights activists willfully and consciously trying to seek out Christian photographer to either make them comply or drive them from business. Given Ms. Willock’s actions, and the actions of other gay rights activists in Oregon, Colorado, Kentucky, and elsewhere, this is not a hypothetical, but a reality.

. . .

That Christians should be allowed to refrain from providing goods and services to gay marriages they oppose is something supported by 85% of the American public. It unites men, women, blacks, whites, hispanics, conservatives, moderates, and a fair number of liberals. This battle may be lost, unless the United States Supreme Court steps in and reverses, but this decision gives Christians, Muslims, and orthodox Jews the ammunition to win the war for religious liberty. No longer is coercion of the religious by gay rights activists a hypothetical.

A small band of gay rights activists will not stop on the one way street of tolerance. My friends, whether you want to believe or not, you will be made to care. New Mexico shows again that gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible. You will not be allowed to opt out.

There is one organization at the forefront of this. That is the Alliance Defending Freedom. They represented Mrs. Huguenin and are considering appealing to the United States Supreme Court. They need our financial help to keep this going. I’ve given them a financial contribution and I hope you will to. They are lone and brave warriors in this fight against the left. They need every penny they can get.

Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then seeks to silence good. We must fund the fight for Truth and Light.

The blind men of Sodom are most persistent.  Shame on those who elected people who let this happen.

This is great!

Muslim

The “noviewers” are back, attacking Darwin’s Doubt without reading it

I won a contest by coining a phrase over at Uncommon Descent a couple years ago: Noviewer — Someone who writes a review on something he hasn’t read or seen. Apparently some people haven’t evolved enough to realize how it impacts their credibility when they lie to support their worldview.

Looks like the noviewers are out in force with the release of Stephen Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. There are lots of 1 star reviews at Amazon already and the content makes it obvious that they haven’t read it. These close-minded people really, really don’t like to hear alternate views or to let others have the opportunity to hear them. I wish Amazon required reviewers to pass a brief quiz before posting about controversial books.

Here’s an example of a noviewer:

Over at Evolution News & Views, Casey Luskin asks, could P. Z. Myers even possibly have read Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt before writing a long essay trashing it?:

Now, Darwin’s Doubt runs to 413 pages, excluding endnotes and bibliography. Neither the book’s publisher, HarperOne, nor its author sent Matzke a prepublication review copy. Did Matzke in fact read its 400+ pages and then write his 9400+ word response — roughly 30 double-spaced pages — in little more than a day?

Perhaps, but a more likely hypothesis is that he wrote the lion’s share of the review before the book was released based upon what he presumed it would say. A reviewer who did receive a prepublication copy, University of Pittsburgh physicist David Snoke, writes:

A caution: this is a tome that took me two weeks to go through in evening reading, and I am familiar with the field. Like the classic tome Gödel, Escher, Bach, it simply can’t be gone through quickly. I was struck that the week it was released, within one day of shipping, there were already hostile reviews up on Amazon. Simply impossible that they could have read this book in one night.

I’ve started Darwin’s Doubt and it is amazing so far. The preface alone is worth the money. It is interesting how the critics of Meyer’s last book so thoroughly miss his points. Perhaps it is because they don’t actually take the time to read them?

Also see Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer.