Fast forward to 2008. Can anyone think of a situation today where one is said to be able to pay money that will allow you to engage in practice(s) that are allegedly damaging (whether or not they are is a separate issue) to something on the planet, but your money will make it all better?

Thinking…thinking…can anyone say, “AlGore?” Howzabout “carbon credits?”

“Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand....The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.”

Only women can be mothers. Have we forgotten this fundamental?

Only a woman can carry in her body an eternal being which bears the very image of God. Only she is the recipient of the miracle of life. Only a woman can conceive and nurture this life using her own flesh and blood, and then deliver a living soul into the world. God has bestowed upon her alone a genuine miracle — the creation of life, and the fusing of an eternal soul with mortal flesh. This fact alone establishes the glory of motherhood.

Despite the most creative plans of humanist scientists and lawmakers to redefine the sexes, no man will ever conceive and give birth to a child. The fruitful womb is a holy gift given by God to women alone. This is one reason why the office of wife and mother is the highest calling to which a woman can aspire.

This is the reason why nations that fear the Lord esteem and protect mothers. They glory in the distinctions between men and women, and attempt to build cultures in which motherhood is honored and protected.

In his famous commentary on early American life, Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville explained:

Thus the Americans do not think that man and woman have either the duty or the right to perform the same offices, but they show an equal regard for both their respective parts; and though their lot is different, they consider both of them as beings of equal value. They do not give to the courage of woman the same form or the same direction as to that of man, but they never doubt her courage; and if they hold that man and his partner ought not always to exercise their intellect and understanding in the same manner, they at least believe the understanding of the one to be as sound as that of the other, and her intellect to be as clear. Thus, then, while they have allowed the social inferiority of woman to continue, they have done all they could to raise her morally and intellectually to the level of man; and in this respect they appear to me to have excellently understood the true principle of democratic improvement.

De Tocqueville contrasted the American understanding of women, with European sentiments:

There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equal but alike. They could give to both the same functions, impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights; they would mix them in all things — their occupations, their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived that by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded, and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.

The War on Motherhood

America’s glory was her women. de Tocqueville believed this when he wrote:

As for myself, I do not hesitate to avow that although the women of the United States are confined within the narrow circle of domestic life, and their situation is in some respects one of extreme dependence, I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position; and if I were asked, now that I am drawing to the close of this work, in which I have spoken of so many important things done by the Americans, to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply: To the superiority of their women.

But this birthright would be exchanged during the last century for a mess of pottage. Perhaps the greatest legacy of the 20th century has been the war on motherhood and biblical patriarchy. Feminists, Marxists, and liberal theologians have made it their aim to target the institution of the family and divest it from its biblical structure and priorities. The results are androgyny, a radical decline in birthrate, abortion, fatherless families, and social confusion.

Incredibly, the biggest story of the 20th century never made headline news [i]. Somehow we missed it. It was the mass exodus of women from the home, and the consequent decline of motherhood. For the first time in recorded history of the West, more mothers left their homes than stayed in them. By leaving the home, the experience and reality of childhood, family life and femininity were fundamentally redefined, and the results have been so bad that if this one trend is not reversed, our grandchildren may live in a world where the both the true culture of Christian family life and the historic definition of marriage are the stuff of fairy tales.

Many “isms” have influenced these trends-evolutionism, feminism, statism, eugenicism, Marxism, and more. But in the end, the philosophical gap between the presuppositions of the Atheists, eugenicists, and Marxists of the early 20th century, and the presuppositions of the professing Church in the 21st century, have narrowed dramatically. The goals of the state and the goals of the mainstream church have so merged, that the biblical family with its emphasis on male headship, generational succession, and prolific motherhood are a threat to the social order of both institutions.

Less than one hundred years ago, the architects of the atheistic communist Soviet state anticipated the death of the Christian family. They explained the need for destroying the Christian family with its emphasis on motherhood, and replacing it with a vision for a “new family.” Lenin wrote:

We must now say proudly and without any exaggeration that part from Soviet Russia, there is not a country in the world where women enjoy full equality and where women are not placed in the humiliating position felt particularly in day-to-day family life. This is one of our first and most important tasks...Housework is the most unproductive, the most barbarous and the most arduous work a woman can do. It is exceptionally petty and does not include anything that would in any way promote the development of the woman...The building of socialism will begin only when we have achieved the complete equality of women and when we undertake the new work together with women who have been emancipated from that petty stultifying, unproductive work...We are setting up model institutions, dining-rooms and nurseries, that will emancipate women from housework...These institutions that liberate women from their position as household slaves are springing up where it is in any way possible...Our task is to make politics available to every working woman.

In his 1920 International Working Women's Day Speech, Lenin emphasized:

The chief thing is to get women to take part in socially productive labor, to liberate them from 'domestic slavery,' to free them from their stupefying [idiotic] and humiliating subjugation to the eternal drudgery of the kitchen and the nursery. This struggle will be a long one, and it demands a radical reconstruction, both of social technique and of morale. But it will end in the complete triumph of Communism.

Lenin’s comrade Trotsky played a key role in communicating the Marxist vision of what he called the “new family.” Lenin and Trotsky believed in the overthrow of Christianity by destroying the biblical family. They sought to build a new state, free from historic Christian presuppositions concerning the family. This meant denigrating the biblical notion of male headship and hierarchy within the family. It meant eliminating any sense that there should be a division of labor between man and wife. This required delivering women from the burdens of childbirth and childcare. It meant adopting tools like birth control as guarantors that women could be free to remain in the workforce. Trotsky said this:

Socialization of family housekeeping and public education of children are unthinkable without a marked improvement in our economics as a whole. We need more socialist economic forms. Only under such conditions can we free the family from the functions and cares that now oppress and disintegrate it. Washing must be done by a public laundry, catering by a public restaurant, sewing by a public workshop. Children must be educated by good public teachers who have a real vocation for the work. Then the bond between husband and wife would be freed from everything external and accidental, and the one would cease to absorb the life of the other. Genuine equality would at last be established...

The most disturbing part of quotes like those above is how similar they sound in sentiment and spirit to voices today from individuals who claim to be a part of the Church of Jesus Christ. Even more disturbing is how many of the anti-family social reforms are presuppositions of modern Christians in America. Presuppositions which have been fully accepted.

How America’s Conscience Was Seared Toward Motherhood

But motherhood is not easily defeated. It was here from the beginning and it has always carried the Church and civilization forward. Motherhood not only perpetuates civilization, it defines it.

At first Jamestown was a bachelor society struggling for survival. But she became a civilization when the women arrived. Plymouth, on the other hand, began as a civilization-families of faith committed to fruitfulness and multiplication for the glory of God, an impossibility without motherhood.

Motherhood is not easily defeated because God has placed reminders of its importance in the very bodies of the women He created. To defeat motherhood, the enemies of the biblical family must do more than make it a social inconvenience, they must teach women to despise themselves by viewing their own wombs as the enemy of self-fulfillment. This means minimizing the glorious gift of life which is only given to womankind. It means redefining what it means to be a woman.

But even this is not enough. To defeat motherhood the enemies of the biblical family must sear the conscience of an entire generation of women. This is done through the doctrines of social emancipation from the home, sexual liberation, birth control, and abortion — all four of which cause a woman to war against her created nature. Instead of being the blessed guardian of domesticity for society, she is taught that contentment can only be found by acting, dressing, and competing with men. Instead of being an object of respect, protection, and virtue, she sells herself cheaply, thus devaluing her womanhood. Instead of glorying in a fruitful womb she cuts off the very seed of life. Sometimes she even kills the life.

Years of playing the part of a man hardens a woman. It trains women to find identity in the corporation, not the home. It teaches them to be uncomfortable around children and large families---the mere presence of which is a reminder of the antithesis between God’s design for womankind and the norms of post-Christian societies.

But women are not the only ones with seared consciences. Men have them too. Consider that fifty years ago a man would have winced to think of female soldiers heading into combat while stay-at-home dads are left behind changing diapers. Today’s man has a seared conscience. He no longer thinks of himself as a protector of motherhood, and a defender of womankind. He comforts himself by repeating the mantras of modern feminism, and by assuring himself of how reasonable and enlightened he is — how different he is from his intolerant and oppressive fathers. But in his heart, modern man knows that he has lost something. He has lost his manhood.

To be a man, you must care about women. And you must care about them in the right way. You must care about them as creatures worthy of protection, honor, and love. This means genuinely appreciating them for their uniqueness as women. It means recognizing the preciousness of femininity over glamour, of homemaking over careerism, and of mature motherhood over perpetual youth. But when women are reduced to soldiers, sexual objects, and social competitors, it is not merely the women who lose the identity given to them by the Creator, but the men as well. This is why the attack on motherhood has produced a nation of eunuchs---socially and spiritually impotent men who have little capacity to lead, let alone love women as God intended man to love woman—as mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters.

Motherhood Will Triumph

There is an important reason why motherhood will not be defeated — The Church is her guardian. As long as she perseveres — and persevere she will — motherhood will prevail.

The Church is the ultimate vanguard of that which is most precious and most holy. She holds the oracles of God which dare to proclaim to a selfish, self-centered nation: “Children are a blessing and the fruit of the womb is His reward.” Psalm 127:3.

The Church stands at the very gates of the city, willing to receive the railing complaints of feminists, atheists, and the legions arrayed against the biblical family, and she reminds the people of God: “Let the older women teach the young to love their children, to guide the homes.” Titus 2:3-5.

It is this very love of the life of children, this passion for femininity and motherhood which may be God’s instrument of blessing on America in the days to come. As the birth rate continues to plummet, divorce rates rise, and family life in America dissipates to the point of extinction, life-loving families will not only have an important message to share, but thy will have an army of children to help them share it.

The Question:

Teacher: Susie what do you want to be when you grow up?

Susie: I want to be a doctor.

Teacher: How wonderful! And what about you Julie?

Julie: I want to be a soldier.

Teacher: How commendable! And what about you Hannah?

Hannah: When I grow up I want to be a wife and mother!

Teacher: [dead silence]...

After years of society belittling the calling of motherhood, something wonderful is happening — something wonderfully counter-cultural! In the midst of the anti-life, anti-motherhood philosophies which pervade the culture, there is a new generation of young ladies emerging whose priorities are not determined by the world’s expectations of them. They have grown up in homes where fathers shepherd them, where children are not merely welcome, but where they are deeply loved. Some of these women have been home educated, which means that many of them have grown up around babies and their mothers. They have learned to see motherhood as a joy and a high calling, because their parents see it that way.

And when asked about their future, these girls know their own minds. These are the future mothers of the Church. Young women who are not afraid to say that the goal of all of their education and training is to equip them to pursue the highest calling of womanhood, the office of wife and mother.

The Cost of Motherhood

Once a lady went to visit her friend. During the visit the children of the friend entered the room and began to play with each other. As the lady and her friend visited, the lady turned to her friend and said eagerly and yet with evidently no thought of the meaning of her words: “Oh, I’d give my life to have such children.” The mother replied with a subdued earnestness whose quiet told of the depth of experience out of which her words came: “That’s exactly what it costs.”

There is a cost of motherhood. And the price is no small sum. And if you are not willing to pay this price, no amount of encouragement about the joys of motherhood will satisfy.

But the price of motherhood is not fundamentally different from the price of being a disciple of Jesus Christ. In fact, Christian mothers see their duty as mothers flowing from their calling to Jesus Christ. And what is this cost?

Christian motherhood means dedicating your entire life in service of others. It means standing beside your husband, following him, and investing in the lives of children whom you hope will both survive you and surpass you. It means forgoing present satisfaction for eternal rewards. It means investing in the lives of others who may never fully appreciate your sacrifice or comprehend the depth of your love. And it means doing all these things, not because you will receive the praise of man — for you will not — but because God made you to be a woman and a mother, and there is great contentment in that biblical calling.

In other words, Motherhood requires vision. It requires living by faith and not by sight.

These are some of the reasons why Motherhood is both the most biblically noble and the most socially unappreciated role to which a young woman can aspire. There are many people who ask the question: Does my life matter? But a mother that fears the Lord need never ask such a question. Upon her faithful obedience hinges the future of the church and the hope of the nation.

In 1950, the great Scottish American preacher Peter Marshall stood before the United States Senate and he explained it this way:

The modern challenge to motherhood is the eternal challenge — that of being a godly woman. The very phrase sounds strange in our ears. We never hear it now. We hear about every other kind of women — beautiful women, smart women, sophisticated women, career woman, talented women, divorced women, but so seldom do we hear of a godly woman — or of a godly man either, for that matter.

I believe women come nearer fulfilling their God-given function in the home than anywhere else. It is a much nobler thing to be a good wife than to be Miss America. It is a greater achievement to establish a Christian home than it is to produce a second-rate novel filled with filth. It is a far, far better thing in the realm of morals to be old-fashioned than to be ultramodern. The world has enough women who know how to hold their cocktails, who have lost all their illusions and their faith. The world has enough women who know how to be smart.

It needs women who are willing to be simple. The world has enough women who know how to be brilliant. It needs some who will be brave. The world has enough women who are popular. It needs more who are pure. We need women, and men, too, who would rather be morally right that socially correct.

As we approach America’s national Mother’s Day celebration, lets remember that we are fighting for the Lord, and it is He who prioritizes motherhood and home as the highest calling and domain of womanhood “that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2:5.

Nonetheless, to be effective, an effort should be made in determining how to do so. To that end, the pre-eminent anti-Idiotarian, Dr. Sanity, has brought to light this essay by Paul Graham entitled How to Disagree, which has been supplemented here with this tremendously valuable graphic depicting the Pyramid of Disagreement in which the various possible methods of disagreement are ranked in order of prevalence and effectiveness.

As you move up the pyramid, the effectiveness increases. Mr. Graham labels the bottom method DH0 (Disagreement Hierarchy) on up to DH6. It is important to note that anything below DH4 (counterargument) he labels as “unconvincing,” but could also be labeled “invalid,” or “ineffective.” Thus, if one truly wants to convincingly deal with a topic, one should engage in counterargument (DH4), refutation (DH5), and/or refuting the central point (DH6).

An additional benefit of this pyramid is the ability to recognize what kind of presentation one is reviewing or formulating, i.e., it serves as a tool for analysis of argumentation by providing a framework to judge the level of effectiveness of an argument, another’s or your own.

In general, if the point is to convince and persuade, you want to stick to the upper levels of argumentation. Unfortunately, these usually take more effort and are longer to prepare that the vastly easier lower levels.

The progression up and down this pyramid can be correlated with at least two other characteristics: level of rationality and its converse, the level of emotionalism. The higher up the pyramid, the more you have to think and use rational argumentation. The more you sink to the lower levels, the more likely it is you will sink into emoting and reacting without thinking, and thus end up with drivel. The most petulant and peevish exchanges occur at these lower levels, especially at DH0.

In addition, this pyramid helps to explain at least one potentially confusing couplet in Proverbs that some take as a contradiction:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.  (Proverbs 26:4-5)

Let’s first note that a fool will most likely answer with the folly of a DH0 or DH1 level response. The more intellectual ones might make it to DH2. So, don’t respond in kind, at the same level, because then you’ll be just like him, and you'll be operating in the realm of the unconvincing. Yet there are times when it is necessary to formulate some response so that he doesn’t think he’s won (becoming "wise in his own conceit") and so that he doesn’t distort and corrupt someone else’s thinking with his poisonous pabulum. In those cases, you respond at DH4-DH6. With this framework, we see the statements are complementary and not contradictory.

ADDENDUM:  Two further thoughts on DH0 level discussion, i.e., name-calling responses.  First is one that Mr. Graham makes in the essay linked above:  it doesn’t matter if one sinks into the gutter of vulgarity to call someone a [explicative deleted] or if one rises to the lexicon of loquacity to label someone a “poltroon of plenitudinous proportions,” it is still name-calling and does not address the issue under discussion and thus is only effective to the author in an emotive, cathartic way (which still may have some value for said author of such a comment, but does nothing to prove any point, or even that the name is an accurate assessment of the one to whom it is ascribed).

The second point is to answer the question, is it ever right to assign a derogatory label to someone, i.e., is name-calling a valid response in some situations?  Here, I think there is a fine but finite distinction to be made between a.) responding to an argument and b.) attempting to describe someone or something based on the evidence at hand.  Name-calling never answers an argument, period.  Thus, it is never a valid response as a counterargument.  However, some labels are accurate descriptors if sufficient data has been presented to make the case to use such a label.  For example, it is not too difficult to label many liberals today as socialists because one can take their own statements and compare them to the statements found in socialist documents and find identity clearly manifested.  Thus, based on the data, labeling someone with a name based on evidence is a valid exercise.  It still is not an argument, but it consolidates data, is subject to verification and falsification, and can serve as a basis for argumentation.

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

While this appears to be DH0 level “disagreement,” the juxtaposition to the evidence indicates otherwise: it is a descriptor and not an argument. His argument consists of the multiple examples where the religious leaders have consistently shown their contempt for God’s law by their meticulous search for all the loopholes they can find in their hypocritical pursuit of their own righteousness.

As a sidebar, let me also note that despite its vehemence, Jesus is not engaged in irrational emoting or an angry diatribe, although it is probably fair to say that a modicum of righteous anger/indignation was present. Jesus had and displayed emotion, but always under control. As one clear example of this, check out His cleansing of the Temple (e.g., John 2:13-17). Large cattle are not particularly easy to move, and turning over tables constructed to hold the necessary items of trade (scales, weights, coins) was not a job for a limp wimp (carpentry in this day and age would have provided any carpenter of the day with a good physical fitness program). We appear to see Jesus having a temper tantrum, but verse 16 we see the evidence that gives the lie to that conclusion:

“And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.”

1.  You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
 
2.  You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

3.  You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.

4.  You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

5.  You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

6.  You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

7.  You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

8.  You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

9.  You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.

10. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

Above info from Wikipedia

It’s been awhile since I’ve continued this series, and any readers still with me may want to refresh their memories by going back at least to the first two installments here and here. Essentially, I am evaluating the creation/evolution controversy using a list of fifteen alleged "answers to Creation" meant to show how all Creationists are troglodytes who need to be put away for their own safety and the public’s protection. We have looked at six such answers and found them to be totally devoid of validity. The data when objectively considered actually supports creation rather than evolution. We will now turn to the seventh attempt:

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science’s current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

Notice how Mr. Rennie is at least honest enough to say that the origin of life is "a mystery," but then rushes to assure us that Science (the capital "S" is implied by this author’s attitude as revealed all along; one should perhaps also read that word in a "deep voice of authority" to fully capture the desired effect; see earlier posts in this series) has "robustly confirmed" that however that mystery will be solved, it most certainly will not require God! OK, I thought the definition of "mystery" entails something "unknown" by definition, and if it is unknown, how can you exclude any such answer if you do not know what you will find? Note also the language he chooses for the current status of knowledge: basic building blocks of life "could have formed...", astrochemical analyses "hint that...", and compounds "might have originated...." Again, at least it is accurate and honest language, but such uncertain language which accurately reflects true uncertainty is hardly an "answer" to creationism.

To address his assertions point by point, we must first observe that just because someone figures out how to make bricks does not mean the Empire State Building will inevitably self-assemble (need I also point out that "someone" has to make bricks?). In fact, if you look at those experiments closely, they all start out making assumptions about the "primitive atmosphere" and other atmospheric conditions (e.g., lightning) for which they have little means of verifying (since no scientist was there to observe). All that really has been shown is that IF such conditions prevailed, THEN some building blocks of, not life, but cellular biochemistry, can be formed. To conclude the absolute truth of that scenario from this data is to argue in a circle, at best.

Moreover, our antagonist reveals more about himself than the science of the situation in what he has failed to mention: not all building blocks have been so formed and, in fact, some major building blocks CANNOT be formed, e.g., cytosine.

His assertion regarding self-replicating, self-sustaining units is just plain bluster. Spontaneous self-sustaining polymerization has yet to be demonstrated. In addition, he carefully fails to mention some other significant problems related to the chemical origins of life, such as the "handedness" or chirality of biomolecules, or the inability to generate any self-replicating chemical system of relevance to living cells.

The dismal failure of chemical evolutionists to conclusively produce meaningful data regarding life’s origins on this planet has led one scientist of no less stature than Francis Crick of the DNA double helix fame to abandon such hope and propose an hypothesis that has not a shred of evidence that he calls "panspermia," the implantation of life in some form by extraterrestrials (I think his original work favored not comets but intelligent life, but I could be mistaken there; regardless, the lack of evidence for either proposition makes this more a statement of faith than science). The possibility of a theistic origin of life is so distasteful to such individuals they reject it despite any evidence, convinced in their invincible ignorance.

Finally, without informing the reader, Mr. Rennie closes this alleged argument by clouding definitions. "Evolution" in the sense of the origin of life becomes proven by "macroevolution" and "microevolution." (The distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution is one recognized by creationists. In both cases, however, we are dealing with pre-existing life forms.) Unfortunately, this statement only begs the question and engages in circular reasoning. It begs the question whether or not either "macroevolution" and "microevolution" have sufficient evidence to warrant the Darwinian theory for origins of species, and it is circular in that it assumes an alleged effect (life) proves its alleged cause (the inorganic to organic transition) without demonstrating that its desired alleged cause is the only possible explanation available.

The truth of the matter is that the difference between inorganic, or even organic molecules, and life itself involves multiple quantum leaps in complexity at the chemical, organizational, and informational levels. As just one example, it has been pointed out that a Boeing 747 consists of about 4.5 million non-flying parts. In order for that plane to get off the ground, all those parts must be intelligently assembled in the right way. In contrast, a "simple living cell" consists of billions of non-living components, yet we are to accept that it has been "proven" that these have all developed from inorganic matter plus lots and lots of time and no intelligence behind it at all? Sorry, I don’t have that kind of faith.

The subsystems within an individual living cell are multiple, complex, and interlocked in a way that defies naturalistic origins. Moreover, from where comes the information content of such systems? The genetic code that provides the basis for life, how was it determined that this particular triplet of codons translates into this specific amino acid and not another? The information content of the DNA molecule is phenomenal. All this consideration does not begin to scratch the surface of how a multicellular organism might come about. When the Psalmist says we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14), he was not just whistlin’ Dixie! Multiple complex systems interact and synergize in a codependent network of networks that we still haven’t fully figured out.

For example, the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings (give or take a few here and there), the focusing muscles move an estimated 100,000 times a day, and the retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells. I bring this up to point out that even Darwin himself says in his On the Origin of the Species,

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

As another illustration of what we are talking about here, watch this narrated video of "The Inner Life of the Cell."  The whole thing is quite dynamic, choreographed with a precision that defies a random origin from chaos. Something has to start the march against entropy, and no naturalistic mechanism yet devised is capable of doing so in the sustained pattern needed to create life.

At this point, many evolutionists like to dismiss creationism as an unverifiable proposition, relying on a "God of the Gaps" approach that will just shut down scientific investigation with the simple expression, "God did it, that settles it, end of story." Such objections, however, display an abysmal ignorance of the history of science and of the nature of creationism; sadly, this is all too common in today’s scientific community that has been nurtured in the leftist anti-theistic environment of the modern university. I covered this in greater detail in part 4 of this series. The truth is, creationism does provide difference from evolution that can be tested by an examination of the fossil record, and I will refer you back to part 6 of this series for further details.

Even as I was writing this post, it was reported (HT: Uncommon Descent) in the April 10^th issue of Nature that some of the earliest known life forms according to the evolutionary model are more complex that previously thought.

The conclusion of this matter: Mr. Rennie has once again failed to generate a conclusive argument against creation, this time in the area of the transition from inorganic molecules to life. This is, perhaps, the weakest link in the Darwinian version of how life came to be.

Author of the theory that global warming breeds stronger hurricanes recants his view

Noted Hurricane Expert Kerry Emanuel has publicly reversed his stance on the impact of Global Warming on Hurricanes. Saying "The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us," Emanuel has released new research indicating that even in a rapidly warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity will not be substantially affected.

"The results surprised me," says Emanuel, one of the media's most quoted figures on the topic.

Hmmm...obviously, the oil companies must have paid him off, right?

Emanuel, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, is the author of numerous books and research papers on climate change. For over twenty years, he has argued that global warming breeds more frequent and stronger storms. In fact, his 1987 paper is often cited as the first appearance of the theory itself.

So he once was a believer? What happened? Data!

Emanuel's newest work, co-authored with two other researchers, simulates hurricane conditions nearly 200 years in the future. The research -- the first to mesh global climate models with small-scale high-resolution simulations of individual storms -- found that while storm strength rises slightly in some areas, it falls in others -- and the total number of worldwide storms actually declines slightly.

Oh dear! What's a globaloney warmer to do? You just can't trust anyone these days! The silence from the MSM on this will probably be deafening.

Meanwhile, over at JunkScience.com, a relevant book is now available entitled The Deniers, the descriptive subtitle telling us clearly what is being denied:

The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud

A partial list of these “crackpots” includes:

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

Sarcasm aside, at this point, you have a choice. You can believe in conspiracy theories and the idea that oil companies have put all these people on their payroll and are trying to suppress vital information from the public in one monstrous plot to destroy our world for the almighty dollar, or you can think critically, include the contrary evidence in your model making (and there is a significant volume of credible data to disprove anthropogenic globaloney warming if you look, as noted by the above and others) and ask relevant questions (yes, of both sides), not assuming that the debate is settled and that we can all hyperventilate now. For myself, I think I will follow Mr. Sherlock Holmes:

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

John Owen once went to hear John Bunyan preach. Charles II, hearing of it, asked the doctor why someone as thoroughly educated as he would want to hear a mere tinker preach. Owen replied, "May it please your Majesty, if I could possess the tinker's abilities to grip men's hearts, I would gladly give in exchange all my learning."